17
Newstead Wood School Sixth Form September 2015 Religious Studies Handbook ‘It is better to know some of the questions than all of the answers’ (James Thurber) Name_________________________
Newstead Wood School
Sixth Form
September 2015
Religious Studies
Handbook
‘It is better to know some of the questions than all of the
answers’
(James Thurber)
Name_________________________
Welcome to Religious Studies at AS
Who’s who?
Miss Harvey – Head of RS with Psychology Miss Harvey teaches the Ethics side of the course. She can be found in her office
which is opposite Room 41 in the Religious Studies block.
Mr Bournat – Assistant Director of Learning for Sixth form, Religious studies
teacher, Government and Politics teacher
Mr Bournat teaches the Philosophy side of the course. He can be found in his office in
the Sixth form block or the RS office which is opposite RS42.
Religious Studies at AS
Advanced learning in this subject Religious studies (RS) demands a commitment to higher level thinking, it is not
simply enough to read material and remember quotations. RS students engage actively
with the subject, thinking critically about ideas.
How is AS different from GCSE? At AS level, there is an expectation that students will be reading around the subject as
well as exploring the materials covered in lessons. Whilst at GCSE it may be enough
to recall information, advanced students must be able to adapt information to suit a
multitude of question styles and to develop a line of argument. Answers take an essay
form, rather than the very structured style of GCSE questioning in RS.
In what different ways will you be expected to work? Students will be expected to be able to note-take and take an active role in class
discussions. Students will also be expected to regularly complete essays both in class
and for homework. Students will have to complete independent tasks resulting in
presentations to the rest of the class. Students will complete the investigations module
independently, with seminars with a member of the department to guide your
research.
What do successful learners in this subject do? What are their habits? Successful RS students arrive on time and complete all homework. They also attend
all support sessions as directed. They seek to improve already good work through
speaking to staff outside of lessons and arranging to develop work during
investigation seminars. All homework that is not to standard is discussed with staff
and improved to ensure full understanding. Successful students attend revision
conferences and seek out further reading connected to material covered in class.
Overview of the year
Term Topics, investigation, visits…
Half Term 1
Introduction to philosophical ideas and ethical theories.
Topics
Philosophy – design arguments
Ethics – religion and morality
Each topic will be assessed by written essay under timed
conditions.
Introduction to the Investigation – throughout the last
week of this half term students will be introduced to the
Investigation and begin reading and note taking for their
chosen topic (either Mind and Body or Medical Ethics).
Half Term 2
In the first week back after half term students will
prepare and deliver presentations related to their topics
area. Students will then prepare for the investigation
through a combination of small group seminars and
independent study. One or more essay style question will
be completed this half term.
Students may have additional seminar sessions during
study periods/ lunchtimes with their investigation
supervisor.
Topics
Philosophy – Problem of Evil – this topic requires
students to work in groups to teach an element of the
course to the rest of the group
Ethics – Utilitarianism
Each topic will be assessed by written essay under timed
conditions.
2nd
Investigation piece to be set over the Christmas
holidays.
An optional Philosophy Conference led by Peter Vardy
will be held in central London in November 2014.
Half Term 3
Mock exam to take place at the end of January. Two
papers: Paper 1 – Philosophy and ethics (1 hour 45
mins); Paper 2 – Investigation (1 hour 15 minutes)
Students will have one to one meetings to discuss their
mock papers and work on areas for development.
Topics
Philosophy – Miracles or the Cosmological Argument
Ethics – Situation Ethics
Each topic will be assessed by written essay under timed
conditions.
Ethics Conference led by Peter Vardy will be held in
central London in February 2015. All students are
advised to attend.
Half Term 4
Topics
Philosophy – Miracles or the Cosmological Argument
Ethics – Sexual Ethics
Each topic will be assessed by written essay under timed
conditions.
Half Term 5
First week back – 2nd
Investigation mock paper
Revision classes
AS Examinations
Half Term 6
Topics
Philosophy – Critiques of religion (A2 topic)
This topic is taught in all lessons and students again
independently research a critique of the link between
religion and morality and teach this critique to the rest of
the class.
Specification Summary
AS Religious Studies
8RS01
Edexcel
http://www.edexcel.com/quals/gce/gce08/rs/Pages/default.aspx
AS Unit 1: Foundations 6RS01 (50% of AS level mark)
Written paper = 1 hour 45 minutes
Answer 3 two-part questions, one from any 3 of four topic sets
(each topic set has a choice of two questions).
