https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7935-1855
Abstract
Nowadays, the term “interreligiosity” is well-established in discussions about religious education. This paper addresses various current approaches and concepts within interreligious pedagogy in Germany and Austria. On the one hand, it strives to bring order to the wide, impervious variety of previous approaches and on the other hand it identifies existing focal points, main topics and tendencies. The research subjects are theoretic-conceptual models, didactic and methodological approaches, and empirical analyses on applied interreligious projects within pedagogical practice. It is shown that there is an imbalance in the existing literature-namely, the lack of practical orientation. The paper concludes by outlining suggestions on the future of interreligious pedagogical research.
Introduction
The debate on interreligiosity and interreligious dialogue has advanced considerably in recent years. At the same time, there is a wide range of studies focusing on interreligious matters from the perspective of interreligious education inter alia in the German-speaking countries of Europe, especially Germany and Austria (Kraml et al. Citation2020, 22). This indicates the importance of interreligious pedagogy as a field of research in both countries. To date, however, there is no overview of this range, the consequence being that it appears as an impenetrable and confusing thicket.
The lack of an overview can pose a problem. It increases the likelihood that researchers who legitimately want to make a contribution in the field of interreligious pedagogy act as if they have to reinvent the wheel every time. However, this also means that the achievements and findings of our colleagues in the field of interreligious pedagogy are very often unwittingly ignored and disregarded. There is a lot that we can learn by examining the developed approaches in this area and there is much we can benefit from the knowledge and research results of our colleagues. The present analysis aims to contribute to this objective.
For this reason, this paper addresses various current concepts within interreligious pedagogy in Germany and Austria. By doing so, it strives to bring order to the wide, impervious variety of existing approaches and to profit from them. In the course of appreciating, comparing and systematizing, hunches and suggestions will be developed that can be useful for current approaches or future modes of interreligious learning. In addition, insights gained from this particular region can be relevant to other contexts.
The focus of this analysis is on the German-speaking countries Austria and Germany, as their religious education is practiced in school and university contexts, according to the principle of denominationalism. This means that officially recognized religious communities can each offer their own denominational form of religious education in public schools. Religious communities are responsible for appointing teachers, curricula and teaching materials, as well as inspecting and supervising religious education. In turn, the state provides the training for teachers of religious education and supervises religious education regarding school organizational and disciplinary aspects in Germany and Austria (Khorchide Citation2009, 43–49). Hence, the principle of denominationalism has significant consequences for interreligious cooperation, as the consent of the religious institutions is decisive concerning whether interreligious learning can take place in denominational religious education.
The need for interreligious concepts of education arose due to the growing religious plurality of society on a permanent basis. During the 1980s, an inflow of migrant workers led, among other things, to public debates on the handling of non-Christian religions in religious education lessons (Hellmann Citation2000, 1f.). As a further consequence, these processes were reflected in the available formats of religious education. Due to the legal recognition of the Islamic Religious Community in Austria (IGGÖ) in 1979, the increasing social diversification and the growing presence of Muslim people in Austria, Islamic religious education was implemented in compulsory schools in 1982/83. Similar developments took place in Germany, even though there are differences regarding the recognition of religious communities. Furthermore, pluralization of religious education led to growing discussions on religious-didactic forms, models and conceptions resulting in enhanced attention of interreligious educational concepts in both countries.Footnote1
As a first step, I will exemplify the current relevance of interreligious concepts and models. Subsequently, I will depict selected interreligious educational approaches and categorize different models and concepts in Germany and Austria. When addressing similarities and differences, the existing literature shows an imbalance – namely, the lack of practical orientation. In this context, the reasons for the imbalance and its possible consequences will be discussed. Finally, the paper concludes by reflecting potentials and opportunities regarding the future of interreligious pedagogical research.
Relevance of interreligious pedagogy
Initially, the fundamental relevance of interreligious educational approaches needs to be mentioned. Therefore, different studies, which deal with prejudices and stereotypes about religious differences among adolescents in school contexts in Germany and Austria, will be considered.
The research project REDCo provides an example. This project analyzed whether adolescents from 14 to 16 years perceive religious variety as a starting point for dialogue or as a potential area of conflict. It determined that dealing with the religious Other mainly takes place in the context of religious education at school. Therefore, religious education at school plays an important role regarding interreligious interaction and familiarization with religious differences (Weiße Citation2010, 31).
Furthermore, the analysis proves that in most cases the right to religious freedom and the equivalence of religions are natural to the students, while exclusive religious truth claims or missionary approaches are rejected. This said, the study shows that there are prejudices on the part of Christian students against Islam, which in most cases do not arise out of personal experience but from the media. However, coming into contact with the religious Other usually leads to a reduction of prejudices against religious differences (Jozsa and Friederici Citation2008).
In this context, the work of the Viennese teacher Susanne Wiesinger (Wiesinger and Thies 2018) should not go unmentioned. With considerable generalization, she describes various situations that represent religiously motivated ‘culture struggles’ in the classroom. Among other things, she reports on patronizing expressions from male Muslim adolescents toward people of other religions, which seem to be a common practice at school. The Berlin teacher Doris Unzeitig has also taken up Wiesinger’s assumptions by diagnosing religiously motivated ‘culture struggles’ in the classroom in Berlin schools (Unzeitig 2019).
Even if these reports of experiences are not systematic analyses principled by scientific criteria, they demonstrate the prevalence of devaluations and stereotypes against people differing faiths and religious backgrounds within school settings. Since these observations indicate a need for action, interreligious learning strategies are often regarded as promising problem-solving approaches (Tautz Citation2007, 60f.).
Current focal points in research on interreligious pedagogy
After discussing the relevance of interreligious learning, existing approaches and models of interreligious pedagogy will be presented.Footnote2 The analysis distinguishes between theoretic-conceptual models, didactic and methodological approaches as well as empirical analyses of applied interreligious projects within pedagogical practice. Each category is illustrated by exemplary works.Footnote3
Theoretic-conceptual models
The first category of concepts of interreligious learning focuses on theoretical and conceptual questions, whereas didactic and methodological aspects tend to be in the background. Three concepts are presented: (I) the ability to adopt other religion-specific perspectives (Schweitzer), (II) interreligious competences (Schambeck) and (III) trialogical learning (Sajak & Langenhorst).
(I) According to the Protestant religious pedagog Friedrich Schweitzer (Tübingen, Germany), interreligious educational processes are important, since they prepare young people for today’s religious diversity and pluralism, and support the attainment of relevant competences (2014). On the one hand, Schweitzer defines the objective of interreligious learning as gaining knowledge about other religions and religious communities, in the sense of learning about religion (Grimmitt Citation1987, 225). On the other hand, he remarks that adolescents develop a capability of pluralism. This means a reflective handling of religious and worldview pluralism, which simultaneously enables them to act and make decisions in a self-determined manner in pluralistic situations (Schweitzer Citation2014, 133f.). Thus, Schweitzer sees interreligious education as part of the overall educational goal of developing a capability of pluralism. In this context, the ability to adopt other religion-specific perspectives is of great importance (2014, 155). This is important because not only believers can benefit from interreligious learning, but also non-religious persons. As a result, Schweitzer defines interreligious education as an exemplary approach to dealing with the foreign Other.Footnote4
(II) Based on the work of Willems (Citation2011), the Catholic religious pedagog at the University of Freiburg (Germany), Mirjam Schambeck conceptualizes interreligious learning according to the paradigm of religious competences. She defines interreligious competences as a “bundle of skills and abilities, views and attitudes to deal appropriately with religious pluralism and to take a separate, justified and responsible position on religion-specific issues in view of religious pluralism” (Schambeck Citation2013, 56). Schambeck concretizes interreligious competence as an interplay of diversification and relationship competence. Accordingly, it includes the abilities to “distinguish between one’s own and that of others (diversification competence) and, at the same time, to interrelate one’s own and that of others (relationship competence)” (2013, 174). In addition, Schambeck differentiates the understanding of interreligious competence in three different levels: esthetic dimension, hermeneutic-reflective or hermeneutic-communicative dimension and practical dimension (2013, 177–179).
(III) Clauß Peter Sajak (Münster, Germany) and Georg Langenhorst (Augsburg, Germany) represent an approach to interreligious learning, which they label as trialogical learning (Sajak Citation2015; Langenhorst Citation2016). This concept aims to enable people of Jewish, Christian and Islamic faith to get into a constructive conversation about life practices that leads to understanding, respect and appreciation (Langenhorst Citation2016, 18–21; see also Sajak Citation2015, 45). The focus on these three religions is justified by the theological congruence in the belief in one God.Footnote5 According to Sajak, the starting point of the considerations is the concept of convivence, which means “perception without appropriation, recognition of the difference, understanding of the stranger” (Sajak Citation2005, 239). Since it fosters the constitution of religious identities, interreligious learning should therefore always be understood as intrareligious learning.
Didactic and methodological approaches
Due to its nearly indisputable necessity, interreligious learning hardly encounters resistance in the context of religious pedagogy. However, the question of concrete didactic and methodological implementation in educational processes has not been cleared up yet. During the past decades, various didactic and methodological approaches regarding (I) primary school education, (II) secondary school education and (III) university education (training of teachers of religious education) have been developed. The following section exemplifies models for these different educational levels. Common to these modes of interreligious learning is that the focus is more on didactic and methodological aspects than on theoretic-conceptual issues.
