对Trevor Cooling和Marius Felderhof的回应

IF 0.8 3区 哲学 Q3 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
M. Chater
{"title":"对Trevor Cooling和Marius Felderhof的回应","authors":"M. Chater","doi":"10.1080/13617672.2022.2050631","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It has been said of the Religious Education (RE) community that if you place two practitioners into a room, they will emerge with three viewpoints. Yet even if that were true, I am grateful for the opportunity to read and reflect on Professor Cooling’s and Dr Felderhof’s responses. There is substantial agreement between myself and Prof Cooling concerning structures. He concurs with my critique as ‘important’ and ‘legit-imate’, and my shining a spotlight on sectional interests as ‘helpful’. There is less agreement between myself and Dr Felderhof overall. Firstly, I draw out three critical points that Cooling has made and offer a brief response to each.","PeriodicalId":45928,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Beliefs & Values-Studies in Religion & Education","volume":"34 1","pages":"275 - 278"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Response to Trevor Cooling and Marius Felderhof\",\"authors\":\"M. Chater\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13617672.2022.2050631\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"It has been said of the Religious Education (RE) community that if you place two practitioners into a room, they will emerge with three viewpoints. Yet even if that were true, I am grateful for the opportunity to read and reflect on Professor Cooling’s and Dr Felderhof’s responses. There is substantial agreement between myself and Prof Cooling concerning structures. He concurs with my critique as ‘important’ and ‘legit-imate’, and my shining a spotlight on sectional interests as ‘helpful’. There is less agreement between myself and Dr Felderhof overall. Firstly, I draw out three critical points that Cooling has made and offer a brief response to each.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45928,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Beliefs & Values-Studies in Religion & Education\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"275 - 278\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Beliefs & Values-Studies in Religion & Education\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"95\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13617672.2022.2050631\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Beliefs & Values-Studies in Religion & Education","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13617672.2022.2050631","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

宗教教育(RE)界有这样的说法,如果你把两个从业者放在一个房间里,他们会有三个观点。然而,即使这是真的,我也很感激有机会阅读和思考库林教授和费德霍夫博士的回答。我和Cooling教授在结构上有很大的共识。他同意我的批评,认为这是“重要的”和“合法的”,也同意我对局部利益的关注是“有益的”。总的来说,我和费尔德霍夫博士之间的意见不太一致。首先,我列出了Cooling提出的三个关键点,并对每一个关键点都做了简短的回应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Response to Trevor Cooling and Marius Felderhof
It has been said of the Religious Education (RE) community that if you place two practitioners into a room, they will emerge with three viewpoints. Yet even if that were true, I am grateful for the opportunity to read and reflect on Professor Cooling’s and Dr Felderhof’s responses. There is substantial agreement between myself and Prof Cooling concerning structures. He concurs with my critique as ‘important’ and ‘legit-imate’, and my shining a spotlight on sectional interests as ‘helpful’. There is less agreement between myself and Dr Felderhof overall. Firstly, I draw out three critical points that Cooling has made and offer a brief response to each.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信