Argumentation in religious education in England: an analysis of locally agreed syllabuses

ABSTRACT

The importance of developing students’ ability to argue effectively is generally recognised across the curriculum, however what this means within religious education has not been thoroughly investigated. We explore this issue first through an initial review of both wider philosophical and curriculum literature on argumentation, notably Toulmin’s work, and then a review of relevant research within religious education. We then describe our curriculum analysis, addressing three research questions focusing on the frequency, purpose and conceptualisation of argumentation, though a mixed-methods curriculum analysis of locally agreed syllabuses across England (LASs). A quantitative analysis of frequency in thirty-five LASs showed that although argumentation was never mentioned, other cognates were always present. A detailed qualitative analysis of six LASs showed that its purpose was linked to personal expression within democratic participation, and epistemic and empathetic flexibility. Using Toulmin’s model of argumentation as a frame, it is generally conceptualised around the elements of claim, evidence and rebuttal, but the precise nature of evidence, warrant and backing are not explicit, especially as the field-dependent elements are unspecified. The implications of these findings for both general conceptualisations of argumentation and curriculum development within religious education are outlined.

KEYWORDS:

• Argumentation
• reasoning
• religious education
• curriculum

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Correction Statement

This article has been republished with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1. South West; London; South East; East Midlands; East of England; North East; West Midlands; North West; Yorkshire and Humberside.

Additional information

Funding

The authors acknowledge funding from the Templeton World Charity Foundation for the OARS Project [Grant Number TWCF0238].

Notes on contributors

Jessica Chan

Jessica Chan is a post-doctoral researcher at the Department of Education, University of Oxford. Her research interests are teachers' professional learning, Vygotskian and Post-Vygotskian theory, classroom talk and systematic review. She is currently working on the Oxford Argumentation in Religion and Science project (OARS) [https://oarseducation.com/].

Nigel Fancourt

Nigel Fancourt is Associate Professor in Learning, Teaching and Values at the Department of Education, University of Oxford, and a research fellow at St Stephen's House. He has published extensively on policy, assessment and pedagogy in religious education, and more widely on the relationships between research, professional knowledge and values. He is currently a co-investigator on the OARS project.

Liam Guilfoyle

Liam Guilfoyle is a post-doctoral Research Officer currently working at the Department of Education, University of Oxford.  He completed his PhD research at the University of Limerick's School of Education and the National Centre for STEM Education (EPI·STEM), in Ireland. His research focus has primarily been on teachers’ epistemic beliefs and perceptions of their teacher education, particularly science teachers. He is currently a research officer on the OARS project.