Four sets of topics are:
o Teleological and Cosmological Arguments
o Problem of Evil and Miracles
o Religion and Morality, Utilitarianism and Situation Ethics
o Sexual Ethics and War & Peace
Part (a) is out of 21 and examines Knowledge and Understanding
Part (b) is out of 9 and examines Evaluation
AS Unit 2: Investigation 6RS02 (50% of AS level mark)
Written paper = 1 hour 15 minutes
Answer 1 question on your chosen topic area.
Topic will be chosen in advance, either Philosophy of Mind or
Medical Ethics.
The extended essay is out of 50 and examines Knowledge,
Understanding and Evaluation.
The essay will ask you to comment on the area of study that you
have been investigating independently and through seminars.
Assessment Criteria: Unit 1: Foundations
Part (a) A01: Knowledge and Understanding
Level Descriptor Marks
4
Comprehensive Philosophical vocabulary is used throughout.
The answer is well organised and the arguments being made are clear.
Scholarship is used to support the key ideas.
The answer identifies the key features of the question and is able to
explain these ideas using scholarship to support.
16-21
3
Organised A range of relevant information is used to answer the question.
It is written in an organised way.
The answer highlights some key ideas which are explained and
supported with scholarship (where relevant).
Some philosophical vocabulary is correctly used.
11-15
2
Relevant Information is generally relevant to the question and correct.
Shows a basic awareness of the main issues raised by the question.
The answer is organised enough for the reader to understand the key
points being made.
6-10
1
Unstructured A limited number of facts which are correct.
The facts are unstructured.
The facts do not link together.
The answer is not organised.
There is very little detail.
1-5
Part (b)AO2: Evaluation
Level Descriptor Marks
4
Evaluate The answer evaluates the main issues raised by the question by
discussing different view points.
A personal conclusion is explained clearly and is well supported by
scholarship and reasoned argument.
The answer is clear and uses philosophical language.
7-9
3
Assess The answer covers the main issues raised by the question.
The answer addresses some of the reasons for there being different
view points.
A personal conclusion is expressed clearly and is supported by
relevant scholarship.
Some philosophical language is used.
5-6
2
Describe both
sides
The answer shows a simple understanding of the issue raised in the
question.
There is some reference to different view points.
A personal conclusion is put forward and is supported by limited but
relevant scholarship.
3-4
1
Describe The answer is mainly descriptive.
A point of view is expressed which is relevant to the question but is
supported by limited scholarship.
The argument presented is unclear.
1-2
Assessment Criteria: Unit 2: Investigations
A01: Knowledge and Understanding Level Descriptor Marks
5
Comprehensive Wide range of selected, relevant factual knowledge and
understanding of the topic investigated.
Analysis of issues raised by the topic, using a variety of sources,
examples and/or illustrations.
Structured around the main theme(s) or concept(s) of the task;
Proficient use of religious and philosophical language.
28-35
4
Explanatory Good range of well-selected material from the topic investigated.
Explains significant features within the context of the issue(s) raised
in the task.
Key concepts explained through evidence and/or examples.
Religious and philosophical terms defined and explained.
21-27
3
Directed Selection of relevant material.
Significant feature of topic identified.
Information is specifically analysed in terms of the question
Some use of specialised religious language.
14-20
2
Relevant Some relevant knowledge of the topic investigated.
Limited structure which shows some awareness of key ideas.
The specific question is referred to.
Expressed with sufficient accuracy to make the meaning clear.
7-13
1
Unstructured Information is descriptive.
Simplistic and unstructured framework.
1-6
AO2: Evaluation
Level Descriptor Marks
4
Evaluate The answer evaluates the main issues raised by the question by
discussing different view points.
A personal conclusion is explained clearly and is well supported by
scholarship and reasoned argument.
The answer is clear and uses philosophical language.
12-15
3
Assess The answer covers the main issues raised by the question.
Addresses some of the reasons for there being different view points.
A personal conclusion is expressed clearly and is supported by
relevant scholarship.
Some philosophical language is used.
8-11
2
Describe both
sides
Shows a simple understanding of the issue(s) raised in the question.
There is some reference to different view points.
A personal conclusion is put forward and is supported by limited but
relevant scholarship.
4-7
1
Describe The answer is mainly descriptive.
A point of view is expressed which is relevant to the question but is
supported by limited scholarship.
The argument presented is unclear.
