Studies in Philosophy and Education

, Volume 38, Issue 2, pp 195–210 | Cite as

Assessment, Truth and Religious Studies

  • John TillsonEmail author


This paper addresses the question of what should determine whether students’ answers to closed questions are marked as correct or incorrect in the context of formal religious education, and when their answers to open ended questions should be given more or less credit. Drawing on insights from Craig Bourne, Emily Caddick Bourne and Clare Jarmy, I argue that a combination of judged truth, and a range of well-argued cases about what ought to be believed given certain premises should constrain these assessment practices. Furthermore, I argue that if we cannot find any consistent, nonarbitrary account of how judgements of correctness and merit are in fact being made in the context of formal religious education, then this tells more against current practice’s inconsistency and arbitrariness than against these constraints on how judgements of correctness and merit should be made.


Religious education Assessment criteria Truth Epistemology Correctness 


  1. Adler, J. 2003. Knowledge, Truth and Learning. In A Companion to the Philosophy of Education, ed. R. Curren, 285–304. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baehr, J. 2013. Educating for Intellectual Virtues: From Theory to Practice. Journal of Philosophy of Education 47: 248–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bourne, C., E. Caddick Bourne, and C. Jarmy. 2016. The Basis of Correctness in the RS Classroom. Journal of Philosophy of Education 50: 669–688.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Carter, J. A. and B. Kotzee. 2015. “The Epistemology of Education”, Oxford Bibliographies Online. Available at:
  5. Clayton, M., and D. Stevens. 2018. What is the Point of Religious Education? Theory and Research in Education 16: 65–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cooling, T. 2014. The Epistemic Criterion: A Response to Michael Hand. Journal of Beliefs and Values 35: 86–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Erricker, C., and J. Erricker. 2000. The Children and Worldviews Project: A Narrative Pedagogy of Religious Education. In Pedagogies of Religious Education, ed. M. Grimmitt, 188–206. Great Wakering: McCrimmons.Google Scholar
  8. Fine, K. 1975. Vagueness, Truth and Logic. Synthese 30: 265–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gregory, M.R. 2014. The Procedurally Directive Approach to Teaching Controversial Issues. Educational Theory 64: 627–648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hand, M. 2004. Religious Education. In Rethinking the School Curriculum: Values, Aims and Purpose, ed. J. White. London: Routledge Falmer.Google Scholar
  11. Hand, M. 2006. Against Autonomy as an Educational Aim. Oxford Review of Education 32: 535–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hand, M. 2008. What Should We Teach as Controversial? A Defence of the Epistemic Criterion. Educational Theory 58: 213–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hand, M. 2014a. Religion, Reason and Nondirective Teaching: A Reply to Trevor Cooling. Journal of Beliefs and Values 35: 79–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hand, M. 2014b. Afterwords: Response to Warnick and Smith. Educational Theory 64: 425–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hand, M. 2018. A Theory of Moral Education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Hess, D., and P. McAvoy. 2015. The Political Classroom: Evidence and Ethics in Democratic Education. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Lowe, E.J. 2002. A Survey of Metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Lowe, E.J. 2008. How are Identity Conditions Grounded? In Persistence, ed. C. Kanzian. Ontos: Frankfurt.Google Scholar
  19. Tillson, J. 2013. Is Knowledge What It Claims to Be? Bernard Williams and the Absolute Conception. Educational Philosophy and Theory 45: 860–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tillson, J. 2017. When to Teach for Belief: A Tempered Defence of the Epistemic Criterion. Educational Theory 67: 173–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Tillson, J. 2018. Religious Education. In International Handbook of Philosophy of Education, ed. P. Smeyers. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  22. Warnick, B.R., and D. Spencer Smith. 2014. The Controversy Over Controversies: A Plea for Flexibility and for “Soft-Directive” Teaching. Educational Theory 64: 227–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Williams, B. 2005. Descartes: The Project of Pure Enquiry. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  24. Wilson, J. 1976. Taking Religious Education Seriously. Learning for Living 16: 18–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Wright, A. 2000. The Spiritual Education Project: Cultivating Spiritual and Religious Literacy through a Critical Pedagogy of Religious Education. In Pedagogies of Religious Education, ed. M. Grimmitt. Essex: McGrimmon.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Education StudiesLiverpool Hope UniversityLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations