View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Role-Playing and Religion: Using Games to Educate Millennials

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Role-Playing and Religion: Using Games to Educate Millennials
Language: English
Authors: Porter, Adam L.
Source: Teaching Theology & Religion. Oct 2008 11(4):230-235.
Availability: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Physical Description: PDF
Page Count: 6
Publication Date: 2008
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Descriptive
Education Level: Higher Education
Descriptors: Philosophy, Religious Education, Role Playing, Games, Teaching Methods, College Students, Age Groups, Influence of Technology, Learner Engagement, Expectation, Student Interests
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9647.2008.00468.x
ISSN: 1368-4868
Abstract: I have been experimenting with using role-playing and games in my religion classes for several years and have found that students respond well to these pedagogical tools and methods. After reviewing my experiences, I explore the reasons for students' positive response. I argue that role-playing games capitalize on our students' educational expectations and fondness for game-play, by drawing them into exploring significant texts and ideas. Of particular interest for religion and theology professors, these sorts of games also encourage empathy towards other viewpoints.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 25
Entry Date: 2009
Accession Number: EJ850337
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGhgKqTyG4K9sVXMyVTrzKFAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDKdx5hG_ZuUP_hokVAIBEICBmk0t6UzGoIHXVVaxT4UHg_iJgXaZ-O9-I_q5E4t9wEDasrwU5zvcOTtqR-vUQuBMJrhTbVgxLKhFY1LF0faVC5AvwSgTk3dIHw_h36fLHGU52Ux3byQ5GDk_ruKRJPqi3oKHqrOoHiMqKCpH4BIi8oDzI-8jCU1b3_WtdoRoAomP_GA76JQR0IOlBP2cGiI5OkKGBPUS_-OnY8g=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0034449845;7qh01oct.08;2019May30.11:35;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0034449845-1">Role-Playing and Religion: Using Games to Educate Millennials. </title> <p>Abstract.  I have been experimenting with using role‐playing and games in my religion classes for several years and have found that students respond well to these pedagogical tools and methods. After reviewing my experiences, I explore the reasons for students' positive response. I argue that role‐playing games capitalize on our students' educational expectations and fondness for game‐play, by drawing them into exploring significant texts and ideas. Of particular interest for religion and theology professors, these sorts of games also encourage empathy towards other viewpoints.</p> <p>Like many teachers, I struggle with student engagement. Getting my students to read texts, to think critically about them, and to discuss their ideas in class is a challenge. Infrequently, I have students who do research on their own initiative, but more commonly I need to require it. Just getting them to show up for class can be difficult! Since there is a correlation between student engagement and success, including persistence to graduation, encouraging student engagement is important to me. I have tried a variety of different approaches to improve it, some pedagogical (such as using active learning techniques or having students read aloud in class) and some more punitive (like quizzes on the reading).</p> <p>Over the last several years, I have been trying another approach: using role‐playing games. I was first exposed to this method of teaching when I was in high school, in Bethesda, Maryland. One teacher, Mr. Biedron, often used role‐playing games. For Russian history, Mr. Biedron was the tsar and students were assigned to be nobles, serfs, and the like. Halfway through the semester there was a revolution, and Mr. Biedron became the general secretary, the nobles went through "reeducation," and some of the serfs became leaders of the Communist Party. In Middle Eastern history, students were assigned to represent different nations and the course ended with a peace conference. Mr. Biedron's approach was unusual enough that when he retired, the <emph>Washington Post</emph> did an article on him ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref1">5</reflink>]). I have been using the peace conference idea whenever I teach a course on the Middle East, but more recently I have become interested in using role‐playing in my classes more systematically.</p> <p>The impetus for exploring gaming came in 2004. In that year, I heard a presentation by Gary Yamasaki at the AAR/SBL conference ([<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref2">25</reflink>]). He described how he used the "Acts Game" to help improve student attendance and engagement with his class on Acts. Putting students into teams and rewarding them for team attendance and team performance encouraged them to pressure each other to come to class and to prepare for class. He also reported that the mood in the classroom changed when he introduced a "game" format. At about the same time, I read an article by Mark Carnes describing his experiences using games in his classroom ([<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref3">1</reflink>]). Carnes's methodology – known as <emph>Reacting</emph>– assigned students to historical roles and the classroom became the forum where students reenacted debates from critical moments in history. Although Carnes's method differed from Yamasaki's, he too reported improved attendance, preparation, and performance – the areas in which I also sought improvement. Inspired by these two sources, I decided to incorporate student‐teams and some role‐playing in my Introduction to the New Testament class in the spring of 2005.