“Teaching the Millennial Generation in the Religious and Theological Studies Classroom.”

Teaching the Millennial Generation in the Religious andTheological Studies Classroom

Whitney BaumanFlorida International UniversityJoseph A. MarchalBall State UniversityKarline McLainBucknell UniversityMaureen O’ConnellLaSalle UniversitySara M. PattersonHanover College

Abstract. This essay provides an overview of the distinctive challenges presented toteaching and learning in religious and theological studies by the conditions andcharacteristics of “millennial” students. While the emerging literature on this generationis far from consistent, it is still instructive and important to engage, as students that areimmersed in technology and social networking have different facilities and difficultiesthat educators would do well to carefully address and critically employ. Teachers intheological and religious studies are distinctly positioned to grapple with such conditions,particularly around the practices of identity formation, media literacy, and embodiment.Attention to the development of such practices engages key issues for both the millennialstudents and the religious and theological studies teacher: virtual reality, spiritualidentity, globalization and violence, critical consumption and ethical creativity, focusedand contemplative thinking, and intercultural and interpersonal respect.

Most students entering North American universities today have come of age in the midstof a space-time crunch, an unprecedented time of exponential increases in the speed ofcommunication and transportation.1 For the privileged members of this generationalcohort, born between 1980 and 2000 and often referred to as “millennials,” being con-tinuously connected to information, online social networks, and people and placesaround the globe via increasingly customizable digital technology is an inherent facetof what it means to be human.2 Moreover, access to such technology increasingly

1 The authors wish to thank each of their institutions as well as the Wabash Center for Teaching andLearning in Theology and Religion for their support of this project through several phases.

2 We do not claim that this common “millennial” context is universal or reductive. In fact there aremany reasons to be suspicious of an analysis that privileges generational categories, since doing so canobfuscate other important differences in gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, class, and geography.

ARTICLES

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons LtdTeaching Theology and Religion, Volume 17, Issue 4, October 2014 301

influences various factors of the social mobility of the majority in this generationalcohort from education to employment.3 The impact of these conditions for teaching andlearning remains largely unknown, and the emerging literature in this area is passionatebut inconsistent.

While acknowledging the dangers of generational generalizing, we join other schol-ars in contending that the millennial cohort, as well as the cultural context in whichthey live and learn, is driving significant changes in higher education and the learningspaces of our institutions. These changes are likely to affect conditions for teachingand learning beyond this set of students and will shape what will be (or in someplaces is already operating as) common sense in and out of the classroom. We hopeto advance existing scholarship by suggesting why professors of theological and reli-gious studies ought to make understanding these dynamics a priority, and not simplybecause college students of the new millennium define the context of our teaching.Far more important in our estimation is the distinctive position of educators in thesedisciplines, given the learning objectives of religious and theological studies, toengage students in developing a critical perspective on the millennial context in whichthey live, and in cultivating practices that will enable them to flourish as conscientiousglobal citizens. With this imperative in mind, and conscious of the fact that weexplore these generational differences from our perspectives as Generation X profes-sors positioned between retiring Boomer professors and Millennial students, our essayhas two main objectives.

First, in order to support the claim that theological and religious studies has impor-tant things to contribute to millennial learning, we offer a review of the literature on thisgenerational cohort and its implications for higher education, highlighting significantgaps in this scholarship pertaining to the specific context of religious and theologicalstudies classrooms. Second, we raise some pedagogical questions that millennial stu-dents pose to us as educators in these disciplines, with the intention of identifying pos-sible trajectories for future research in this area. Specifically, we highlight threeparticular conditions on which professors of theological and religious studies mightfocus in order to make valuable contributions to the intellectual and personal develop-ment of millennial students: identity formation, media literacy, and embodiment. Weargue that theological and religious studies classrooms are distinctively situated toinspire millennial students to reflect critically on these three issues and to become moreconscientious global citizens.

It is not our intention to essentialize or universalize claims about the students in ourclassrooms, nor to ignore the fact that those students are far from representative of allAmericans born between 1980 and 2000 (or after). Rather we wish to identify trendsand probabilities about the context in which they learn and the particular capabilitiesthey bring to our classrooms, in order to appropriately search the resources within ourdisciplines that enable us to respond more proactively to our students’ aptitudes andneeds.

3 A focus on the millennial generation reveals a sharp technological divide that widens the gapbetween haves and have-nots: only 30 percent of the world is online, for instance, and according to aspeech by President Obama on Thursday, February 10, 2011, only one in six U.S. households is“wired.”

Teaching the Millennial Generation

© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd302

Who Are the Millennials and How Are They Changing Higher Education?Over the past decade, scholars and popular authors have argued that a new generationof student has entered the university. Though often referred to as the “wired,” “net,”or “i” generation (or as digital natives), we intentionally invoke the term millennialwhen referring to this new generation of students for three reasons. First, given theproblems of economic disparity fueled by digital disparity, it would be presumptuousto suggest that an entire generation can be marked solely by the experience of theelite few who have access to such wired and networked technologies. The term mil-lennial is qualitatively arbitrary and simply refers to the fact that our students havecome of age around the end of the second millennium and therefore have been dis-tinctively shaped by a childhood of increased technological connectivity through avariety of media, the implications of which continue to evolve. John Palfrey and UrsGasser, for example, argue that millennials were “born digital,” noting that they “wereall born after 1980, when social digital technologies, such as Usenet and bulletinboard systems, came online. They all have access to networked digital technologies.And they all have the skills to use those technologies” (2008, 3). Indeed, this facilitywith and immersion in technology leads Don Tapscott to conclude that these youngpeople “have a natural affinity for technology that seems uncanny” (2008, 9). Theyinstinctively turn first to the Internet to communicate, understand, learn, find, and domany things.

Second, and as we will discuss in greater detail in the following section, we choosethe term millennial to name this generational cohort because it also acknowledges aseries of world events, many involving religious division and violence, that shape thecultural landscape in which our students came of age; events that continue to play a sig-nificant role in forming their sense of self and community. Third, unlike other terms forthese students and their practices, there appears to be a kind of “millennial momentum”(Winograd and Hais 2011). Millennial has entered the popular lexicon and has become(for better or worse) a common expression in public discourse about this generation andtheir patterns of behavior. Practically speaking, then, millennial now appears as an ordi-nary description in both everyday reporting and polling, far more frequently than affili-ated terms like digital natives (which might pose some of its own conceptual problemsby borrowing a loaded, colonialist, and racializing term).

We believe that it is also important to note the ways in which both the conditions andcharacteristics of millennials affect higher education and how their educational goalsand contexts may differ dramatically from the goals of religious and theological studiesclassrooms. Generally speaking, millennial students are among the drivers toward effi-ciency, assessibility, and economic viability, factors that converge to create what politi-cal philosopher Martha Nussbaum has called an “education for profit” paradigm that hascome to pervade higher education. Even before they arrive on college campuses,millennials have been steeped in the idea that they are part of an economic educationalsystem in which they are the consumers searching for the educational route that willmake them the most economically viable workers in the long run. Indeed, in the moreenthusiastic corners of literature, the prominent virtues of an education transformed byand for millennials feature hyper-individualistic choice and speed to an unprecedentedconsumerist degree (for example, Thomas and Brown 2011, 51; Winograd and Hais2011, 184). In this model knowledge is not only meant to be consumed, but it is cel-ebrated often simply because it can be produced to be consumed and distributed withsuch unlimited and undelayed customization.


© 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 303

The educational model in which millennial students are coming of age contrasts withthe “global citizenship” paradigm that emphasizes “the ability to think critically,” “theability to transcend local loyalties and to approach world problems as ‘citizens of theworld,’ ” and “the ability to imagine sympathetically the predicament of another person”(Nussbaum 2010, 7). Instead the “for profit” paradigm prioritizes economic growth asthe end goal for learning, promising “basic skills for some, and more advanced skills forothers,” and emphasizes science and technology. When the educational paradigm is toofirmly tied to an often narrowly conceived “choice” (in terms of economic optimizationand/or instant impact or gratification), even educators excited about the current digitalrevolution begin to worry, justifiably, that few would choose crucial, horizon-expandingopportunities that help people understand and deal with human differences, like thosesurrounding religious background (Collins and Halvorson 2009, 107). The for profitmodel challenges the legitimacy of the goals of most religious studies classrooms,making it even more difficult to convince millennial students of the value of the globalcitizenship paradigm that offers the skills necessary for navigating the complexities ofthe new millennium.

That the for profit model takes precedence on many college campuses is evident inthe economization and professionalization of the humanities. Consider, for example, therequirements from university administrations to show the assessable outcomes of a givenmajor, which for many disciplines in the humanities, including religious studies andtheological studies, are not always apparent. Since they have not been steeped in aculture that acknowledges the values of an education oriented toward democracy, mil-lennial students can hardly be expected to recognize the humanities as a place wherethey can step outside of the economic model of life, or even just pause a millennialmoment to reflect in a “world of constant change” (Thomas and Brown 2011), and criti-cally assess alternatives for the future.

More specifically, millennials present an array of specific pedagogical questions andchallenges for existing models of higher education. Larry Rosen, for instance, arguesthat the contemporary educational setting and delivery method does not meet the needsof this generation. He writes, “Gone are the days when students would sit quietly inclass, reading a book or doing a math worksheet. Literally, their minds have changed –they have been ‘rewired’ ” (Rosen 2010, 3).4 Mark Taylor claims that our contemporary“network culture” threatens the “world of walls” so familiar in higher education – wheredistinct demarcations among disciplines often cultivates scholarship done in quiet isola-tion – with a “world of webs” that is interactive, diverse, fungible, and increasingly thesource of political, economic, and cultural power (2010, 70–71).

These scholars argue that higher education needs to change in two primary ways tomeet the needs of this digitally socialized generation. First, new educational practicesare needed to reach and engage the millennials in the learning process. According toRosen, more technology should be incorporated into the curriculum, especially viamobile devices such as smart phones and tablets (Rosen 2010, 203–204; cf. Tapscott2008, 121–148). Neil Howe and William Strauss argue that in addition to incorporatingtechnology, the millennial context calls for more collaborative, team-building exercises

4 For a further discussion of the “rewiring” of human brains through the interaction with currenttechnology, see Clark (2003).



that prepare students for personal and professional lives in that world of webs (2003,57–65).

Second, changing global conditions predicate new educational objectives that canprepare the millennials to engage the world. Howard Gardner argues that because stu-dents now have the ability to survey huge bodies of information both print and elec-tronic, the ability to organize that information in useful ways looms more important thanever. He further argues that because we live in an increasingly connected and globalworld, the ability to interact with people from different backgrounds in respectful waysis increasingly vital (Gardner 2008, 9–19). Taylor insists that in order to resist thegrowing perception that colleges and professors are increasingly at odds with or out oftouch with “the real world,” academics will need to “prove [new technologies’] potentialfor improving education and enriching the lives of everyone” (2010, 83).

Despite the recent abundance of scholarship addressing the millennial generation’simpact on higher education, a significant gap in the literature exists when it comes toexamining the characteristics of millennials and the implications of the new millennialconditions for teaching and learning in the specific disciplines of religious and theologi-cal studies. In what follows we attempt to bridge this gap by focusing on three topicswhere millennial and religious sensibilities converge in the classroom and which theo-logical and religious studies educators are distinctively positioned to address: identityformation, media literacy, and embodiment.

Millennial Identity FormationGenerations are constituted by the historical events that “shape peer groups, and shapethem differently depending on the phase of life they occupy” (Howe, Strauss, and Nadler2008, 7). As a generation, millennials in North America not only share a facility with andimmersion in digital technology; they are also united by memories of key historic eventsthat have been formative in their generational identity. In the aftermath of events like theterrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, millennials have grown up in a culture of fearthat often portrays religion in its extremes and asserts a significant connection betweenreligion and violence. Even for those whose childhood memories hold only faintglimpses of these events, their lives have been inextricably shaped by cultural changes onscales both intimate and international. Their experiences of untold access to informationcome accompanied with often-unknown vulnerabilities. The increase in surveillance that(ostensibly) guards against such vulnerabilities has created a superpanoptic securitysociety that could be difficult to challenge or change in the years to come (Simon 2005).Examining this context in the religious or theological studies classroom can be an impor-tant backdrop for exploring and contextualizing students’ own beliefs.

Some scholarship suggests that millennials have been shaped by these historicalevents in ways that make them more conventional than Generation X and BabyBoomers. Howe and Strauss, for instance, argue that they are “neo-traditional” in thatthey are seeking religious or spiritual moorings and “overwhelmingly favor the teachingof values in schools, including honesty, caring, moral courage, patriotism, democracy,and the Golden Rule” (2003, 37 and 67–70).5 But other studies suggest that the more werecognize that identity formation for millennials happens in large part online and istherefore different from identity formation in earlier generations, the more we may

5 Coomes and DeBard prefer the term “new Puritanism” to “neo-traditionalism” (2004, 21).



realize that “experimentation and reinvention of identities” are also taking place (Palfreyand Gasser 2008, 21).

A number of studies have attempted to assess the religious and spiritual lives of themillennial generation. Christian Smith and Patricia Snell explore the faith of millennials(a group they call “emerging adults”); they claim that the people in this group are “as awhole less religious than are older adults and than they themselves were when theywere teenagers; but today’s emerging adults do not appear to be dramatically less reli-gious than former generations of emerging adults have been, at least going back to theearly 1970s” (2009, 281). One of the issues examined in this study that is most pertinentto our own project is the narrative that higher education erodes religious belief and com-mitment – a narrative that some studies found true for the Baby Boomer generation.Smith and Snell argue that this narrative does not hold true for the millennial genera-tion. They found that students in college were “slightly more religious than those whoare not in college, although only the differences in overall religiousness and serviceattendance are statistically significant” (Smith and Snell 2009, 250–251). Further, astudy performed in 2004 by the Higher Education Research Institute found that studentsin college “have very high levels of spiritual interest and involvement. Many are activelyengaged in a spiritual quest and are exploring the meaning and purpose of life. Theyalso display high levels of religious commitment and involvement” (HERI 2006, 5).What this data suggests is that millennials are often religiously committed and hope toexplore their emotional and spiritual selves during their time in college.

In another study, Alexander W. Astin, Helen S. Astin, and Jennifer A. Lindholminvestigate how institutions of higher education might better help students develop theirinner lives. One of the problems the authors note is that institutions of higher educationhave become much more concerned with external rather than internal development. Atthe same time, surveys of entering first-year students “show that the personal goal of‘being very well off financially’ has grown dramatically in popularity, while the value of‘developing a meaningful philosophy of life’ – which was the highest-ranked concern inthe 1970s – has declined sharply among students” (Astin et al. 2011, 2–3). These factorsimply that the change in institutional perspective reflects the changes in students’ ownperspectives. And yet, these studies demonstrate that college students are strongly inter-ested in the exploration of spiritual and religious matters. We believe that religious andtheological studies classrooms have an important contribution to make to this endeavor.And, as Astin, Astin, and Lindholm found, internal and spiritual development – bothinside and outside the classroom – is tied in significant ways to the development of stu-dents as global citizens.

Far from understanding “spiritual development” within the confines of one of thetraditional so-called world religions, we understand spiritual to be a much broader cat-egory in that it encompasses meaning-making practices outside of the world’s majorreligions. In other words, the fact that many of our students are religiously hybrid(Christians that practice yoga, or Jews that practice meditation) and draw upon non-religious sources for meaning (including the sciences), means that we can no longermerely assume a comparative approach to the study of world religions. Furthermore,many of our students count themselves publicly among the “nones,” or those who do notconsider themselves to be religious at all. For these reasons, religious studies mustincorporate the study of secular, materialist, and scientific value formations if we are tomeet the needs of the students entering our classrooms. This is simply part of the sociol-ogy of our contemporary classroom.



In addition, psychologists and sociologists are just beginning to understand thedynamics of Boomer parenting, as well as the implications of coming of age in an eco-nomic boom and bust on the identity formation of young adults. Millennials are amongthe first to enter the category of “emerging adulthood,” a new and hotly contested stageof emotional and moral development characterized by prolonged financial and emotionaldependency on parents obsessed with their children’s “happiness,” a variety of short-term employment endeavors, and putting off marriage until the late twenties (Henig2010; Gottlieb 2011; Marche 2012). Whether identity is formed in this stage, and howthat process unfolds when guided by the nebulous concept of happiness, remain openquestions.

While scholars have seriously examined the impact of identity in the religious andtheological studies classroom in numerous ways,6 work still needs to be done on the topicof how the millennial generation in particular negotiates religious identities in the reli-gious and theological studies classroom. Many questions remain and deserve furtherexploration, and theological and religious studies classrooms are ideal spaces for theseinquiries. Investigating what the connections are between religion and violence in thepivotal events that shaped their generation will be an important aspect of encouragingstudents to think critically about religion as a source of meaning and motivation in practi-tioners’ lives. It can also be an important media literacy lesson if it is used to encouragethem to think about the way that the media has played a role in shaping how they thinkabout religion, both their own and others’. As Anindita Balslev notes, perhaps one of theprimary formats of multi-religious dialogue should center around how various religionsconceive of the other, both within their own religion and external to it (1998). In learninghow one’s own tradition “others” those who are not a part of it or who are somehow dif-ferent, students begin to realize the ways in which power and authority are related to theconstruction of knowledge and values. Such a lesson is invaluable in terms of becoming acritical global citizen. Moreover, religious and theological studies classrooms are idealplaces to critically examine our different concepts of happiness and the end of human lifeas understood by practitioners of the world’s religions. We identify three particular areasof millennial identity formation where further research might be conducted and where thereligious and theological studies classroom might be particularly poised to address.

Religion and Virtual IdentitiesPalfrey and Gasser note that millennials have multiple self-representations, and expressthose identities virtually through online social networks (2008, 21–23), like Facebook,Twitter, Tumblr, Pinterest, and whatever other platform emerges and appeals to their inter-ests. If, as Rosen suggests, millennials are actually more comfortable and honest whenspeaking “behind the screen” than in person (2010, 23 and 39–40), then we must acceptthe charge of helping this generation of students learn to ethically negotiate online andoffline identities. Further, given that theological and religious reflections and examina-tions often take place in the “virtual” world of ideas, values, imaginations, and narratives,we must bring the tools used to critically examine these virtual worlds to bear on the

6 For instance, religious and theological studies scholars have considered the impact of race, gender,and class, as well as religious persuasion, of both the professor and the student in a number of studies.Examples include Evans (2007); Jackson (2004); Hill (2009); Ramsay (2005); Thompson (2000); andWestfield (2008).



virtual worlds of the Internet and social media. In terms of studying the other, virtualworlds may be particularly useful in trying on and trying out multiple perspectives, and innavigating perspectives different from one’s own. Rather than the virtual being a place ofmere escape from oneself and others, it could be a site of deep engagement. Such engage-ment with others is part of what constitutes spirituality in a globalized context.

Religion / Spirituality in the ClassroomBarbara Walvoord demonstrated that there is a “great divide” between faculty goals inteaching introductory religion courses and student goals in enrolling in them. Whereasfaculty regularly cite “critical thinking” as a primary goal, students cite “development oftheir own beliefs and values” (Walvoord 2008, 13). If the millennials we teach are indeed“neo-traditional” and “trusting” of religious organizations and other institutions, asopposed to the “spirituality seeking” Generation X that had “lost confidence in traditionalinstitutions such as government and churches” (Howe and Strauss 2003, 31–40),7 then wemust employ new approaches to pedagogy in order to teach the students that we now havein this digital age. In particular it might be helpful to highlight the hybridity of religiousidentities not just in the contemporary era of globalization, but historically. In otherwords, rather than assuming that students are interested in critically examining their tradi-tions, it might be useful to show the polydoxy within religious traditions at any givenpoint throughout history. Whether one wants to talk about the multiple interpretations andrituals within religious traditions or one wants to highlight the interaction between reli-gions at critical points – The Silk Road, The Ancient Near East, the Convivencia, and theera of European Colonization – providing students with thicker understandings of thepolydox nature of religious traditions is crucial in an era of globalization.

Globalization and IdentityScholars have noted that the millennial generation is more diverse than past generationsof college students (Johnstone 2008). However, scholars have also noted that our currenthigher educational system does not adequately prepare today’s students in the face ofaccelerating globalization that occurs not only through the movement of people andcapital across borders, but also through the movement of information through cyber-space. Given calls by Taylor (2010), Gardner (2008), and others to reform higher educa-tion, religious and theological studies curriculum may be uniquely positioned to usemillennial technological capabilities to cultivate meaningful engagement with religious“others” in our classrooms or to explore the reality of religious hybridity which mirrorsthe reality of our millennial students. Furthermore, such technologies might be helpfulin terms of moving discussions of ethics and politics beyond discussion of identity,nation, and other boundaries and toward that of planetary politics and identities. Suchattention to the ways in which information, energy, and resources are involved in plan-etary flows also means that part of our job as educators is to teach our students to becritical consumers of goods and information.

Critical Media Literacy and Ethical Digital CreativityThough they are steeped in the technology of the Internet, Taylor observes “as emergingtechnologies continue to transform how we manage information and acquire knowledge,

7 On Generation X, see Cherry, DeBerg, and Porterfield (2001, 276).



students will need to develop new skills and even learn different ways of thinking, reading,and writing” (2010, 3). Since they have been immersed in digital technology, Tapscott findsthe millennial generation prepared for this challenge. This immersion, he argues, has beenpositive overall. Although millennials face challenges, including having to process a vastamount of incoming information, they have the ability to meet them: “On the Net, childrenhave had to search for, rather than simply look at, information. This forces them to developthinking and investigative skills – and much more. They must become critics” (Tapscott2008, 21).8 But many scholars do not share Tapscott’s optimism. Indeed, several concernshave been raised about the downside of such digital immersion on today’s generation ofcollege students. Rosen, for example, argues that although millennials are adept users of theInternet, they are not adept evaluators of it. They tend to trust the first links in Googlesearches, and they rarely check the credibility of the information they discover or the creden-tials of those who generate it (Rosen 2010, 168–169).