(I) Regarding primary school, Stefanie Boll (Citation2017) deals with interreligious learning in the predominantly Protestant German state of Schleswig-Holstein. Referring to Dietlind Fischer (Citation2005), she remarks that the success of interreligious learning hinges on different aspects: To begin with, children’s basic religious literacy is acquired in primary school. Therefore, children attending primary school must not be seen as experts on their own religion (Boll Citation2017, 70f.). Second, it is necessary that they learn the differences between denominations and religions (Fischer Citation2005, 459). The third aspect refers to the content of interreligious learning in primary school. Boll suggests for example topics such as religious festivities, the founders of religion, the handling of perishing and death, the holy scriptures and the creation myths. In primary school, these topics support interreligious learning as they can provide insights into the religious Other and religious differences that children can easily grasp (Boll Citation2017, 75–78). Fourthly, teaching methods have to meet the demands of being inspiring, versatile and close to experience (Fischer Citation2005, 461). This can be achieved by performative didactic elements like exploring places of lived religion, meeting members of different religious communities, participating in religious festivities or activities such as singing. Above all, it is important to actively involve the children, to didactically ensure independent learning and to offer options regarding the encounter with the religious Other (Boll Citation2017, 64–70).
(II) The methodological requirements regarding secondary school are somewhat different. Stephan Leimgruber, Catholic religious pedagog at the University of Munich, developed the concept of dialogical encountering learning (Leimgruber Citation2005, 131) and mentions four interconnected steps for interreligious learning within this stage of education. Initially, it is necessary to raise the students’ awareness of other religious communities by developing interest in different religious realities (Leimgruber Citation2007, 108). The interpretation of religious testimonies and their meaning for people of another religion represents the second task. It is likewise important in secondary school that teachers initiate such learning processes by versatile methods, so that adolescents actively participate in debates. As a third step, Leimgruber highlights encountering people of another religion, since such experiences in particular “leave an enduring impression, which shapes the idea of a religion and helps overcoming prejudices” (2007, 109). Building on such experiences, the fourth task consists of respecting other religions and facing different types of faith cautiously, even though a partial lack of understanding the religious Other remains.
To answer the question of how interreligious learning can take place in methodical and didactic practice in secondary school, Heinz Streib’s (Bielefeld, Germany) concept of xenosophical religious didactics (Streib 2005) will be examined. Streib justifies his approach by citing a survey, questioning 2000 teachers of religion in the German federal state of Lower Saxony, which proved that most teachers appreciate interreligious learning as an educational objective. The survey also reveals that the teachers attach higher importance to outlining similarities than to discussing differences. In this context, Streib articulates justifiable concerns regarding this strategy, suggesting it is questionable with respect to religious didactic aspects. He states that “experiences of foreignness should not be trivialized or ignored […] and religious pedagogy would be advised badly […], if its only objective is to minimize strangeness” (Citation2005, 230).
Possibilities for dealing with religious differences are outlined by Streib within an interreligious learning approach, which he defines as xenosophical religious didactics. This approach is aimed at the positive utilization of experiences of foreignness. If they can expand their productive potential in the sense of a cultivation of foreignness, and not lead to aggression or seeking escape, these experiences could constitute the heart of interreligious learning processes.
The constructive potential of religious difference is also in the focus of two further approaches. First, is the concept of double individual recourse by Karlo Meyer (Citation2019). The approach was developed in the course of municipal dialogue processes in cities in Lower Saxony, Germany. “Double” means the following: on the one hand, individual perspectives are presented in teaching materials, and on the other, students relate their own individual perspectives to these materials. In this way, juveniles learn to deal with ambiguity in the face of the religious Other (Meyer Citation2019, 406).
Second, Monika Tautz’s (Cologne, Germany) approach, which sees interreligious learning as a passage through the foreign, also deals with the constructive potential of foreignness. Tautz pleads for learning in dialogue that enables students to come to their own religious judgments as they pass through the foreign (Tautz Citation2007, 155–165). Hence, during the religious learning processes at school, interreligious dialogues should be initiated. Possibilities of mutual understanding should be worked out on the basis of theological differences (Tautz Citation2018).
(III) Apart from primary- and secondary-education, university education and the training of teachers of religion also constitute a field of action for interreligious pedagogy. However, according to Henrik Simojoki (Berlin, Germany) and Konstantin Lindner (Bamberg, Germany), university education curricula occasionally show a deficit when it comes to interreligious learning (2020). For this reason, Ulrike Baumann already pleaded in 2005 for interreligious learning being a part of degree programs offered at theological faculties. Her purpose was to ensure a minimum level of knowledge about other religions (Baumann Citation2005, 534). Considering the encounter between Christianity and Islam, Baumann outlined the following learning areas, which in her opinion play an essential role within interreligious education: the relationship between the Qur’an and the Bible, the belief in God, the idea of humans, ethical questions and the understanding of education (2005, 536ff.). Regardless of the fact that in some regions modes of interreligious cooperation and learning have been developed in the university education of teachers of religion since 2005 (Simojoki and Lindner Citation2020, 128–130), there is still room for improvement.
Empirical analyses on interreligious projects in pedagogical practice
Didactic and methodological approaches have also found their way into pedagogical practice and their implementation has been researched empirically. In the following, a selection of those concepts is presented. More precisely, projects in Graz (I), Vienna (II), Tübingen (III) and Innsbruck (IV) will be examined.
(I) A first model of interreligious encounters in educational practice has been developed and evaluated at the University of Graz (Austria) by the Catholic religious pedagog Wolfgang Weirer and his interreligious team. As part of an initial quantitative empirical survey, the current state of Islamic Religious Education in Styria and Carinthia has been evaluated. 64 teachers of religion and 514 students participated in the inquiry.
