Below is a collection of scholarly research articles. They are in alphabetical order by author name. The Digital Object Identifier (DOI) Link is intended to navigate you to the permanent online location of the article abstract. If you should find a broken link, please let me know and I will endeavour to re-link to an updated source.
___________________________________________________
Davis, A. (2010). Defending Religious Pluralism for Religious Education.
Ethics and Education 5 (3) 189-202
___________________________________________________
Davis, A. (2010). Defending Religious Pluralism for Religious Education.
Ethics and Education 5 (3) 189-202
DOI Link
Abridged Abstract:
Religious exclusivism, or the idea that only one religion can be true, fuels hatred and conflict in the modern world. Certain objections to religious pluralism, together with associated defences of exclusivism are flawed. I defend a moderate religious pluralism, according to which the truth of one religion does not automatically imply the falsity of others. The thought that we can respect persons even when holding them mistaken strains credulity when we are dealing with religious convictions. The irreducibly metaphorical character of much religious language means that differences between world religions can be more apparent than real. Approaches to religious education should embrace a moderate religious pluralism.
Author contact information:
a.j.davis@durham.ac.uk
School of Education, Durham University, Durham DH1 1TA, UK
Commentary:
The promotion (implicit or explicit) of Religious Exclusivism in school Special Religious Education classes should be avoided, in favour of a pluralistic style of instruction. Learning acceptance of and tolerance for those who hold differing beliefs is an important aspect of achieving harmony within a school community.
_____________________________________________________
Goodman, J. F., & Kitzmiller, E. (2010). Suppression of the aggressive impulse: conceptual difficulties in anti-violence programs.
Ethics and Education 5 (2) 117-134
DOI Link
Abstract:
School anti-violence programs are united in their radical condemnation of aggression, generally equated with violence. The programs advocate its elimination by priming children's emotional and cognitive controls. What goes unrecognized is the embeddedness of aggression in human beings, as well as its positive psychological and moral functions. In attempting to eradicate aggression, schools increase the risk of student disaffection while stifling the goods associated with it: status, power, dominance, agency, mastery, pride, social-affiliation, social-approval, loyalty, self-respect, and self-confidence. It is argued that the distribution of power and authority to students as plausible substitutes for aggression, would enable them to express aggression in a legitimate manner and simultaneously encourage their attachment to school. A vibrant anti-violence program that attracts children will find a way for caring, amiability, sympathy, and kindness to live in tandem with competition, power, assertiveness, and anger tamed by institutional constraints.
Author contact information:
Penn Graduate School of Education
Email: joang@gse.upenn.edu
Commentary:
Philosophical ethics education would be an ideal way to provide students with the skills to manage and direct their aggressive impulses in a positive way, through rational discussion. The trial of Ethics Classes in NSW found that the children had an increased ability to empathise and were more inclusive of special needs students than seen before the trial. Additionally, Asperger's children were found to enjoy participating in the discussions, improving their interpersonal skills. (Knight, 2010)
___________________________________________________
Worley, P. (2009). Philosophy in Philosophy in Schools. Think 23 (8) 63-75 DOI Link
Abstract:
There has recently been a great deal written about philosophy in schools and in this article I shall be addressing some of the main concerns raised in objection to philosophy with young people. By young people I have in mind those in primary school from reception through to Year 6 (ages 4-11).
Philosophy in schools has been dominated by the P4C movemenat that was begun by Matthew Lipman in the 1960's. The model for philosophy for children instigated by Lipman is sometimes known as a community of enquiry. In a community of enquiry, the children sit in a circle with a facilitator. They are then presented with a stimulus of some sort ( a story, picture or DVD extract for example) from which they are encouraged to generate questions. These questions are then put to a vote and they discuss the question voted for.
One objection that has been raised is that this is not genuine philosophy and a connected question that I will address in this article is: does the facilitator need to know philosophy in order to do philosophy with children?
I will argue that the philosophy done in a community of enquiry is philosophy only in a very tenuous sense, but I will also argue that philosophy can be done with children very successfully and that it is essential for the facilitator to know philosophy in order to do philosophy with children. I shall also end by sharing a personal view about the worth of doing philosophy at all with young people.
Author Contact Information:
peter@thephilosophyshop.co.uk
Commentary:
I have included a link to Peter Worley's blog in the "Interesting Links" in the sidebar of the main page because of his particular interest in philosophy for children. From there you may choose to visit many more links and resources of interest.
This particular article argues that it is not the question children are asking or being asked, but the treatment of the question that results in 'real' philosophy. The "community of enquiry" approach is similar to that being used in the Primary Ethics Program, where children are learning speaking and listening skills, and how to agree and disagree, and Worley argues that this alone is not sufficient to be called philosophy. However, some of the kinds of ethical scenarios being discussed and higher order thinking using the community of enquiry approach do meet Worley's definition. Worley goes on to state that a deeper understanding of philosophy is required to successfully engage in philosophy with children, not just a few days of training such as the Philosophy For Children (P4C) program in the UK (and the Primary Ethics volunteers in NSW). However, given that the beginnings of Worley's philosophy and the community of enquiry approach have many features in common, this is really a battle of nomenclature that overlooks the admitted value of the community of enquiry. We have to start somewhere, and without an army of trained and funded philosophers to send into schools, perhaps we should work first with what we have?