The benefit of living in this age of instant information and communication comes at acost. Given their “Google gullibility” millennials are often unable to assess or evaluateonline sources for reliability or relevance to their area of study (Bauerlein 2011, 55–58).Our students face issues of reliability and quality on a daily basis as they surf the oceanof information on the Internet. Without proper tools for critical reflection or self-awareness, they are likely to drown in issues of discernment and discretion that facethem as they generate their own contributions to this vast sea of information throughblogs, commentary, and images with a kind of permanency that few students truly grasp.Even the enthusiasts have to admit that millennials’ multitasking has meant the crucialloss of valuable time to pause and reflect (Bauerlein 2011, 18–19). Training students tobe savvy and thoughtful assessors, users, and creators of texts, images, web, and digitalmedia becomes increasingly important, both generally speaking and when it comes toinformation pertaining to theology or religion.

Religious Literacy and the InternetWith regard to religious literacy in particular, several scholars of religion have lamentedthat Americans of all ages lack even basic religious knowledge. Steven Prothero arguesthat “Americans’ knowledge of religion runs as shallow as Americans’ commitment toreligion runs deep” (2007, 34). This is especially pressing because millennials almostautomatically turn to the web as a reliable source. Moreover, as religious adherents havegrown increasingly outspoken in recent years about how they should be represented inacademic textbooks and course syllabi, they have also begun to turn to the Internet andvarious social networking media to communicate their messages to believers as well asnonbelievers.9 In light of an ever-growing multiplicity of online claims to represent thesingular “truth” of a religious text or tradition, the imperative to train students to be savvyevaluators of websites – both religious and “secular” – and of virtual evangelization inthis digital age grows.

8 Lancaster and Stillman also argue that the millennials have a “highly developed ability to sortthrough information” because throughout their entire lives they have “had data spewed at them fromevery direction at warp speed” (2005, 231).

9 Palfrey and Gasser, for instance, note that in this digital age, “even religion is being transformed:Priests and pastors, imams, rabbis, gurus, and even Buddhist monks have begun to reach their faithfulthrough their weblogs” (2008, 3). Also see Drescher (2011).



Prothero suggests that the remedy lies in teaching basic religious literacy, especiallybiblical literacy and the history of Christianity, to the current generation of students inpublic schools and in colleges. Eugene Gallagher agrees that we must accept Prothero’schallenge and teach for religious literacy at the collegiate level, noting: “whether theyare deeply or shallowly involved in the practice of a religion, hazily conscious of someof the roles religions play in American civic life or simply vaguely aware that religion issomething that some other people do, they are unaccustomed to thinking critically aboutreligion” (2009, 210). Given that most of the undergraduate students in our classes arenot religious studies majors and therefore most of our classes serve as introductorycourses to the discipline, Gallagher argues that it is imperative that we teach studentsnot just the what of religion (such as basic facts about Christianity or other world reli-gions), but also the why of religion: “why human beings have persisted in this mode ofbehavior, even as it has imposed extraordinary demands on them and as frequentlybrought them to tears as to joy” (2009, 208).10 In other words, we need to teach our stu-dents to ask why it is that whatever else human beings are and do, we seem to be per-sistent meaning-makers within the planetary community. Just how we co-create thosemeanings and how those meanings affect our bodies, the bodies of other peoples, andour relationships with the larger planetary community are some of the “why” questionswe should be helping our students explore. As part of that, our critical eye on meaning-making comes round to explore the very technologies of globalization and how they arechanging the ways in which we relate to others (both human and non).

While some scholarship does, then, exist on the need for media literacy in religiousand theological studies and ways to incorporate technology into the religious studies ortheology classroom, professors of theological and religious studies might bring thisscholarship together to teach religious literacy to the millennial generation in particu-lar.11 As those familiar with the exegetical skills necessary to decipher original meaningsand ongoing significance of sacred texts, professors of religious and theological studiesare particularly well equipped to cultivate the critical literacy of our students preciselyby engaging religion in its many forms on the Internet.

Ethical Digital CreativityIn addition to lacking critical thinking skills with regard to digital media, other scholarsraise concerns about millennials’ too-frequent use of digital media in ways that involveplagiarism and copyright infringement. Palfrey and Gasser comment, “Creativity is theupside of this brave new world of digital media. The downside is law-breaking,” andfurther state that the vast majority of millennials are “currently breaking copyright lawson a regular basis” (2008, 132). Similarly, Howe and Strauss note that, as a generation,millennials are typically well educated and well behaved, but “may also have a tendencytoward copying, consensus, and conformity that educators will want to challenge”(2003, 18). Such “free sharing” of information goes a long way to realize the intellec-

10 Like Gallagher, other religious studies scholars have focused on the significance of the introduc-tory course in religious studies and the types of course objectives one should ideally seek to meet inteaching them. See, for instance, Smith (1988) and Walvoord (2008).

11 A number of articles on media literacy in religious and theological studies have provided casestudies for incorporating select media into particular courses, such as Delamarter et al. (2007) andRoyalty (2002).



tual commons on the one hand. On the other hand, it can become harder for our stu-dents to find their own voices. When so many voices are available, it becomes harder toimagine that you might have something creative or unique to add to the conversation.12

Further, even when such voices do find space to participate in the relaxed, but continu-ous activities of “hanging out, messing around, and geeking out” (Ito et al. 2009), thereis seldom occasion to ethically reflect upon these activities or critique their possibleapplications or implications.

Gallagher comments that popular media can “function pedagogically as the tips oficebergs. They can be used to raise serious questions about the what, how, and why ofreligion” (2009, 214). If, as Rosen has suggested, millennials respond best to assign-ments that engage them by allowing them to make connections with contemporaryculture and to creatively employ their facility with technology (2010, 127–148), thenprofessors of religious and theological studies must begin to devise assignments thatemploy digital media intentionally to help today’s students not only learn basic factsabout religion, but also engage and assess sources as part of learning about the disci-pline of theological and religious studies in this digital age. Given that religious studiesand theology courses often have an implicit if not explicit humanist or ethical dimen-sion, they are ideal places for raising questions regarding the means and ends of digitaltechnology. Just how these digital technologies shape bodies and transform our relationsto one another is yet another conundrum with which religious and theological studiesclassrooms can wrestle.

Millennial EmbodimentAn additional concern raised about millennials’ immersion in digital technology is thattheir exposure to the Internet is rewiring their minds, increasing their ability tomultitask, but simultaneously decreasing their ability to focus deliberately. NicholasCarr notes that as mental functions that support multitasking increase, those that“support calm, linear thought – the ones we use in traversing a lengthy narrative or aninvolved argument, the ones we draw on when we reflect on our experiences or contem-plate an outward or inward phenomenon” are decreased (2010, 242; cf. Rosen 2010,33). The brain’s ability to interact and communicate can burn out under the strain ofcontinuous, but only partial attention (Bauerlein 2011, 91–94). Another study by thePew Charitable Trust shows that teens expect more and more instant communicationbetween one another and parents expect to be immediately in contact with their childrenvia smart phone communication, raising questions about what such expectations do forissues of patience and trust (Lenhart et al. 2010). Anderson and Konrath raise similarconcerns about rates of empathy which have reached their lowest numbers amongcollege students – down 34 percent on “perspective taking” and 48 percent on empa-thetic concern – since these dispositions were first tracked in 1980 (2012). Turkle notesthat the demands of this unceasing posting and monitoring contributes to what she callsthe “alone together” phenomenon, an anxiety and depression that comes with alwayshaving to be available to others at the expense of periods and practices of solitude(2012). Scientists are just now discovering the literal depth of this anxiety in the human

12 This is also a cross-cultural issue. Many systems of education throughout the world focus on rotememorization of information and then the giving back of that information in papers and on exams. Thestudent’s “voice” is not to intrude upon this process.



physiology, in terms of its effects on our cells, the ways in which certain genes areexpressed, and the shape of neuropathways, particularly those connecting the brain andthe heart. Says UNC psychologist Barbara Frederickson, “If you don’t regularly exerciseyour ability to connect face to face, you’ll eventually find yourself lacking some of thebasic biological capacity to do so” (2013).

