Logo: to the web site of Uppsala University

In this study we investigate subject didactic reflections of 183 teacher students in civics, history, geography or religion in primary, elementary or secondary schools. We ask teacher students to reflect on what they perceive to be important and difficult to teach in their subject and also what methods they think would be productive. A comparative content analysis shows that a majority of the teacher students view academic knowledge and skills as important and challenging to teach in their respective subjects, and pupil-centered methods as those that primarily should be used in teaching. We do, however, find significant differences between the four subjects, for example concerning focus on facts and teacher-centered methods versus attitudes and values and student-centered methods. The students’ subject didactic reflections indicate important insights about teaching but they generally lack insights into pupils’ subject specific difficulties and how different methods may be used to support pupils’ learning.

This article takes as its starting point the changing cultural, social and academic landscape in Sweden which has created a need for new ways of teaching and doing research in theology and religious studies. Against this backdrop, the article explores concrete work with a research circle, at Uppsala University, with upper secondary religious education teachers, as a way of working closer to practice and thereby including non-academic actors in knowledge production. The research circle, as a form of action research, where a group of teachers formulate a problem or research questions built on actual research and challenges they have met in their practice, is described and preliminary results are elaborated. Furthermore, the article expands on the possibility of transferring the method of research circles into other areas within theology and religious studies. Finally, the feasibility of the method for transforming an academic discipline and renegotiating the understanding and role of theory and practice is explored. The article concludes that research circles offer an interesting and fruitful method, among others, that blurs the borders, not only between theory and practice, but also between research and education, and calls for a suitable practice theory.

Religionskunskap är ett av svensk skolas äldsta ämnen och sedan 1960-talet icke-konfessionellt. Undervisningen ska både leda till ökad förståelse för religioner och livsåskådningar och träna den kritiska förmågan hos eleverna enligt styrdokumenten. Med religionsdidaktikern Peta Goldburgs ord ska undervisningen bidra till ökad kritisk religionslitteracitet. Kritiska diskussioner om religion är vardagsmat i den samhälleliga debatten, men hur ser det ut i skolan och religionsundervisningen? Får religioner och livsåskådningar kritiseras eller läggs locket på? Syftet med artikeln är att diskutera hur konstruktiv religionskritik behandlas i religionskunskapsklassrum på högstadiet och gymnasiet. Detta görs utifrån intervjuer med religionslärare och observationer i religionskunskapsklassrum. Resultaten visar att religionslärare står mitt i ett professionellt dilemma då de måste hantera religionskritik på flera nivåer, kritik som delvis står i konflikt med varandra. För det första en allmän samhällelig kritik mot religion som också märks i klassrummen. Denna kritik är ofta nedsättande och innehåller fördomar, och kallas här sekularistisk kritik. För det andra problematiska sidor av religioner och livsåskådningar, det vill säga tolkningar och bruk som strider mot demokratiska värderingar och skolans värdegrund. Sammanfattningsvis visar resultaten att många lärare ägnar mycket tid till att nyansera fördomar och stereotypa föreställningar om religion, medan problematiska tolkningar och bruk i relation till religion får betydligt mindre utrymme. För att elever ska utveckla sin självständiga, kritiska förmåga behöver religionsundervisningen i större utsträck­ning lyfta kritiska perspektiv på religion. Eftersom klassrummet är en av få arenor där elever möts över religions- och livsåskådningsgränser, erbjuder det en unik möjlighet till reflektion och dialog kring utmanande frågor.

Religious education (RE) is one of the Swedish school's oldest subjects, and has been non-denominational since the 1960s. According to the steering documents, important goals in RE are to increase pupils’ understanding of religions and worldviews, and to strengthen their critical ability. In other words, teaching should contribute to an increased critical religious literacy. In the public debate critical discussions about religion are common, but what does it look like in school? May religion be criticized? The purpose of the article is to discuss how constructive critique of religion is treated in RE in secondary and upper secondary school. This is done through qualitative interviews with religion teachers and observations in classrooms. The results show that RE teachers are in the middle of a professional dilemma as they have to deal with critique of religion on several levels. First, a secularist critique, often derogatory and prejudicial. Second, problematic aspects of religions and worldviews, that is, interpretations and practices contrary to democratic values and the school's values. In summary, the results show that many teachers spend a lot of time nuancing prejudices and stereotypical notions of religion, while problematic aspects in relation to religion are given much less space. In order for students to develop their critical religious literacy, religious education needs to raise problematic aspects of religion to a greater extent. As the classroom is one of the few arenas where students meet across religious and philosophical boundaries, it offers a unique opportunity for reflection and dialogue about challenging topics.

Existential issues have been integral to the non-confessional subject of religious education (RE, ‘religionskunskap’) in Sweden since the late 1960s. This chapter deals with Swedish RE teachers’ prioritizations and reflections concerning existential issues in RE teaching. Data from interviews and classroom observations with 21 RE teachers in lower and upper secondary schools are analysed together with data from a national survey among RE teachers (n= 2342). The findings suggest that while teachers see existential issues as very important, they are far more likely to prioritize the study of ‘world religions’, referring to lack of time and a need to teach from a factual basis. These prioritizations are discussed in relation to religion  as a private matter, the concept of religious literacy, and the ‘Nussbaumian’ three crucial capacities of education.