Powerful Knowledge and the 2017 Swedish National Test in Religious Education
Johan Liljestrand
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript Powerful knowledge and the 2017 Swedish national test in religious education is a well written and very interesting paper. The paper is not only of interest to educators in the field of religious education (RE), but to all educators reflecting on the goals and content of education. The structure of the paper is clear, the methodology is (mostly) clearly explained and the results follow logically from the previous steps taken in the paper. I would certainly recommend publishing this paper in Social Sciences provided that the author considers a few minor comments.
On page 4 (line 195-198) it is stated that a quarter of the 9th graders take the national test in RE and the other three-quarters take the test in either civics, history or geography. Apparently, students do not take the tests in all subjects. For readers not familiar with the Swedish system of national tests, like myself, this should be explained more in detail. For instance, are students randomly assigned to a test in a subject, do they themselves make a choice? This should be clarified in more detail.
On page 7 (line 324-334) it is stated that the student answers are analyzed using inductive content analysis. I have a difficulty with understanding inductive here. What is meant by inductive in this respect? Since the author is looking for traces of powerful knowledge in student answers on the basis of previously mentioned dimensions of powerful knowledge (page 5, line 229-239), one could also say that this is an instance of deductive content analysis. The author is not developing a theory about powerful knowledge on the basis of student answers, but he/she is actually testing such a theory by analyzing student answers. To me that sounds more like a deductive approach. Therefore, the author should explain more clearly what is meant by inductive in this respect.
My next minor comment concerns the headings in the results section. The results section comprises six subsections concerning the items being analyzed and a summary of the results. These subsections all have headings in bold, just like the sections, which I find confusing. Another kind of heading, in italics for instance, better indicates the level of these subsections as subsections and adds to the overall structure of the manuscript.
My final comment addresses a more fundamental issue. In Sweden RE is a non-confessional subject with religious studies as the underlying or foundational academic discipline. However, in numerous other countries RE is a confessional subject not only based on religious studies, but also on theology. To broaden the relevance of this study, I would like the author to reflect on the scope and limitations of the concept of powerful knowledge within RE. Does powerful knowledge demand a religious studies approach or is confessional and theology based RE also compatible with the transfer and acquisition of powerful knowledge? I would like to see the author reflect on this issue in the discussion section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The claim that social realism comprises "a turn" is too strong.
Line 48-49 states PK to be a prominent idea, which is an overstatement. The authors also seem to contradict this in line 151-152 about current research in RE.
The meaning of PK should not wait until page 5 since a lack of its description impedes a coherent and clarifying introduction to the manuscript.
The application to PK could be done in two ways in which the second is preferable: 1. To test school content/curriculum against PK, 2. To shed light on school content/curriculum through the lens of PK, based on strong arguments for PK as a valuable perspective on school content/curriculum. The second approach avoids normativity and could be developed in the manuscript.
The authors could possibly connect to Arendts critique of progressivism, https://thecriticalreader.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/ArendtCrisisInEdTable.pdf
The statement in lines 331-332 are not obvious for many scholars in qualitative research.
Something could be commented regarding the brevity of student answer (about Islam, lines 469-478) in relation to the idea of PK.
Lines 637-640 seem to excuse student knowledge that falls outside the scope of PK, with the possibility of lower grading.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