Scholarship on the topic of embodiment in the religious and theological studies class-room has focused primarily on two, interrelated issues. First, scholars have begun tocontribute to the substantial and growing body of research on “disembodied” pedagogyin the form of online education by evaluating the obstacles and opportunities of virtualor hybrid education for our particular discipline. In the past decade or more, a numberof scholars have begun to map out best practices for teaching online courses in theologi-cal and religious studies (Brunner 2006; Harlow 2007; Hege 2011; and Litchfield 1999).Mary Hess, for instance, discusses the anxiety that some Christian theologians feel withregard to the integration of online technology into the theological classroom, arisingfrom the fear that “theologically focused learning has something uniquely and integrallyrelational about it to which we cannot attend in the ‘disembodied’ context of the Inter-net” (2005, 64; cf. Delamarter 2005). She responds to such concerns by cautioningagainst simplistic assumptions that online distributive formats are disembodied or thattypical classroom teaching is our most fully embodied and relational pedagogy. Insteadshe argues for the need to use backward design strategies to make technology servepedagogy and learning outcomes.13

Second, a handful of scholars have recently begun to think seriously about what maybe gained from employing an embodied approach to teaching in the traditional religiousor theological studies classroom. For instance, Kimerer LaMothe argues that the intel-lectual training of religious studies scholars, focusing primarily on linguistic methodsand models, prevents us from sufficiently understanding and therefore teaching “the richarray of bodily movement evident in religious life” (2008, 590). Michelle Lelwica alsoargues that the body should be incorporated into classroom intellectual explorations, notjust as another subject of study but also as part of the process of teaching and learningabout religion. In her own classroom she has instructed students in Aikido, and writesthat with such an embodied practice “the in-and-out movement of one’s breath makesthe [Buddhist] concept of ‘impermanence’ meaningful” (2009, 126). Similarly, AdamPorter has experimented with live action role-playing in his undergraduate biblicalstudies courses, and notes that this embodied pedagogic strategy is particularly success-ful with millennial students, given this generation’s preference for teamwork and inter-action with their peers in educational settings as well as their lifelong exposure to videoand live-action gaming (2008).14

13 For more on the need for backward design in online education in theological studies, seeAscough (2002).

14 Other resources on embodied pedagogic strategies in the religious or theological studies class-room include Sautter (2005) and Torbett (2010). See, by way of comparison, Oblinger and Oblinger(2005, 4–5): “Net Geners like the social interaction that comes with being in class with their peers.While they may use technology in their daily lives, relationships are a driving force in the learningprocess.” The contribution of gaming to a different culture of learning is especially emphasized inThomas and Brown (2011).



With the exception of Porter’s article, none of the above research on embodimentand disembodiment in the discipline of theological and religious studies focuses onteaching the millennial generation in particular, a significant lacuna given the challengesthat life in virtual reality presents to embodiment in the rest of reality. Again, those ofus teaching in religious and theological studies are well-positioned to answer many ofthe questions that remain to be explored under the rubric of millennial embodiment inlight of learning objectives that engage ethical thinking, engagement with concreteothers in and through community-based learning, or the contemplative practices ofreligion.

Ethics, Respect, and EmbodimentGardner argues that educators in the humanities today bear a “special burden” of instill-ing respect in the current generation of students: “Put bluntly, such education cannotbypass issues of respect under the rubric of ‘pure’ disciplinary study. Rather, it is neces-sary to confront directly the value of respect, the costs of respect, and the infinitelygreater costs of disrespect (in the long run)” (2008, 114). Who better than theologicaland religious studies professors to take up questions of the nature of our students’embodied and disembodied interactions with religious “others” in virtual and livedreality or how a respectful mind might be cultivated in the current digital age? Further,how can the themes we explore and the critical thinking skills we cultivate persuade ouruniversity colleagues who understand education as “value-free” (à la Stanley Fish 2008)that we need pedagogical places to critique value judgments and the very production ofvalue?

One such example surfaces in the area of “religion and ecology.” Much of the rheto-ric of wireless, digital, and virtual technologies asserts that they are somehow greenerthan the technologies of a previous era – a claim that can be interrogated if we help stu-dents make connections between virtual realities and real bodies. For instance: it takestremendous amounts of fossil fuel energy just to keep our electrical grid operating; ittakes sulfuric acid, often a byproduct of fossil fuel production, to produce microchips insilicon valley; and much e-waste ends up in landfills outside of the United States (espe-cially China) causing all sorts of human health and environmental problems. Providingour students with an awareness of the ecological ills of certain types of technologiesmight help them work toward truly greening these technologies. Such an ecologicalawakening complements the more “collective” understanding of action that some schol-ars identify among the millennials.

Community interaction and serviceMillennials have been characterized as sporting a “new Millennial service ethic” builtaround notions of collegial (rather than individual) action (Howe and Strauss 2000,216), and simultaneously as being “alarmingly disengaged civically” (Harward 2008,59–60). Theological or religious studies pedagogy that focuses on “contact not con-cepts” (Bergman 2010), service-learning, and other experiential forms of interactionmight broaden this generation’s sense of community, civic engagement, and relationshipto the world around them by moving that interaction off the virtual reality of the Inter-net and into the concrete reality of the community. It is here that the discrepanciesbetween the technological haves and have-nots become stark, and where studentsmight better evaluate the efficacy of online activism and harness the power of digital



technology to the benefit of the common good. A focus on embodiment, then, ought alsolead into how different bodies experience being embodied in an era of globalization. Assuch, and given the collective though perhaps distanced understanding of action amongthe millennials, an important part of the classroom will be evaluating, contextualizing,and (where necessary) correcting information students get through print and digitalmedia. Religious studies and theology already has tools to deal with students introduc-ing such isolated and decontextualized ideas, particularly with regard to the differencebetween understanding a religious worldview and a lived religious practice. In the sameway that there is a disconnect between religious theologies, philosophies, histories,customs, and theories, and the ways in which peoples actually live their meaning-making practices, so there is a disconnect between the experience of being engaged viaonline and digital technologies and the actual effects such engagements have in commu-nities. The relationship between “the virtual” and “the real” takes on a whole newimportance and meaning in the context of millennial education and the sustained focusneeded to explore these connections could be fostered by the religious studies and theol-ogy classroom.

Focused Thinking and ContemplationCarr argues that exposure to the Internet chips away our capacity for concentration andcommunication: “Calm, focused, undistracted, the linear mind is being pushed aside bya new kind of mind that wants and needs to take in and dole out information in short,disjointed, often overlapping bursts – the faster, the better” (2010, 10). William Powersargues that a dire consequence of our inability to concentrate in an always-connectedworld is a loss of happiness: “Technology companies tout the many-splendored connect-edness of digital tools as their chief advantage: the more people and information youcan connect with and the faster and more intensely, the better. But after a while, all thatflitting around does something terrible to your inner life. It denies you the very thingyou went to the screen for in the first place: happiness” (Powers 2010, 106). If we takesuch claims seriously, then the embodied forms of contemplation in religious traditionsbecome even more valuable in their potential to teach this millennial generation skills infocused thinking and contemplation. We need to search the traditions we study andteach for old and new forms of focused thinking and contemplation that can be prac-ticed in the current digital age. At the same time, we need to explore the ways that tech-nology has been appropriated by religious practitioners in their attempts to cultivateconcentration and contemplation so that we do not send a message that these practicesremain “pure” and untouched by technology. Recognizing that religious groups areinvolved in the practice of claiming technological advances for their own religious endscan become an important discussion topic as we ask our students to engage how tech-nology intersects with embodied religious practice.

