Religion and Ecology - Main Monotheistic Traditions WF-OB-SURAE

KNOWLEDGE

Student defines and identifies the importance of religion in overcoming the ecological crisis.

SKILLS

Student, on the basis of logical premises, elaborates the right hypotheses concerning the importance of religion in overcoming the ecological crisis.

COMPETENCE

Student is aware of the importance of religion in overcoming the ecological crisis.

ECTS [1 ECTS = 30(25) hours]:

Attendance at lectures: 30 hours.

Reading of the literature: 30 hours

E-learning exercises: 16 hours

Preparation of the paper (2000 words): 22 hours

Consultation with the lecturer: 2 hours

Sum of hours: 100 [100/25=4]

Number of ECTS: 4

KNOWLEDGE
Grade 2.0 (Fail): The student cannot define key concepts and cannot explain how religion may relate to addressing the ecological crisis.
Grade 3.0 (Satisfactory): The student defines key concepts but the explanation is partial, overly general, or contains significant gaps.
Grade 4.0 (Good): The student correctly defines key concepts and explains the role of religion in overcoming the ecological crisis using relevant examples and course literature.
Grade 5.0 (Very good): The student provides a precise and nuanced explanation, compares approaches or interpretations, and supports claims with well-chosen examples and literature.

SKILLS
Grade 2.0 (Fail): The student cannot formulate coherent hypotheses/arguments from given premises; reasoning is inconsistent or unsupported.
Grade 3.0 (Satisfactory): The student formulates basic hypotheses/arguments, but reasoning is weak, incomplete, or insufficiently supported.
Grade 4.0 (Good): The student formulates coherent hypotheses/arguments and supports them with structured reasoning and references to relevant sources.
Grade 5.0 (Very good): The student formulates strong and original hypotheses/arguments, anticipates objections, and defends conclusions with robust reasoning and appropriate sources.

COMPETENCE (Reflective and Social Competence)
Grade 2.0 (Fail): The student shows no meaningful reflection on ethical/social implications of the topic in discussion or written work.
Grade 3.0 (Satisfactory): Basic reflection is present, but shallow, inconsistent, or poorly linked to arguments.
Grade 4.0 (Good): The student demonstrates clear reflection on ethical/social implications and a responsible stance in discussion and written work.
Grade 5.0 (Very good): The student demonstrates a mature, well-articulated reflective stance, openness to dialogue, and ethical sensitivity grounded in well-formed arguments.

Components of the Final Grade (weighted)

1. In-class engagement (active participation) – 25%
This component is based exclusively on demonstrated engagement and assigned in-class contributions, awarded by the instructor at the end of each class.
How points are awarded (25 points total):
Across the semester, the instructor assigns 10 engagement marks, each worth 0–2.5 points (10 × 2.5 = 25). Each mark reflects the student’s contribution during a given class meeting (or a clearly defined class segment), based on one or more of the following activities:
• Substantive contributions to discussion (argument quality, use of concepts, relevance).
• Group work contribution and peer feedback (clear input, responsiveness, constructive critique).
• Short presentations / moderation of discussion (when assigned).
• Concept clarification / synthesis (brief end-of-class summary, linking themes, identifying key tensions, proposing a takeaway question).
Make-up option: If a student misses a class for a justified reason, they may complete an equivalent task (e.g., a short reflection on the assigned reading or a structured forum post on Moodle) to earn the corresponding points.
Instructor’s quick scale for a single class mark (0–2.5 pts):
• 0.0 – no assessable contribution
• 1.0 – minimal contribution (brief/mostly descriptive)
• 1.5 – adequate contribution (relevant, concept-aware)
• 2.0 – strong contribution (well-argued, connects ideas)
• 2.5 – outstanding contribution (precise, synthetic, advances discussion)
Conversion to grade for this component:
• 0.0–12.25 pts → 2.0
• 12.5–16.0 pts → 3.0
• 16.25–19.75 pts → 4.0
• 20.0–25.0 pts → 5.0

2. E-learning exercises – 25%
Students complete assigned e-learning tasks (quizzes/short assignments/forum tasks, depending on the platform setup). The score is calculated as the percentage of points earned across all e-learning exercises.
Conversion to grade for this component (quarter-grade steps):
• 0–39% → 2.0
• 40–44% → 2.25
• 45–49% → 2.5
• 50–54% → 2.75
• 55–59% → 3.0
• 60–64% → 3.25
• 65–69% → 3.5
• 70–74% → 3.75
• 75–79% → 4.0
• 80–84% → 4.25
• 85–89% → 4.5
• 90–94% → 4.75
• 95–100% → 5.0

3. Paper (1500–2000 words) – 50%
Students submit an individual paper addressing the role of religion in overcoming the ecological crisis. The paper is assessed using the rubric above (knowledge, skills, competence), with emphasis on:
• conceptual clarity and correctness,
• structure and logical coherence of argument,
• use of relevant literature and proper referencing,
• reflective/ethical depth and engagement with implications.

Final Grade Calculation
The final grade is calculated as a weighted average of:
• In-class engagement (active participation): 25%
• E-learning exercises: 25%
• Paper (1500–2000 words): 50%

ALLISON, Elizabeth. 2007. Religious Organizations Taking Action on Climate Change. Garrison, NY: Garrison Institute.

BAUMAN Whitney A., Richard R. BOHANNON and Kevin J. O'BRIEN. 2011. Grounding Religion: A Field Guide to the Study of Religion and Ecology. London - New York: Routledge.

GOTTLIEB, Roger S. (ed.). 2006. The Oxford Handbook of Religion and Ecology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

GRIM, John and Mary E. TUCKER. 2014. Ecology and Religion. Washington, DC : Island Press.

SADOWSKI, Ryszard F. 2009. „Religion and Ecology” – nowy paradygmat poznawczy. Studia Ecologiae et Bioethicae, 7(1), 213-220.

SADOWSKI, Ryszard F. 2012. Religious motivations for the protection of forest ecosystems. Folia oecologica, 39(2), 139-146.

SADOWSKI, Ryszard F. 2017. Resources within Spiritual and Mystical Christian Traditions for the Care of Earth—our Common Home. In: Alliance for the Care of Our Common Home: Taking Forward Laudato si’, edited by Joshtrom I. Kureethadam, 176-189. Rome: LAS.

TUCKER, Mary E. 2003. Worldly Wonder. Religions Enter Their Ecological Phase. Chicago - La Salle: Open Court.

Additional information (registration calendar, class conductors, localization and schedules of classes), might be available in the USOSweb system:

• Description of WF-OB-SURAE in USOSweb