Page 64 - TWO OF A KIND • Erik Renkema

CHAPTER 3
Second, the equality of religious sources has to be advanced in religious education. When diversity is a feature of the student population, a multiplicity of sources are worth being explored by students (Boeve 2004; Vermeer 2004). In this way, the encounter in religious education is enriched by the plurality of student backgrounds as well as by the dialogue with several religious sources. This dialogue “may open up new horizons and enlarge the inclusiveness of a certain perspective” (Wardekker and Miedema 2001b, 77). This equality of sources in religious education means that in a classroom that features religious diversity, there is no dominant view.
These characteristics in the theory on diversity in religious education result in two perspectives: the social and a substantive. From these perspectives, we observe the praxis of the moment of contemplation in classrooms that encompass diverse religious backgrounds.
2.2. Social Perspective
The social perspective focuses on religious education as a way of stimulating dialogue in classes that show diversity. Dialogue is considered extremely important in religious education (Jackson 1997; Roebben 2002). The main objective of dialogue in religious education is facilitating the process of students’ identity formation ( which is divided into two aspects: the expression of the self and the understanding of the other (Van Eersel, Hermans, and Sleegers 2004; Jackson 1997).
This appreciation of dialogue has consequences for the role of the teacher and for how religious education is structured. Not only is the teacher required to possess “‘a commitment to an open and dialogical or “conversational” religious education” (Jackson 1997, 135), but the teacher is also no longer the expert who guides students towards answers. Rather, he becomes one of the participants and functions as a facilitator for the dialogue (Heimbrock 2009). The social perspective of dialogue calls for non-segregated classes: “My impression is that a multireligious (and intercultural) make-up of the classes provides the best preconditions with regard to dialogue and encounter in RE. A separation of the pupils according to confessions and religions would therefore no longer be desirable” (Weisse 2009, 124). Indeed, it is not the separation of students, but “cooperative learning” (Van der Zee, Hermans and Aarnoutse 2004, 82) that is a didactic and organisational consequence for religious education that stimulates dialogue.
62