Before and After, BrieflySeveral of us (and many of our peers) have noticed the impact of these features of themillennial generation on our learning experiences together. As we have just begun toreflect upon and reshape the structure of these experiences in light of these features, weoffer two brief examples of what kinds of difference attention to the topics examinedabove can make. Since these are derived from the specific teaching experiences of spe-cific teachers, the following examples are described by individual authors contributing tothis essay.



Joseph A. MarchalIn the context of my introductory course, for example, the majority of students expressone or both of the following learning interests in their semester opening reflections.First, as expected by Walvoord, students indicate a desire for help in their own religiousand spiritual journeys (within or away from institutions), even if they continue to frameit primarily in terms of getting more religious content to aid in this discernment (or dis-sociation). Second, given the prominent association of Islam with violence or globalconflict (as reinforced by a variety of Western media), the (mostly non-Muslim) studentsexpress a heightened interest in learning more about Muslims. This tends to bedescribed in ways that reflect their own imagined subjectivities, often asking either“Why do they hate us and our freedom?” or “Why are (other) people such idiots aboutMuslims?” These interests are among the reasons the course has a unit on Islamophobia,designed to draw students to critically reflect upon historical and continuing depictionsof Muslims (and the students’ own responses to these depictions).

In the first two years I offered this course, however, students were frequently unableto identify basic course concepts in the depictions of Muslims they were presented.From my perspective too many of them had real difficulties applying what they werelearning about symbols, stereotypes, and caricatures (see Gottschalk and Greenberg2008) to examples introduced in a series of activities (they were unable to use courseconcepts to identify patterns of representation, a key skill to acquire before ethicalreflection). Yet, students then and now consistently report, on both mid-semester andcourse-closing evaluations, that they learn best visually. Indeed, the data on millennials’fast-rising visual IQ scores (Winograd and Hais 2011, 186) correspond to their self-reporting. This difference seemed to be covered by course materials before this unit.Since students “prefer their graphics before their text” (Bauerlein 2011, 6), I showedthem clips from “South Park,” “Sita Sings the Blues,” and other (often humorous)audio-visual media alongside textual materials in the course’s first half.

I did not initially recognize the difference between being adept users and adept think-ers about, or evaluators of, visual media. Without dedicated and unstructured (yetguided) time for reflection and interaction, students’ reactions simply repeated thosestereotypes they were ostensibly learning to analyze (ironically reflecting the kinds ofbiased and closed viewpoints that many of them also cited for their difficulties with “tra-ditional” or “institutional” religions). Over the semesters, then, I experimented withmore scheduled time for small groups working with multiple examples of visual stereo-typing. Groups were required to revisit clips from a previously viewed episode of theshow 30 Days (in which a Christian “lived as a Muslim” for thirty days) and sequen-tially supplied with further examples from graffiti, posters, blogs, and online games.Students were given the freedom to experiment and interact with further materials,within more frequent, shorter cycles between group reviews of readings, instructionalclarification of concepts, and smaller sets commenting on media examples.

By the close of the unit, significantly more students could identify examples of thekey concepts in previously uncovered examples, such as the cartoons in the book or thenotorious Vanity Fair cover (from July 21, 2008) of then-Senator Obama and his wife,and evaluate their significance. Further, they could exercise both their visual and theirethical imaginations in discussing what would make such representations more or lessproblematic in light of historical patterns and contemporary concerns. Rather than repeatthe unreflective, even exaggerated judgment and often brutal stereotyping so characteris-tic of commenting in the virtual world (the ugly side of feeling secure “behind the



screen”), students found spaces and times to pause, connect, and reflect upon patterns ofrepresentation, often against the tide of fear, anxiety, and widespread profiling. Finally,many of them could loop back around to the very first example of visual media that somany of them initially “liked” (the 30 Days episode), and identify and discuss aspectsof its presentation that interact with problematic positions and traditions.

Karline McLainI regularly teach a course on Hinduism at Bucknell University. One of the assigned coursereadings is the Yoga Sutra of Patanjali as translated by Barbara Stoler Miller in her bookYoga: Discipline of Freedom (1995). In the past I have used this book to teach studentsabout the philosophy of yoga, one of six orthodox schools of philosophy within the Hindutradition. In doing so, I have asked students to focus on understanding the concept of ulti-mate reality as articulated by Patanjali; the eight-limbed path to liberation systematizedby Patanjali; and yoga’s connection with the dualistic Samkhya school of philosophy, asopposed to the monistic Vedanta philosophy previously examined in class. While theseareas of inquiry into the text helped my past students to understand that yoga is far morethan the series of physical postures (asanas) known as hatha yoga, that it is often equatedwith in the western context, they did not encourage my students to think about what theymight actually learn from this text that was relevant to their lives, here and now.

Discussing the Roman philosopher Lucius Annaeus Seneca’s lessons on how to builda good, happy life and the relevance of these lessons for us, William Powers writes inHamlet’s Blackberry: Building a Good Life in the Digital Age that Seneca was “talkingabout the problem of life in a crowded world and the difficulty of finding a space apartfor the mind. Mastering the outer world is one thing, but it’s an even harder trick, herealized, to master the inner one, especially when you live at a time when the two are atodds” (2010, 108). Because Seneca lived in a society where physical distance was nolonger an effective escape from the crowd, his solution was to cultivate “inner distance,”which he does by sitting down with a blank page to write a letter in the midst of thenoise and distractions of a bustling spa. Powers argues that like Seneca, we too benefitfrom learning to train the mind “to tune out the chaos, through the art of concentration”(2010, 116–117). For Powers, technology need not be abandoned entirely in this process(though he strongly affirms the value of disconnecting for periods of time); rather, weshould think about how technology can be used as a tool of inward connectedness,rather than outward connectedness, much like Seneca’s blank piece of paper.

Struck by Powers’ argument, I began to think about how I might teach my unit onyoga differently, so as to emphasize the same academic components as in prior semes-ters, but also better encourage my students to engage with the core of yoga as set forthby Patanjali: inward connectedness. Patanjali opens his treatise on yoga with the follow-ing four aphorisms:

This is the teaching of yoga.Yoga is the cessation of the turnings of thought.When thought ceases, the spirit stands in its true identity as observer to the world.Otherwise, the observer identifies with the turnings of thought. (Stoler Miller1995, 29)

In my most recent offering of Hinduism, as we discussed the eight-limbed path toliberation, we focused more closely than in past semesters on Patanjali’s assertion



that to progress to the final three limbs (concentration, meditation, and pure contem-plation leading to liberation), one must first practice withdrawal of the senses andturn inward. Breath control (pranayama, the fourth limb) is one means of accom-plishing the withdrawal of the senses (pratyahara, the fifth limb). Thus, in class, Iguided my students through a short breathing exercise, asking them to close theireyes and focus on the inhalation, retention, and exhalation of their breath for severalcycles (lasting approximately five minutes). Afterward, I asked the class what hap-pened to their thoughts during the breathing exercise, which led to a strong discus-sion of meditation methods and the benefits thereof, both in the context of classicalHindu philosophy and in our own lives.

