This article aims to argue that worldview is a useful concept in religious education because of its encompassing character. In the first part of the article three essential characteristics of “worldview” are distinguished: “worldview” includes religious and secular views; a distinction between organized and personal worldviews should be made; and existential questions are a necessary part of “worldview.” The second part of the article demonstrates how two articles about Grimmitt's distinction between learning about and from religion benefit from using “worldview” and how the authors can address their points more clearly by using the concept and its three essential characteristics.

In this paper the authors briefly present what their theoretical reflections and empirical research has yielded in respect to citizenship education and religious education. The theoretical as well as political and practical questions of the relationship of global citizenship and worldview education are scrutinized. The main focus is on the issue whether there is or could be a connection between the concepts of ‘worldview education’ and global citizenship ‘education’ from the point of view of inclusivity in respect to both concepts. Habermas’s distinction between the concepts of democratic state citizenship and global or cosmopolitan citizenship is conceptually helpful. The authors also take into account the question of whether there is a certain educational, political or religious necessity on a national as well as global level to deal with this possible relationship as viewed through the lens of social sustainability.

In this Presidential Address 2013 the author's plea is threefold. First, to strive for a legitimate place of religions and worldviews in the public square within the playing field of liberal-democratic societies. Second, to foster the religious or worldview identity formation of students as an inclusive part of the embracing personhood formation for all students in both public and denominational schools, and to strengthen the development of their self responsible self-determination in respect to religions and worldviews. Third, dialogue, encounter, and understanding each other should be seen as the devices, instead of policies and practices fostered by anxiety, fear, and disrespect. Thus, pedagogues, politicians, administrators, teachers, and leaders of religious and worldview communities and societal organizations should join forces for the best educational arrangements to let the religious and worldview identity formation of students flourish. This will also be beneficial for the common good, for society broadly speaking.

Diverse societies face increasing racial tension, social divide, religious illiteracy, and secularism. What role can education play in confronting these challenges? Universities generate scientific knowledge but less so the search for meaning. Worldview studies encompasses both views of life and ways of life. Exploring various worldviews becomes a search for meaning and a journey into knowing self and others. This article seeks to engage multiple partners to develop teaching pedagogies, curricula, and educational tools to enhance greater knowledge, awareness, and understanding of various worldviews.

This article researches whether approaches to moral education aim to influence the development of the personal worldview of students. An example of a Dutch moral education programme is presented and the findings are used to analyse various approaches to moral education. Our analysis demonstrates that every approach aims to influence the personal worldview of students because of underlying ontological beliefs. This is the inevitable and minimal influence a moral education approach has on personal worldview. Our analysis also demonstrates that two approaches go further: Aristotle’s virtue ethics and Kantian deontological ethics. Both aim to contribute to the personal worldview development because they aim to influence the broad moral views (ethical and teleological matters) students have.

The central question in this article is whether teaching morality necessarily means paying attention to ‘worldview’. We investigate a conceptual and a justificatory relationship between these two. A distinction is made between organised and personal worldview and between narrow and broad morality. Some schools want to avoid influence on the students’ views based on organised worldviews they adhere to. This is not always possible. The article explains why. It demonstrates that that when one teaches broad morality, attention is paid to the personal worldview of students. Finally, the article discusses the implications of our analysis for reflections on education.