Boys in Religious Education – a difficult relationship?! Considering perspectives of boys in a gender-balanced pedagogy of diversity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pedagogy of Religion has been, for a long time, pedagogy of skipped gender difference. In a wrong generalization, students were talked about sweepingly. However, Religious Education (RE) never was neutral to gender; when it pretended to be so it actually supported male dominance. Crucial for the pioneer work of feminist theology was to reveal the gender veil (Pissarek-Hudelist, 1981, p. 47-71): The silence about the significance of gender supported an unreflected acceptance of maleness as the standard. Feminist religious pedagogy tried to overcome androcentrism, the dominance of male perspectives in religious education in contents, aims, and interactions (Jakobs 1994, p. 97-106; Kohler-Spiegel, 1995, p. 204-211; Pithan, 1993, p. 421-435). Outcomes of research in Feminist Theology and feminist approaches to Religious Education have led to a necessary emphasis on structural discrimination of girls in school education and contributed to increasing awareness of gender bias in RE-approaches. The feminist perspective was bitterly needed and still is. But while the way of looking at girls, their life situations, needs, and gender-related educational approaches could become more differentiating, the perspective on boys has remained strangely bleak, being stuck in the criticism of male dominance.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".