Beyond breath control, Patanjali notes that inward connectedness can be developedby other methods, including single-minded dedication to the Lord of Yoga and repetitionof the syllable Om. In light of this, I asked students to consider whether they couldthink of ways that they might attempt to develop inward connectedness, and whethertechnology could be harnessed as a tool rather than castigated as a hindrance to thisprocess. This provoked a lively class discussion, wherein we debated the pros and consof digital technology for focused thinking and contemplation, but also brainstormedways that technology might be intentionally utilized to cultivate “inner distance” (inPowers’ sphere) or the “cessation of the turnings of thought” (in Patanjali’s sphere).Some of the ideas the students generated included turning off their Internet browsersand email programs to focus on a particularly calming image or music video on theircomputers; adding daily meditation reminders to their online calendars; and using adigital meditation timer application on their smart phone or computer (one that rings abell at the start of a specified period of silence and rings it again at the end of it).

By the end of this unit, students performed significantly better on the midterm examthan in past semesters, suggesting that they gained a more thorough understanding ofthe philosophy of yoga as set forth by Patanjali from the embodied exercise and discus-sion thereof. In their course evaluations, many also wrote that they gained personallyfrom this unit, reporting that this exercise in contemplative intensity encouraged them toexplore further the benefits of cultivating periods of inner quiet in their own over-scheduled and over-connected lives.

ConclusionStudents in religious and theological studies classrooms continue to become more tech-nologically knowledgeable, more immersed in a technological world, and yet remainunable to think critically about that world and their place within it. As professors weoften assume that our fields of study have little to do with the “screen time” our stu-dents spend. Yet, we argue that we should not shy away from engaging these contexts.Rather, theological and religious studies classrooms offer a distinctive space to allowstudents to scrutinize what they spend a good deal of their time doing. We must con-sider the ways in which our discipline can leverage some of the potentialities that mil-lennial students bring and learn new ways to redirect some of their energies towardmore reflective action in the online and offline worlds.

We recognize that this article raises more questions regarding millennial students inthe religious and theological studies classroom than it answers. Nevertheless, it hasbecome increasingly obvious to these authors that there exist large gaps between currentstudents, new professors, and more seasoned professors of theological and religiousstudies. No doubt such gaps are in no small part due to technological developments and



innovations that seem to be happening at exponential speeds; developments that areaffecting most of us (not simply the generation raised in and thus immersed withinthem). It is our hope that this article is the beginning of a longer conversation – aninitial set of signals and maps, accompanied by a series of questions and challenges,posed to our fellow colleagues in the fields of religious and theological studies, ratherthan a set of complete answers. Among other things we argue that theological and reli-gious studies classrooms are distinctively situated to inspire millennial students to reflectcritically in the three areas of identity formation, media literacy, and embodiment, andprovided two examples of what this might look like in coursework on Islam and Hindu-ism. Such critically reflective practices can lead to a range of positive outcomes, includ-ing an increased religious literacy alongside digital literacy and creativity, the cultivationof capacities for both respect and focus, and ultimately the preparation of more consci-entious global citizens. Happily, we are not yet in the “end times” of dealing with suchconditions, since this millennium has only just begun.

Bibliography

Anderson, Paul, and Sara Konrath. 2012. “Why Should we care? What to Do AboutDeclining Student Apathy,” The Chronicle of Higher Education 31, July. http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Should-We-Care-What/128420/ (accessed July 2014).

Ascough, Richard S. 2002. “Designing for Online Distance Education: Putting Peda-gogy Before Technology.” Teaching Theology and Religion 5, no. 1: 17–29.

Astin, Alexander W., Helen S. Astin, and Jennifer A. Lindholm. 2011. Cultivating theSpirit: How College Can Enhance Students’ Inner Lives. San Francisco, Calif.:Jossey-Bass.

Bauerlein, Mark, ed. 2011. The Digital Divide: Arguments for and Against Facebook,Google, Texting, and the Age of Social Networking. New York, N.Y.: Penguin.

Balslev, Anindita. 1998. “On Religious Pluralism: Diversity not Dissention.” Here 4UNow Online Magazine. http://www.herenow4u.de/eng/on_religious_pluralism__divers.htm (accessed May 16, 2013).

Bergman, Roger. 2010. Catholic Social Learning: Educating the Faith That DoesJustice. New York, N.Y.: Fordham University Press.

Brunner, Daniel L. 2006. “The Potential of the Hybrid Course Vis-à-vis Online and Tra-ditional Courses.” Teaching Theology and Religion 9, no. 4: 229–235.

Carr, Nicholas. 2010. The Shallows: What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. NewYork, N.Y.: W & W Norton.

Collins, Allan, and Richard Halverson. 2009. Rethinking Education in the Age of Tech-nology: The Digital Revolution and Schooling in America. New York, N.Y.: TeachingCollege Columbia University.



http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Should-We-Care-What/128420/

http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Should-We-Care-What/128420/

http://www.herenow4u.de/eng/on_religious_pluralism__divers.htm

http://www.herenow4u.de/eng/on_religious_pluralism__divers.htm

Conrad, Cherry, Betty A. DeBerg, and Amanda Porterfield. 2001. Religion on Campus:What Religion Really Means to Today’s Undergraduates. Chapel Hill, N.C.: Univer-sity of North Carolina Press.

Clark, Andy. 2003. Natural-Born Cyborgs: Minds, Technologies, and the Future ofHuman Intelligence. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.

Coomes, Michael D., and Robert DeBard. 2004. “A Generational Approach to Under-standing Students.” In Serving the Millennial Generation: New Directions for StudentServices, eds. Coomes and DeBard. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley Periodicals.

Delamarter, Steve. 2005. “Theological Educators and Their Concerns about Technol-ogy.” Teaching Theology and Religion 8, no. 3: 131–143.

Delamarter, Steve, Javier Alanis, Russell Haitch, Mark Vitalis Hoffman, Arun W. Jones,and Brent A. Strawn. 2007. “Technology, Pedagogy, and Transformation inTheological Education: Five Case Studies.” Teaching Theology and Religion 10, no.2: 64–79.

Drescher, Elizabeth. 2011. Tweet If You Heart Jesus: Practicing Church in the DigitalAge. New York, N.Y.: Morehouse.

Evans, Christopher H. 2007. “Rethinking Classroom Diversity: Three StudentCultures in a Mainline Seminary.” Teaching Theology and Religion 10, no. 4, 223–230.

Fish, Stanley. 2008. Save the World on Your Own Time. New York, N.Y.: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Frederickson, Barbara. 2013. “Your Phone vs. Your Heart.” The New York Times, 23March. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/opinion/sunday/your-phone-vs-your-heart.html?_r=1& (accessed July 2014).

Gallagher, Eugene V. 2009. “Teaching for Religious Literacy.” Teaching Theology andReligion 12, no. 3: 208–221.

Gardner, Howard. 2008. Five Minds for the Future. Boston, Mass.: Harvard BusinessPress.

Gottleib, Lori. 2011. “How to Land Your Kid in Therapy.” The Atlantic July/August:64–78.

Gottschalk, Peter, and Gabriel Greenberg. 2008. Islamophobia: Making Muslims theEnemy. Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield.

Harlow, Joel 2007. “Successfully Teaching Biblical Languages Online at the SeminaryLevel: Guiding Principles of Course Design and Delivery.” Teaching Theology andReligion 10, no. 1: 13–24.



http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/opinion/sunday/your-phone-vs-your-heart.html?_r=1&

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/24/opinion/sunday/your-phone-vs-your-heart.html?_r=1&

Harward, Donald W. 2008. “The Impact of Millennials on Higher Education.”In Generational Shockwaves and the Implications for Higher Education, eds.Donald E. Heller and Madeleine B. d’Ambrosio, 59–68. Northampton, Mass.:Edward Elgar Publishing in association with TIAA-CREF.

Hege, Brent A.R. 2011. “The Online Theology Classroom: Strategies for Engaging aCommunity of Distance Learners in a Hybrid Model of Online Education.” TeachingTheology and Religion 14, no. 1: 13–20.