The project elaborates concrete lessons and interreligious elements for primary and secondary school pedagogy. Even though there were agreements between the scientific research team and the teachers, teachers made decisions regarding the topics, methods and didactics. Teachers complied with different aspects regarding the topics: principles of teaching have to be appropriate to age, and must take the experiential world of students into account, comply with plural school reality and “open spaces for encounters, which enable students to practice respect, tolerance and appreciative actions” (Weirer, Wenig, and Yagdi Citation2019, 136).
The developed teaching units have been conducted at six locations in the Austrian federal states of Styria and Carinthia within the context of common religious education lessons. They are taught by teams of Catholic and Islamic religion teachers and are attended by Catholic and Muslim students (2019, 135). The empirical findings demonstrate that students at primary and secondary schools welcomed interreligious experiences and encounters. However, the participants voiced varying wishes and expectations regarding interreligious teaching units. Secondary-school students focused on “meeting and understanding the religious Other, while being able to create their own positioning in terms of religion and faith to be interoperable within the encounter with differing religious positions” (2019, 150). Conversely, primary-school students prioritized experiencing religion and the religious Other, as well as being able to participate in the lessons actively.
(II) A second interreligious project has been developed at the University College of Christian Churches for Teacher Education (KPH) Vienna/Krems (Austria). This project strives to initialize interreligious encounters and learning (Boehme and Krobath Citation2020), and has also been put into didactic practice and has been evaluated. It aims “for students to enable interreligious learning processes within their future working life as religious teachers” (Garcia Sobreira-Majer et al. Citation2014, 155). Following the model of interreligious competences (Willems Citation2011; Schambeck Citation2013), the results of interreligious encountering processes are linked to four dimensions: interest in other religions, knowledge about other religions, tolerance and ability to adopt other perspectives (Garcia Sobreira-Majer et al. Citation2014, 157).
The pedagogical practice of the project consists of encounters between Muslim and Christian students, in which they discuss content-related questions, for example regarding ethics or the significance of Abraham/Ibrahim. The students evaluated the interaction by filling out a quantitative questionnaire before and after the meeting. In addition, a control group was questioned. The quantitative evaluation was followed by qualitative interviews (2014, 159f.).
The analysis demonstrated that the encounters lead to processes of increased consciousness, learning experiences and increased knowledge regarding the religious Other and one’s own religion. It also became clear that interreligious encounters do not result in saturation, but in growing interest in the religious Other. Moreover, the involved students reflected that in most cases their previous thoughts on the religious Other had been affected by negative media presentation (2014, 180f.). The meetings tended to reduce such clichés and prejudices. Instead a stance of tolerance and respect for the religious Other took root. Likewise, many participating students were able to change their perspective within the encounter with the religious counterpart and “engaged their selves in empathizing with the other world of faith” (2014, 181).
(III) A third approach comes from Friedrich Schweitzer, Magda Bräuer, and Reinhard Boschki (Citation2017), developed at the University of Tübingen (Germany). The implementation of this educational project has been evaluated scientifically by a survey, which mainly deals with the learning success and the efficacy of interreligious learning in secondary schools. It defines learning success by the extent to which the development of religious competences and the willingness to adopt other religion-specific perspectives are supported.
An intervention study design has been selected in order to evaluate the effects of pedagogical approaches. Two thematic teaching blocks, dealing with religion and violence on the one hand and Islamic Banking on the other, have been developed. These teaching blocks contain six lessons each, which include “components enabling the acquisition of knowledge, the change of perspective and the examination with one’s own as well as foreign values” (Gronover and Schnabel-Henke Citation2017, 72). Within this model of interreligious learning no encounters with the religious Other occur. Following some pretests, the teaching blocks have been performed with a sample of N = 1105 students aged 15–17. The survey was conducted in first and second classes of vocational business schools (in German: kaufmännische Berufsschule) (Schweitzer, Bräuer, and Losert Citation2017, 18f.).
The empirical survey demonstrated that participating in the developed teaching blocks supported the acquisition of religious knowledge and competences, though the adoption of other religion-specific perspectives occurred only in a fragmentary manner (2017, 24). While this reflects the fact that interreligious learning in religious education lessons has an empirically verifiable impact, there is no sufficient evidence for a causal connection between learning success and didactic approaches oriented toward the students’ life situation. More specifically, the teaching block on Islamic Banking did not affect an increase of religious competences or a change of religious perspective among the emerging bankers (2017, 29). Furthermore, the empirical survey verifies the assumption that participating in interreligious learning does not necessarily change one’s personal attitude. Students who increased their knowledge about Islamic Banking or religion and violence within the teaching units appeared neither more nor less open-minded toward the religious Other than previously (Schweitzer and Boschki Citation2017, 134ff.).
(IV) A further didactic and methodological approach, transferring interreligious learning into practice, has been developed and evaluated at the University of Innsbruck (Austria) by religious pedagogs Martina Kraml and Zekirija Sejdini and their research team. Interreligious learning takes place via internships at primary school, within their supporting university seminars and along with various religious-didactic lectures. These courses enable encounters with the religious Other, since they are conducted jointly by one Muslim and one Catholic religious teacher, and attended by prospective Islamic and Catholic teachers of religion. Interreligious cooperation has been ongoing since winter semester 2013/14 and has been initiated due to the beginning of the degree program Islamic Religious Pedagogy (Kraml and Sejdini Citation2018).
The interreligious educational elements that have been developed vary widely. In general, the principle of parity is emphasized, which means that the Muslim and Christian (Catholic) religions are represented on an equal footing (2018, 16). Furthermore, topic selection and didactic design of the interreligious content for university and school are developed by the lecturers or religion teachers. Thereby, they follow three standards: the topics take Muslim and Christian perspectives into consideration; interreligious and intra-religious parts alternate; and encounters with the religious Other take place between Catholic and Muslim students and lecturers (Kraml et al. Citation2020, 78f.).
The students’ mutual completion of these courses and internships have been monitored and evaluated empirically. Researchers conducted qualitative guideline interviews with all groups involved. The empirical evaluations comprise the questioning of 40 persons (2020, 92). The empirical analysis reveals that points of friction and fields of tension may exist or emerge within the practice of interreligious education. For example, the interaction between an interreligious teaching team and an interreligious group of students is challenging, since it may result in an unstable and asymmetrical balance or in the emergence of in-groups and dynamics of exclusion (2020, 222f.). Moreover, the topic selection and the development of didactic concepts tend to require attention, as there may exist differing didactic traditions and concepts among the involved people (2020, 202–217).
However, common to everyone involved in this project was an openness and curiosity for other religions. Even the children attending primary school (in whose religion classes the internships took place) showed interest in dealing with the religious Other. Furthermore, they were able to differentiate between their own religion and the religious Other (2020, 158).
Discussion
After presenting the existing modes of interreligious pedagogy, specific aspects of the approaches will be examined from a comparative perspective. Besides, an appeal is made for a practical turn in research on interreligious learning.
This paper primarily aims to bring order to the vast number of approaches to interreligious pedagogy developed in Germany and Austria and to benefit from the insights and research results of our colleagues. It suggests a general distinction between three different categories of interreligious learning approaches.
During the past decades, diverse didactic and methodological approaches have been developed that have been implemented in pedagogical practice. When comparing the approaches, an important question arises: should teaching units be conceptualized by research teams at university in advance, or should they be planned by teachers actively involved in school routine, while conducting the interreligious projects? In addition, the existing modes of interreligious pedagogy show differences regarding the involved teachers and researchers. Usually, the research teams consist of persons with diverse religious backgrounds – as for example in Innsbruck – but there are also exceptions.
Furthermore, it has to be clarified how interreligious learning is conceptualized. While some didactic and methodological approaches and interreligious projects in pedagogical practice focus on the co-presence of pedagogs and learners who belong to different religions, others are characterized by deviating conceptualizations and do not involve interreligious encounters with people of another religion.
While analyzing the existing state of research, it has become apparent that a broad spectrum of approaches exists that address questions of interreligious encounter in educational contexts, but which have not found their way into teaching practice. For example, several theoretic-conceptual models have been developed in recent years that outline interreligiosity differently. The focus here is on theoretical or conceptual elaboration, while pedagogical application in concrete teaching practice is of subordinate importance. This assessment is also valid for several didactic and methodological approaches. Projects presented in this paper that have already been put into practice are exceptions. Hence, there is an imbalance in scientific research regarding interreligious pedagogy at the expense of the practical orientation (Kraml et al. Citation2020, 22–37).
This imbalance is problematic. Research in interreligious pedagogy should not only pursue the goal of addressing an academic audience – for example by publishing publications on the subject – but the findings should also relate to pedagogical practice. Models and concepts, which primarily serve the university knowledge production and put practical applications last, contribute to the over academization of interreligious approaches. However, such a tendency is not conducive to increasing interreligious learning in everyday educational situations in schools – an objective that is formulated by the majority of the approaches and concepts described.
The reasons for this disproportion cannot be unequivocally clarified. However, there are some indications that universities are more open to interreligious learning than religious or educational institutions. While university institutions focus primarily on academic knowledge production, religious institutions aim mainly at ensuring denominational ties. In turn, for educational institutions the concrete didactic elaboration and applicability of interreligious learning approaches is of central importance. Since the depicted approaches were primarily developed from university institutions, they primarily follow the (implicit) rules of the academic community instead of the needs of religious institutions or school authorities.
Besides, it can be assumed that there are obstacles regarding the implementation of interreligious approaches in educational practice. It is one thing to draft theoretical models at your desk; pedagogical application is a different matter. The latter is not only labor-intensive in the classroom, it requires painstaking political and advocacy work to convince the relevant actors, such as the school decision-makers and leaders of religious institutions. In Germany and Austria, the consent of the religious institutions is imperative for interreligious learning approaches to be applied in religious education at school, as they are responsible for the curricula. Because of this, interreligious learning approaches are implicated more often in university contexts or apart from religious education in school contexts.
Following the identified imbalance in scientific research, a plea for a practical turn in research on interreligious learning is formulated. It is recommended that the research on interreligious pedagogy moves toward a practice-relevant orientation, which takes occurring processes and involved persons seriously and aims for didactic implementation of the developed concepts. Ideally, the approaches are oriented toward the needs of religious institutions or school authorities right from the beginning and that concrete teaching units are being developed. It would be beneficial if, on the one hand, the development of denominational identities is systematically promoted in modes of interreligious learning and, on the other hand, the approaches are worked out in such a way that they can be implemented by teachers in everyday teaching practice without additional effort. For this it is required that teaching units, materials such as worksheets or methods such as group work are developed. This makes it possible to check the applicability of the modes of interreligious learning. By conducting teaching units in concrete teaching practice, the feasibility of developed concepts as well as specific teaching materials and didactic methods (e.g. prepared exercises or group work) can be tested. Due to the practice-relevant orientation, the focus is on how the approaches can be applied in pedagogical practice, which problems arise in the implementation and how they are perceived by the teachers and students. In addition, their outcomes and learning effects can be evaluated empirically and developed further if necessary. Considering the imbalance in scientific research, a practical turn of this sort is urgently required, so that practical reference points of interreligious pedagogy will be fostered.
Conclusions and questions
Interreligious pedagogy is a research area that has been intensively worked on in recent years. Following the discussion of similarities and differences between the approaches to interreligious pedagogy, I will reflect on potentials and opportunities for current and future modes of interreligious learning. Regardless of the fact that further scientific analyses are inevitable in this context, hunches are outlined regarding (I) materials and planning, (II) the relationship between difference and commonality, as well as (III) between reflection and encounter. Insights and suggestions will be framed in the form of questions which hopefully will be further explored in the near future.
(I) How can teaching materials and lesson planning be developed so that pedagogy is prioritized?
In the synopsis, all concepts of interreligious learning have in common that teaching materials are age-appropriate, that the topics are connected to the environment and experience realm of the learners, and that they encourage them to actively participate in learning processes. However, there are partial differences regarding the participating persons in the planning and development process – for example, whether materials are more likely to be designed on the drawing board in university contexts or whether teachers from school practice are also involved.
There are indications that the potential and prospect of interreligious learning increase if researchers and pedagogs participate in the development of materials, lesson concepts and lesson planning. The inclusion of experiences, expectations and ideas of those who participate in the educational processes is of particular importance, because only when perspectives of the learners, as well as the teachers are taken into account, the prerequisites for interreligious learning success can be achieved.
(II) How can teachers be comfortable teaching about religious difference?
Another central topic in a multitude of approaches to interreligious learning is dealing with the area of tension between difference and similarity. In this context, the discussions mostly revolve around the question of how the experience of religious strangeness can be used in a pedagogically constructive manner. Yet, empirical studies show that in school practice teachers of religion often tend to focus on religious similarities (Streib Citation2005, 230). However, it is not pedagogically viable to omit existing differences and to pretend that there are only similarities between the religions. It is not conducive that differences are made absolute or constructed as incompatible opposites. Pedagogical opportunities and potentials lie above all in finding a middle ground that shows similarities and recognizes existing boundaries. Empirical analysis prove that interreligious pedagogy has learning effects. However, there are different opinions about the specifics. By all means, an increase in knowledge and an enhanced recognition of the religious Other is verifiable empirically.
(III) How can encounters with religious difference make a practical difference?
A third important aspect is the encounter with the religious Other in the course of interreligious learning processes. Existing approaches to interreligious learning deal with this question differently. Empirical findings show that the potential and opportunities of interreligious learning often lie in the encounter with the religious Other – be it through the co-presence of learners or teachers of a different faith. Teaching conducted by teachers of different faiths offers the opportunity for students to identify with different religious affiliations (Obermann Citation2005, 483). Furthermore, interreligious learning is important for the students’ own religiousness and construction of identity, as many students merely show a diffuse and fragmented form of religiousness. Nevertheless, cognitive overload should be avoided, since it may block a spiritual or mystical access to religious issues. It is therefore advisable that phases of encounter and phases of reflection alternate in interreligious learning processes. In particular, phases of reflection are important, in which religious similarities and differences can be reflected and processed. Such a procedure can ensure that interreligious learning processes have sustainable learning success.
In conclusion, the suggestions presented are formulated as questions to indicate that the answers have not yet been completed and require further processing. In order to bring the identified imbalance of current research into equilibrium, it is necessary that future research has a focus on the hunches outlined. Only modes of interreligious pedagogy that address the academic audience as well as find their way into pedagogical practice can have a lasting impact and enhance interreligious learning effects.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Jonas Kolb
Dr. Jonas Kolb is an assistant professor at the Department of Islamic Theology and Religious Education at the University of Innsbruck. Email: [email protected]
Notes
1 This paper discusses approaches to interreligious learning that are characterized in most cases by cooperation between Christianity (Catholic/Protestant) and Islam (Sunni).
