Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorBourne, Craig
dc.contributor.authorCaddick Bourne, Emily
dc.contributor.authorJarmy, Clare
dc.date.accessioned2016-11-23T16:24:03Z
dc.date.available2016-11-23T16:24:03Z
dc.date.issued2016-11-18
dc.identifier.citationBourne , C , Caddick Bourne , E & Jarmy , C 2016 , ' The Basis of Correctness in the Religious Studies Classroom ' , Journal of Philosophy of Education , vol. 50 , no. 4 , pp. 669-688 . https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12166
dc.identifier.issn0309-8249
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 9273203
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: aec6f10f-da54-47ac-92cf-7402b2473d4b
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 84995745161
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2299/17356
dc.descriptionThis is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Craig Bourne, Emily Caddick Bourne, and Clare Jarmy, ‘The Basis of Correctness in the Religious Studies Classroom’, Journal of Philosophy of Education, Vol. 50 (4): 669-688, November 2016, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12166. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.
dc.description.abstractWhat is it that makes a student’s answer correct or incorrect in Religious Studies? In practice, the standards of correctness in the RS classroom are generally applied with relative ease by teachers and students. Nevertheless, they are problematic. We shall argue that correctness does not come from either the students or the teacher believing that what has been said is true. This raises the question: what is correctness, if it does not come down to truth? We propose, and examine, three rival solutions, each of which, to an extent, rationalises a fairly natural response to the problem. The first, the elliptical approach, says that correct contributions have some tacit content: they are elliptical for true sentences about beliefs (e.g. a sentence of the form ‘Christians believe that…’). The second, the imaginative approach, seeks to replace appeals to truth and belief with an appeal to imagination, treating RS as a ‘game of make-believe’ in which teachers and students imaginatively engage with certain worldviews. The third, the institutional approach, locates the root of correctness in the practices of the RS institution, which include making endorsements of some judgements and not others. We show that the first of our proposed approaches encounters a number of significant objections. We find the second of our proposed approaches to be better, but the third is the most attractive, providing a direct, intuitive and comprehensive route through the problem of correctness.en
dc.format.extent20
dc.language.isoeng
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Philosophy of Education
dc.rightsEmbargoed
dc.titleThe Basis of Correctness in the Religious Studies Classroomen
dc.contributor.institutionSchool of Humanities
dc.contributor.institutionSocial Sciences, Arts & Humanities Research Institute
dc.contributor.institutionPhilosophy
dc.description.statusPeer reviewed
dc.date.embargoedUntil2018-03-20
dc.relation.schoolSchool of Humanities
dc.description.versiontypeFinal Accepted Version
dcterms.dateAccepted2016-11-18
rioxxterms.versionAM
rioxxterms.versionofrecordhttps://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.12166
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
rioxxterms.licenseref.startdate2018-03-20
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Review
herts.preservation.rarelyaccessedtrue
herts.date.embargo2018-03-20
herts.rights.accesstypeEmbargoed


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record