1-3
Expectations in RS In order to provide students with the most effective support in their learning, the
following processes will be maintained across the department:
- Punctuality: All students are expected to arrive to lessons on time. Any
student who is late for the first time will be spoken to by the teacher regarding
why they are late. If the student is late for a second time they will not
participate in the lesson and will complete the work missed in their own time.
Any concerns that staff have about punctuality issues will be notified to
parents as appropriate.
- Absence: Full attendance is essential for success in RS. All students should
notify their teacher in advance if they know they will be absent from a lesson.
The teacher will organise with the student how to catch up on the work they
will miss. If it is an unplanned absence the student should contact the teacher
before the next lesson to complete any work missed. Parents will be contacted
immediately if we are concerned about a student’s attendance.
- Deadlines: Students will always be given sufficient time to complete work. If
there is an issue with meeting a deadline, the student should see the teacher
before the work is due in and explain why the deadline cannot be met. The
teacher and student together will decide on the appropriate strategy.
- Consequences of missed deadlines: If a deadline is missed and there is no
appropriate explanation, the student will be expected to complete the work by
the end of the same day as the deadline missed. If missed homework has not
been caught up by the next lesson the student will not participate in the lesson
and must catch up the work missed in their own time. They will also have a
reflective discussion with the teacher about how deadlines can be better met in
future. Whenever we have concerns about a student missing deadlines, parents
will be contacted.
- Learning Environment: RS is a discussion based subject and all students are
expected to listen and show respect to each others’ ideas. Elements of topics
are taught to students by students and therefore every student should assume
responsibility for the learning of their classmates. Class discussions are based
on readings and prior learning – all students should come to the lesson fully
prepared in order to be able to engage meaningfully in the discussions. This
includes reading over notes from the previous lesson.
- Study periods and independent study: Students will be set reading material
prior to a lesson, in most cases students will be given a few days to do this and
should use their independent study time to complete this. Students should use
their independent study time to consolidate their class notes, make revision
notes, practise timed essays, prepare for in-class assessments and to engage in
wider reading material and forum discussions on moodle. There is an
expectation that students are reading a considerable amount of extra materials,
recording it in their log and completing book reviews.
How we will support you…..
Teachers will provide regular feedback regarding each student’s progress and will
offer support to ensure each student achieves their personal target grade. This support
will include; constructive comments on written work, meetings during study periods
to clarify and explain ideas, guidance on the investigation, questioning thinking, and
support workshops on essay skills and revision.
Learning conversations – students will be given feedback about their work and will
be encouraged to ask questions and seek clarification on how to improve. Students
can request a learning conversation at any time with their teachers if they wish to
explore their progress further. A learning conversation will be held with each student
after the mock exams.
Sixth form mentors – if you are struggling with any aspect of the course you can
request the assistance of a sixth form mentor. This will be a Year 13 student who is
studying Religious Studies at A2 and who has experience of the course and the
challenges of AS study.
What to do when stuck…
‘We all make mistakes, but only the wise learn from their
mistakes’ Winston Churchill
Class teacher
Your teachers are available throughout the day to speak to. A good time
to catch your teacher might be after the lesson, at break, lunchtime or
after school. They will arrange specific times with you to offer support as
it is needed, but you are responsible for your own learning. If you need
support, the onus is on you to seek help, which will of course then be
provided. Your teachers’ email addresses are at the bottom of this page.
This can be used to ask for a time for a meeting, to send additional essays
for marking or even just to ask a quick question. We are here to help!
Classmates
Your classmates will be an essential source of support and guidance
throughout the AS. Discussing queries and ideas with each other will
develop your understanding and extend your learning. You could arrange
to recap and consolidate your learning with another student in a study
period each week.
Moodle
There are practice exam questions, a key words glossary, advice on
structuring essays and lots of useful resources on the Religious Studies
Moodle Page. You will also find “discussion” forums which you can use
to raise and discuss questions relating to the subject.
Support sessions
We run sessions throughout the year (both at lunchtime and after school)
to support you with developing key skills such as how to structure essays
or to revisit particular topics. We will notify you of specific dates and
times during the course of the year. If you are seen to be struggling in a
specific area or need to catch up on work missed, you may be directed to
attend these sessions. In addition, anyone is welcome to attend throughout
the year for additional support.
Ms Harvey: [email protected]
Mr Bournat: [email protected]
Bridging Unit
You should read the following article and answer the question at the end. To be
completed by the start of term and handed to your RS teacher in your first lesson.
You will also be expected to know and build on this material in your first lesson so
you will need to take the time to refresh your memory beforehand.
The purpose of this piece of work will enable your teachers to identify what skills you
already have and what skills need developing. This will enable us to develop a
personalised programme of support that is catered for your individual needs.
Proof and Probability in Arguing for God’s Existence
Harriet Harris
Logical arguments, including those offered for belief in God, may be divided into two main types:
deductive arguments which aim at yielding proof and inductive arguments which propose a probability.
I will not here run through the various arguments that have been offered for God’s existence - at least
not directly. Rather I will discuss the nature of proof and probability, and use traditional arguments for
God’s existence as illustrations. Different rules of reasoning apply depending on whether we are testing
a proof or a probability argument.
PROOF
Deductive reasoning
Proof can be acquired only from valid deductive reasoning. This very precise use of the term
‘proof’ is taken from mathematics, and is not reflected in our every-day language. According to this
precise usage, you do not arrive at ‘proof’ through experiments in natural science, rather you gather
scientific evidence and develop hypotheses and theories. Nor do you ‘prove’ someone innocent or
guilty in a court of law. You find them innocent or guilty on the basis of evidence. Proof is that which
by logic has to be the case. Even if Peter Piper is accused of stealing a pickled pepper at 7 p.m. in
McDonald’s in Exeter, and is spotted at 6.45 p.m. at Paddington station in London, his innocence is not
strictly ‘proven’. Nothing in logic prevents him from having travelled the 200 miles in 15 minutes, but
we would think that this alibi provides overwhelming evidence of Peter Piper’s innocence. This strict
use of the term ‘proof’ enables philosophers to make an important distinction between arguments
which establish what logically has to be the case and arguments which indicate what is very likely to be
the case.
You may know this common example of deductive reasoning:
(1) All men are mortal
(2) Socrates is a man
(3) Socrates is mortal
This is a valid deductive argument. How do we know? We might be tempted to say, ‘because we can
see that it is!’ However, not all valid deductive arguments are obvious. Complicated mathematical
proofs are not obvious. Even the following, simple argument may not seem obvious. It is an argument
used by Jostein Gaarder in Sophie’s World, to convey how deductive reasoning helps us to put things
into their proper categories.
(1) All baby mammals live on their mother’s milk
(2) mice are mammals
(3) baby mice live on their mother’s milk
Possibly you have never thought through whether mice are suckling animals, but if you find yourself
needing to know how baby mice feed you could work it out deductively if you know that mice are
mammals and that mammals by nature suckle. You could approach the problem inductively, that is, by
inference from observation and experiment, but you could not be sure, on the grounds of induction, that
your findings were true for all baby mice. Rather you would have evidence of instances of baby mice
who suckled, and you would infer that other baby mice suckle too. By deduction you could establish
your conclusion more quickly, and as a principle which holds generally for baby mice.
Testing the validity (soundness) of deductive arguments
If you cannot see plainly that an argument is valid, there is a crucial test which you can apply: deny the
conclusion and see if you are then being contradictory in asserting the premises. If in rejecting the
conclusion you can no longer retain all the premises, your argument is valid. A valid or sound
deductive argument is one in which the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. (The
terms ‘valid’ and ‘sound’ have the same meaning in this context.) This test is known as reductio ad
absurdum (reducing to absurdity). If we try it on our first example, we could posit that Socrates is not
mortal. We would then have to suppose either that Socrates is not a man or that at least one man is not
mortal. Either way we have shown that we must question one of our premises. A logically valid
argument needs neither actually true premises nor an actually true conclusion, but if its
conclusion is false, then at least one premise must be false.
Consider the following two arguments:
(1) Euthanasia is murder
(2) Murder is wrong
(3) Therefore euthanasia is wrong.
(l) jiggiwig is murder
(2) murder is wrong
(3) Therefore jiggiwig is wrong
The word euthanasia has simply been substituted for a nonsense word jiggiwig. The structure remains
the same and in both cases if you deny the conclusion you must also reject at least one premise.
Therefore the arguments are valid.
Testing the ‘goodness’ of deductive arguments
You may feel indignant at my claim to have a valid argument stating that euthanasia is wrong. You
may want to come back at me, and argue that euthanasia is not murder, and so accuse me of begging
the question. That would be a very reasonable and effective response. You would be rejecting my first
premise. You can find no contradiction in the argument, but you can challenge the concepts as used in
the premises. Should euthanasia be classified as murder? Is murder always wrong? A challenge to the
premises of an argument is a challenge not to the argument’s validity, but to the argument’s
‘goodness’. An argument may be deductively valid but not good.
PROBABILITY
Inductive Reasoning
The usefulness of deductive reasoning is only preliminary. It enables us to check that we are being
logically coherent. Beyond this, we must test our concepts and marshal the evidence.
Arguments which draw on or must be tested by evidence are inductive arguments, and they do
not yield proof. They yield probability.
Probability arguments are not second-rate attempts to make a case. Although they do not yield proof,
they are frequently more substantial than deductive arguments in that they attempt to give the best
possible theory given all the relevant data. We saw that a deductive argument on the wrongness of
euthanasia was not very satisfactory. A more substantial, and in this case more meaningful, argument
would draw on a suitably wide range of experience, including the experience of those who wish
euthanasia could be an option for them; of relatives of patients who have chosen euthanasia; and of
doctors and nurses.
Experimental scientists work with inductive argument: they infer general patterns of behaviour, or
‘laws’, from their observations. By repeating the same experiment several times to see if they get the
same results, they infer the property of matter. To take a very simple example, observing repeatedly
that waters boils at 100 C and freezes at 0 C, they infer that it is a property of water to behave thus. No
one can know with certainty (because it is not a principle of logic) that water will behave like this in
the future, or even the next time a kettle or freezer is used. But it is highly probable that water will
continue to behave in this way. Moreover, we all assume this probability and continue to use our kettles
and freezers. Most of the reasoning we use on a daily basis is inductive, as when we reason that
smoking damages health, that the ozone hole will continue to expand if we do not curb CFC emissions,
and that it will only take five minutes to get to the bus-stop.
Sound and unsound use of evidence
How can we distinguish between sound and unsound use of evidence? In cases of logical deduction, we
have general licence to say that whenever the logical structure of an argument is a certain way, the
argument is sound. We do not have any parallel general licence for inductive reasoning. Inductive
inference relies on evidence and evidence is good only if it connects with our experience (whereas
deductive arguments are invulnerable to experience so far as their validity is concerned).
Sound use of evidence relies on drawing analogies with known cases of the same pattern. If I were to
reason that I have always got to the bus stop in 5 minutes, so should be able to do so today, my
reasoning would be sound if today were like all other days. But if today I have a twisted ankle, or I am
in a different town, my reasoning would not be sound because I would be drawing analogies between
situations which were not sufficiently similar. What about this example: I stumble upon something
mechanical which has intricate parts that work together, and I infer from my experience of other similar
objects that this thing has been designed by somebody? This is essentially the structure of William
Paley’s famous argument from design where he drew an analogy between the appearance of design in a
watch and the appearance of design in the world. That there is a designer of the world is an inference,
not a formally logical conclusion. Whether Paley’s reasoning is sound depends on whether the world is
sufficiently similar to a watch. Even before Paley wrote, Hume had denied that it is possible to draw an
analogy between the world and a human artefact.
Teleological and cosmological arguments can be developed inductively as probability arguments
because they are a posteriori arguments based on experience. Ontological arguments are a priori
arguments, they do not reason from experience but involve the drawing out of concepts.
Therefore they stand or fail as proofs, and can never be offered in inductive form.
A valid inductive argument is one in which the premises make the conclusion probable, or add to
its probability. An inductive argument may be valid but not good if the premises are not known
to be true by those who dispute the conclusion. A teleological argument which contains the premise,
‘the world bears the marks of design’ is not good if would-be objectors see the world as bearing only
the marks of chance.
Glossary
Proof is established by valid or sound deductive arguments
Valid/sound deductive arguments: where the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises
Invalid/unsound deductive arguments: where the conclusion does not follow necessarily from the
premises: the premises can be held while the conclusion is rejected
Probability is posited by valid or sound inductive arguments
Valid/sound inductive arguments: where the premises make the conclusion probable, or add to its
probability.
Invalid/unsound inductive arguments: where the probability of the conclusion does not follow from the
premises.
Good arguments (deductive or inductive): where the premises are acceptable even to those who would
oppose the argument. An argument is not good if the premise (e.g. ‘euthanasia is murder’) can be
rejected by a would-be opponent of the argument (in this case the argument that euthanasia is wrong).
Checklist: Having read the article you should be able to answer the following
questions:
1. What is the difference between deductive and inductive arguments?
2. Do deductive arguments aim to provide proof or probability? What about
inductive arguments?
3. What is the difference between proof and probability?
4. Create your own example of a valid inductive/deductive argument.
5. What makes an inductive/ deductive argument (i) invalid (ii) good/sound?
______________________________
The following questions (part a and b) should be completed and handed in to the
teacher in your first RS lesson after the Summer. You should aim to write about 500
words for questions (a) and (b) combined.
Choose one or more of the following: the design argument, the cosmological
argument and/or the ontological argument and:
a. Explain the key ideas of the argument (to do this you must use at least
three of the following terms: deductive, inductive, a priori, a
posteriori, proof, probability – you should highlight them in your
answer)
b. Consider whether you find the argument convincing as an argument
for the existence of God (to do this you must include a consideration of
whether it is a valid/ invalid argument and whether it is a good
argument)
We are looking for certain skills to be demonstrated in your response:
In part a. we are looking for the ability to understand and explain the key
terms set out in the article – to do this well you should try to explain you
answer by giving evidence and examples.
In part b. we are also looking for the ability to demonstrate a reasoned
argument – by this, it is important that whilst putting forward your own
perspective, you demonstrate that you have considered the strengths and
weaknesses of alternative views (at AS you are awarded marks for
demonstrate an ability to critically evaluate different arguments)
In both part a. and part b. we are looking for writing that is clear and concise,
as well as clearly structured. At AS you have to construct arguments under
tight timed conditions.
Leadership and Enrichment opportunities in RS
These are a few of the many opportunities that are available….
Lead Philosophy discussions at the Year 10 RS conference to local secondary
schools
Attend Philosophy Master classes and student lectures
Help deliver P4C to younger students
Teach your peers and students in other years
Support the department in developing learning and resources
We also like to encourage you to use your initiative and be proactive so if you
have an idea regarding an enrichment or leadership opportunity, come and speak
to us to see how you can take this forward. We take student leadership very
seriously and are always open to new ideas that will extend learning and
enjoyment in RS.
Recommended textbooks
Edexcel AS Religious Studies: Student Book and CD Rom by Sarah Tyler and
Gordon Reid, Pearson Education, 2009, ISBN 978 184690 334 2, Costs
approximately £20
Ethical Studies by Bob Bowie, Nelson Thornes Ltd, 2004, ISBN 0 7487 8093 3,
Costs approximately £20
Reading List The following books are worth reading:
o ‘The Puzzle of God’ by Peter Vardy (this is worth buying)
o ‘Ethics Matters’ by Peter and Charlotte Vardy (this is also worth
buying)
o ‘The Philosophy Files’ by Stephen Law
o ‘101 Ethical Dilemmas’ by Martin Cohen
o ‘Sophie's World’ by Jostein Gaarder (this is philosophical fiction)
o ‘The God Delusion’ by Richard Dawkins
o ‘The Blind Watchmaker’ by Richard Dawkins
Optional Trips
Vardy Ethics and Philosophy conferences present a wealth of information in an
easy to understand format. The entrance fee includes detailed. There are normally
two per year (one in Autumn term and one in Spring term).
Approximately £15 each
Resources and Equipment
Moodle is a useful tool. It contains readings and support material relevant to
the course along with opportunities to engage in forum debates.
The Library – it is well stocked with philosophy and ethics books as well as
philosophical fiction. Go and have a look….
There are a couple of great journals for RS A Level – you could either
subscribe yourselves or back copies are kept in the library: Dialogue, RS
Review, Philosophy Now.
Links
http://www.thetablet.co.uk/page/alevel-religious-education-edexcel#20 – Articles on
a range of topics relating to the Edexcel A Level topics
www.rsrevision.com/ - Revision website
http://www.tutor2u.net/blog/index.php/religious-studies - Revision notes and lots of
articles about current and relevant topics.
http://www.rsweb.org.uk/
Progression
The main change at A2 is the Anthology paper. This paper requires students to study
three short texts on the Philosophy of Religion. In the exam, students will answer one
question which requires them to clarify and discuss an extract from one of the texts.
There is much more emphasis on making connections between topics as any relevant
material from AS or A2 topics will be credited on this paper.
Students who have studied Religious Studies in recent years have gone on to study:
Philosophy, Law, Mathematics, Theatre and Performance Studies, Archaeology and
Ancient Civilisations, Medicine and History.