Henig, Robin Marantz. 2010. “What is it About 20-Somethings?” New York TimesMagazine: 18 August.

Heller, Donald E., and Madeleine B. d’Ambrosio, eds. 2008. Generational Shockwavesand the Implications for Higher Education. Northampton, Mass.: Edward Elgar Pub-lishing in association with TIAA-CREF.

Hess, Mary E. 2005. Engaging Technology in Theological Education: All That We Can’tLeave Behind. New York, N.Y.: Rowman and Littlefield.

Higher Education Research Institute. 2006. “The Spiritual Lives of College Students:A National Study of College Students’ Search for Meaning and Purpose.” LosAngeles, Calif.: University of California, Los Angeles. http://spirituality.ucla.edu/docs/reports/Spiritual_Life_College_Students_Full_Report.pdf (accessed July2014).

Hill, Jack A. 2009. “Fighting the Elephant in the Room: Ethical Reflections on WhitePrivilege and Other Systems of Advantage in the Teaching of Religion.” TeachingTheology and Religion 12, no. 1: 3–23.

Howe, Neil, and William Strauss. 2000. Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation.New York, N.Y.: Random House.

Howe, Neil, and William Strauss. 2003. Millennials Go To College: Strategies for aNew Generation on Campus. Washington, D.C.: American Association of CollegiateRegistrars and Admission Officers.

Howe, Neil, William Strauss, and Reena Nadler. 2008. “Generations of Americans:A Big Picture Look at the Future of Higher Education.” In Generational Shockwavesand the Implications for Higher Education, eds. Donald E. Heller and Madeleine B.d’Ambrosio, 6–20. Northampton, Mass.: Edward Elgar Publishing in association withTIAA-CREF.

Ito, Mizuko, Sonja Baumer, Matteo Bittanti, Danah Boyd, Rachel Cody, BeckyHerr-Stepheneson, Heather A. Horst, Patricia G. Lange, Dilan Mahendran, KatynkaZ. Martinez, C. J. Pascoe, Dan Perkel, Laura Robinson, Christo Sims, and Lisa Tripp.2009. Hanging Out, Messing Around, and Geeking Out: Kids Living and Learningwith New Media. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.



http://spirituality.ucla.edu/docs/reports/Spiritual_Life_College_Students_Full_Report.pdf

http://spirituality.ucla.edu/docs/reports/Spiritual_Life_College_Students_Full_Report.pdf

Jackson, Robert. 2004. Rethinking Religious Education and Plurality: Issues in Diver-sity and Pedagogy. New York, N.Y.: Routledge.

Johnstone, D. Bruce. 2008 “Perspectives from the Presidency.” In GenerationalShockwaves and the Implications for Higher Education, eds. Donald E. Heller andMadeleine B. d’Ambrosio, 21–29. Northampton, Mass.: Edward Elgar Publishing inassociation with TIAA-CREF.

LaMothe, Kimerer. 2008. “What Bodies Know about Religion and the Study of It.”Journal of the American Academy of Religion 76, no. 3: 573–601.

Lancaster, Lynne C. and David Stillman. 2005. When Generations Collide. New York,N.Y.: CollinsBusiness.

Lelwica, Michelle Mary. 2009. “Embodying Learning: Post-Cartesian Pedagogy andthe Academic Study of Religion.” Teaching Theology and Religion 12, no. 2: 123–136.

Lenhart, Amanda, Rich Ling, Scott Campbell, and Kristen Purcell. 2010. “Teens andMobile Phones.” Pew Internet and American Life Project. Washington, D.C.: PewResearch. http://www.pewInternet.org/Reports/2010/Teens-and-Mobile-Phones.aspx(accessed July 17, 2014).

Litchfield, Randy G. 1999. “Webs of Connection: Using Technology in TheologicalEducation.” Teaching Theology and Religion 2, no. 2: 103–108.

Marche, Stephen. 2012. “Is Facebook Making Us Lonely?” The Atlantic 309, no. 4:60–69. http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/is-facebook-making-us-lonely/308930/ (accessed July 17, 2014).

Nussbaum, Martha. 2010. Not for Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities. Princ-eton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.

Oblinger, Diana G., and James L. Oblinger. 2005. Educating the Net Generation.Boulder, Colo.: Educause.

Palfrey, John, and Urs Gasser. 2008. Born Digital: Understanding the First Generationof Digital Natives. New York, N.Y.: Basic Books.

Porter, Adam L. 2008. “Role-Playing and Religion: Using Games to EducateMillennials.” Teaching Theology and Religion 11, no. 4: 230–235.

Powers, William. 2010. Hamlet’s Blackberry: Building a Good Life in the Digital Age.New York, N.Y.: HarperCollins Publishers.

Prothero, Steven. 2007. Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know – andDoesn’t. New York, N.Y.: HarperLuxe.



http://www.pewInternet.org/Reports/2010/Teens-and-Mobile-Phones.aspx

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/is-facebook-making-us-lonely/308930/

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/is-facebook-making-us-lonely/308930/

Ramsay, Nancy J. 2005. “Teaching Effectively in Racially and Culturally Diverse Class-rooms.” Teaching Theology and Religion 8, no. 1: 18–23

Rosen, Larry D., L. Mark Carrier, and Nancy A. Cheever. 2010. Rewired: Understand-ing the iGeneration and the Way They Learn. New York, N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan.

Royalty, Robert M. 2002. “Ancient Christianity in Cyberspace: A Digital Media Lab forStudents.” Teaching Theology and Religion 5, no. 1: 42–48.

Sautter, Cia. 2005. “Teaching the Dance of World Religions.” Teaching Theology andReligion 8, no. 3: 176–183.

Simon, Bart. 2005. “The Return of Panopticism: Supervision, Subjection, and the NewSurveillance.” Surveillance and Society 3, no. 1: 1–20.

Smith, Christian, with Patricia Snell. 2009. Souls in Transition: The Religious and Spiri-tual Lives of Emerging Adults. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press.

Smith, Jonathan Z. 1988. “ ‘Narratives into Problems’: The College Introductory Courseand the Study of Religion.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 56: 727–739.

Stoler Miller, Barbara. 2005. Yoga: Discipline of Freedom. Berkeley, Calif.: Universityof California Press.

Tapscott, Don. 2008. Grown Up Digital: How the Net Generation is Changing YourWorld. New York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill.

Taylor, Mark. 2010. Crisis on Campus: A Bold Plan for Reforming our Colleges andUniversities. New York, N.Y.: Alfred A. Knopf.

Thomas, Douglas, and John Seely Brown. 2011. A New Culture of Learning: Cultivatingthe Imagination for a World of Constant Change. Lexington, Ky.: CreateSpace.

Thompson, Deanna A. 2000. “Teaching What I’m Not: Embodiment, Race, and Theologi-cal Conversation in the Classroom.” Teaching Theology and Religion 3, no. 3: 164–169.

Torbett, David. 2010. “ ‘I Did Not Wash My Feet with that Woman’: Using DramaticPerformance to Teach Biblical Studies.” Teaching Theology and Religion 13, no. 4:307–319.

Walvoord, Barbara E. 2008. Teaching and Learning in College Introductory ReligionCourses. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.

Westfield, Nancy L., ed. 2008. Being Black, Teaching Black: Politics and Pedagogy inReligious Studies. Nashville, Tenn.: Abingdon Press.

Winograd, Morley, and Michael D. Hais. 2011. Millennial Momentum: How a NewGeneration Is Remaking America. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.



Documents

“Teaching the Millennial Generation in the Religious and Theological Studies Classroom.”