Preservice Teacher Views on Critical Religious Literacy to Counteract Epistemic Injustice in Teacher Education Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While there has been growing scholarly interest in the role of religious literacy in K-12 teacher education, scholarship on how preservice teachers understand religious literacy as an aim of social justice-oriented education remains limited. This empirical case study of one teacher education program in a Canadian university examines the perspectives of preservice teachers and how they view critical religious literacy (CRL) as a means of addressing the potential harms of religious illiteracy. Using empirical data collected in personal interviews and focus groups, this qualitative case study employed philosophical analysis centered on a theoretical framework that includes the concept of epistemic injustice. The data show that preservice educators feel unprepared to engage with religiously diverse students, to navigate issues related to religious diversity, or to respond to the potential epistemic harms of religious illiteracy, such as exclusion, discrimination, or polarization. As such, this paper contends that to reduce the potential epistemic injustices related to religious illiteracy in their programs and in K-12 classrooms, teacher educators ought to include CRL as an educational aim in preservice teacher education.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".