2 This article exclusively discusses modes of interreligious cooperation in educational contexts. Therefore, the analyses by Gritt Klinkhammer (Klinkhammer and Satilmis Citation2008) or Martin Rötting (Citation2012) that have developed typologies of interreligious dialogue projects outside of educational contexts are not described.
3 There are partial overlaps between the three categories. An unequivocal assignment of models of interreligious learning is not possible in all cases. Therefore, some concepts can have points of reference to different categories.
4 In this context, there are similarities to Grümme’s theoretical concept of alterity (2012), which also assumes religious heterogeneity as the starting point for religious educational concepts.
5 In this connection, there are links to the approach of comparative theology, which is often associated with Francis X. Clooney who dates ideas in this regard back to 1699 (2010, 30ff.). In the German-speaking area, the approach has received increased attention in recent years, particularly because of the work of Klaus von Stosch (Citation2012) at the University of Paderborn in North Rhine-Westphalia (Germany).
References
- Baumann, U. 2005. “Interreligiöses Lernen in der Aus- und Fortbildung von Pädagoginnen und Pädagogen.” In Handbuch interreligiöses Lernen, edited by P. Schreiner, U. Sieg and V. Elsenbast, 533–42. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus.
- Boehme, K., and T. Krobath. 2020. “Interreligiöses Begegnungslernen in der Ausbildung von Religionslehrkräften in Heidelberg und Wien.” Zeitschrift für Pädagogik und Theologie 72 (2):181–91. doi: 10.1515/zpt-2020-0020.
- Boll, S. 2017. “Umgang mit religiöser Vielfalt in der Grundschule. Interreligiöses Lernen im Kontext schulischer Wirklichkeit in Schleswig-Holstein.” Doctoral thesis, University of Flensburg.
- Clooney, F. X. 2010. Comparative Theology. Deep Learning across Religious Borders. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.
- Fischer, D. 2005. “Interreligiöses Lernen in der Grundschule.” In Handbuch interreligiöses Lernen, edited by P. Schreiner, U. Sieg, and V. Elsenbast, 453–64. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus.
- Garcia Sobreira-Majer, A., A. Abuzahra, F. Hafez, and G. Ritzer. 2014. “Interreligiöses Lernen in Begegnung – Evaluation von Begegnungslernen in der ReligionslehrerInnenausbildung.” In Ausbildung von ReligionslehrerInnen. Konfessionell – Kooperativ – Interreligiös – Pluralitätsfähig, edited by T. Krobath and G. Ritzer, 155–84. Vienna: LIT.
- Grimmitt, M. 1987. Religious Education and Human Development. The Relationships between Studying Religions and Personal, Social and Moral Education. Great Wakering: McCrimmon.
- Gronover, M., and H. Schnabel-Henke. 2017. “Möglichkeiten der didaktischen Umsetzung – Einführung in die Unterrichtseinheiten.” In Interreligiöses Lernen durch Perspektivenübernahme. Eine empirische Untersuchung religionsdidaktischer Ansätze, edited by F. Schweitzer, M. Bräuer, and R. Boschki, 70–80. Münster: Waxmann.
- Grümme, B. 2012. “Alteritätstheoretische Religionsdidaktik.” In Religionsunterricht neu denken. Innovative Ansätze und Perspektiven der Religionsdidaktik. Ein Arbeitsbuch, edited by B. Grümme, H. Lenhard and M. L. Pirner, 119–32. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
- Hellmann, C. 2000. Religiöse Bildung, interreligiöses Lernen und interkulturelle Pädagogik. Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zur religiösen und interkulturellen Erziehung in der Moderne. Frankfurt/Main: IKO.
- Jozsa, D.-P., and M. Friederici. 2008. “European Comparison: Personal Views and Experiences of Religion.” In Encountering Religious Pluralism in School and Society. A Qualitative Study of Teenage Perspectives in Europe, edited by T. Knauth, D.-P. Jozsa, G. Bertram-Troost, and J. Ipgrave, 375–88. Münster: Waxmann.
- Khorchide, M. 2009. Der islamische Religionsunterricht zwischen Integration und Parallelgesellschaft: Einstellungen der islamischen ReligionslehrerInnen an öffentlichen Schulen. Wiesbaden: VS.
- Klinkhammer, G., and A. Satilmis, eds. 2008. Interreligiöser Dialog auf dem Prüfstand. Kriterien und Standards für die interkulturelle und interreligiöse Kommunikation. Münster: LIT.
- Kraml, M., and Z. Sejdini. 2018. “Der Forschungskontext.” In Interreligiose Bildungsprozesse. Empirische Einblicke in Schul- und Hochschulkontexte, edited by M. Kraml and Z. Sejdini, 13–20. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
- Kraml, M., Z. Sejdini, N. Bauer, and J. Kolb. 2020. Konflikte und Konfliktpotentiale in interreligiösen Bildungsprozessen. Empirisch begleitete Grenzgänge zwischen Schule und Universität. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
- Langenhorst, G. 2016. Trialogische Religionspädagogik. Religiöses Lernen zwischen Judentum, Christentum und Islam. Freiburg: Herder.
- Leimgruber, S. 2007. Interreligiöses Lernen. Munich: Kösel.
- Leimgruber, S. 2005. “Katholische Perspektiven zum interreligiösen Lernen: Konziliar und inklusivistisch.” In Handbuch interreligiöses Lernen, edited by P. Schreiner, U. Sieg, and V. Elsenbast, 126–33. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus.
- Meyer, K. 2019. Grundlagen interreligiösen Lernens. Göttingen: V&R.
- Obermann, A. 2005. “Religion unterrichten zwischen Kirchturm und Minarett‘– Entwürfe eines interreligiösen Religionsunterrichts an der Berufsschule.” In Handbuch interreligiöses Lernen, edited by P. Schreiner, U. Sieg, and V. Elsenbast, 476–85. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus.
- Rötting, M. 2012. Religion in Bewegung. Dialog-Typen und Prozess im interreligiösen Lernen. Münster: LIT.
- Sajak, C. P. 2015. “Trialogische Religionspädagogik und Komparative Theologie. Strukturelle Analogien – produktive Kollisionen.” In: Komparative Theologie. Herausforderung für die Religionspädagogik. Perspektiven zukunftsfähigen interreligiösen Lernens, edited by R. Burrichter, G. Langenhorst and K. von Stosch, 31–48. Paderborn: Schöningh.
- Sajak, C. P. 2005. Das Fremde als Gabe begreifen. Auf dem Weg zu einer Didaktik der Religionen aus katholischer Perspektive. Münster: LIT.
- Schambeck, M. 2013. Interreligiöse Kompetenz. Basiswissen für Studium, Ausbildung und Beruf. Göttingen: V&R.
- Schweitzer, F. 2014. Interreligiöse Bildung. Religiöse Vielfalt als religionspädagogische Herausforderung und Chance. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus.
- Schweitzer, F., and R. Boschki. 2017. “Zur Bedeutung der Befunde – Konsequenzen für religionsdidaktische Forschung und religionspädagogische Theoriebildung.” In Interreligiöses Lernen durch Perspektivenübernahme. Eine empirische Untersuchung religionsdidaktischer Ansätze, edited by F. Schweitzer, M. Bräuer and R. Boschki, 133–38. Münster: Waxmann
- Schweitzer, F., M. Bräuer, and M. Losert. 2017. “Einführung und zusammenfassende Darstellung des Forschungsprojekts.” In Interreligiöses Lernen durch Perspektivenübernahme. Eine empirische Untersuchung religionsdidaktischer Ansätze, edited by F. Schweitzer, M. Bräuer, and R. Boschki, 11–29. Münster: Waxmann.
- Schweitzer, F., M. Bräuer, and R. Boschki, eds. 2017. Interreligiöses Lernen durch Perspektivenübernahme. Eine empirische Untersuchung religionsdidaktischer Ansätze. Münster: Waxmann.
- Simojoki, H., and K. Lindner. 2020. “Modelle der konfessionellen Kooperation an Schulen und Hochschulen in Deutschland. Eine Bestandsaufnahme im Horizont einer gesamttheologisch verantworteten Religionslehrerinnen- und Religionslehrerbildung.” Zeitschrift für Pädagogik und Theologie 72 (2):120–32. doi: 10.1515/zpt-2020-0015.
- Streib, H. 2005. “Wie finden interreligiöse Lernprozesse bei Kindern und Jugendlichen statt? Skizze einer xenosophischen Religionsdidaktik.” In Handbuch interreligiöses Lernen, edited by P. Schreiner, U. Sieg, and V. Elsenbast, 230–43. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus.
- Tautz, M. 2018. “Begegnungslernen – Ein schillernder Begriff.” Religionspädagogische Beiträge 79:24–32.
- Tautz, M. 2007. Interreligiöses Lernen im Religionsunterricht. Menschen und Ethos im Islam und Christentum. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
- von Stosch, K. 2012. Komparative Theologie als Wegweiser in der Welt der Religionen. Paderborn: Schöningh.
- Weirer, W., E. Wenig, and S. Yagdi. 2019. “… und dass man nicht einfach das von zu Hause nachredet.’ Interreligiöses Lernen im christlich-islamischen Teamteaching.” Österreichisches Religionspädagogisches Forum 27 (2):129–51. doi: 10.25364/10.27:2019.2.9.
- Weiße, W. 2010. “Interreligiöse Bildung in Europa. Neue Entwicklungen in der öffentlichen Debatte, in der Forschung und im Trialog an Schulen.” In Trialogisch Lernen. Bausteine für interkulturelle und interreligiöse Projektarbeit, edited by C. P. Sajak, 25–39. Seelze: Klett.
- Willems, J. 2011. Interreligiöse Kompetenz. Theoretische Grundlagen – Konzeptualisierungen – Unterrichtsmethoden. Wiesbaden: VS.