</p> <p>This class used limited role‐playing in a game format. Students were assigned to different teams (Pharisees, Sadducees, Romans, Zealots, Essenes, or Christians). They read [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref4">23</reflink>]'s <emph>Shadow of the Galilean</emph> (1987) as a general introduction to the society and sects of first‐century Judea. They also read the descriptions of the sects from Josephus and Pliny. After this background, we read the Gospels. For each Gospel, the teams wrote papers discussing how "they" (the social group they were assigned to) were represented. Some groups complained that the Gospel misrepresented them ("We Pharisees are not hypocrites!"). The Christian team made comments about the different descriptions of Jesus ("Is the Son of Man the same as the Son of God?"). And teams not mentioned in the Gospels, such as the Zealots, discussed whether they agreed with Jesus's teachings or not ("Render unto Caesar? No way!"). When reading the Pauline corpus, students read several secondary articles and wrote individual papers, but collaborated on a team paper on Romans, discussing whether they agreed with Paul's arguments or not. Since the responses were written from the perspective of first‐century people, students struggled to contextualize scripture in light of history. This was a new idea for almost all the students, and more challenging for some than others.</p> <p>For most students, the highlight of the class was the reenactment of the trials of Jesus and Paul. The teams prepared for the trials by writing position papers, based on their previous essays, outlining their team's arguments about why each man should be pardoned or executed. During the trials, the Roman team ran the classroom, often struggling to maintain order (one Roman team eventually exiled one of the Zealots to stand in the corner). To do well in the trial, students had to demonstrate their mastery of the materials: each group challenged the others to "prove it from the text." My students are prone to making vague general statements or talking about their personal beliefs rather than discussing texts. In the trial setting, I, as the instructor, did not have to point out the weakness of this sort of rhetoric – the other students recognized it and demanded that their classmates support their statements more robustly.</p> <p>Another benefit was that students empathized with their characters. Thus, most of the students, although Christian in real life, played Roman or Jewish characters. Some argued that Jesus needed to be executed because he – like other popular leaders – frightened the Romans. Would they have argued this themselves? I doubt it. But they were able to separate themselves from their characters and in so doing, came to understand why some first‐century Jews thought it necessary to arrest Jesus and to hand him over to the Roman authorities.</p> <p>My goals for the class were to encourage engagement, to teach the students to think about scripture critically, to learn about first‐century Judea, and to foster collaborative learning. Each of these goals was fulfilled partially, but I felt that I tacked‐on the role‐playing component to my New Testament introduction. While students worked together in teams throughout the semester, the amount of time spent actually role‐playing was relatively short. More importantly, the game was not balanced, since the outcome was a foregone conclusion: the Romans executed populist leaders. Thus, no matter how persuasively teams argued for clemency, if the Romans played their roles correctly, they would always decide to execute Jesus. I suppose this illustrates the frustrations of being the subaltern, but since students could not be "successful" in their arguments, it reduced the incentive to actually work hard. The students did not notice this for the Jesus trial, but some of them caught onto it for the Paul trial, and their arguments were not as strong.</p> <p>Pleased with my initial experience using role‐playing in my New Testament class, I sought to learn more about Mark Carnes's <emph>Reacting</emph> methodology. Because <emph>Reacting</emph> emphasizes role‐playing, a particularly effective way to experience its potential is to actually play a game. So several times per year, there are short <emph>Reacting</emph> symposia offered at different locations. Joined by three of my colleagues, I attended a <emph>Reacting</emph> conference at Michigan State University in April 2006. While there, I played the "Athens at the Threshold of Democracy" game and learned more about the <emph>Reacting</emph> methodology.</p> <p> <emph>Reacting</emph> game modules are long – each game takes about a month and most faculty use three per semester. They are also complex. Each module is set at an interesting point in history, when different groups were arguing about several topics or alternate courses of action. Students are assigned to teams, which work together to write papers and construct arguments, and then present them to the class. Students are not allowed to read from these papers; rather, they use note cards to help them remember their argument, which ensures that their presentations are dynamic. Since some students are "indeterminates" and have no position on a topic, they are the target audience for the teams: when a vote is called, will you have persuaded enough of your indeterminate classmates to side with you? Games present a variety of issues, so characters who agree on one issue might disagree on another, and someone who is indeterminate on issue "A" may have strong feelings about issue "B." When a game is over, the class discusses "what really happened" and why the class's simulation followed history or veered off in a different direction.</p> <p>Inspired by my experience in playing a <emph>Reacting</emph> game, I organized a class around this methodology: <emph>Reacting</emph> to Western Religion. The class used three modules. The first, which I am developing with David Tabb Stewart, was "Deuteronomy and Josiah's Reformation." It is set at the time of the discovery of the "book of the Law," probably the core of Deuteronomy. Students are asked whether they should reform Judah's religion to bring it in line with Deuteronomy or not. The second module was "Constantine and the Council of Nicaea," which explores the theological debates among different groups of Christians about the nature of Jesus and questions of canon. And the third was "The Trial of Anne Hutchinson," which explores issues of Puritan and Calvinist theology. Interesting themes connect the three modules: all explore issues of reforming religion, all the reforms had significant impacts on women's religious experiences, and all struggle to define what constitutes "scripture" or how to interpret it.</p> <p>These are not easy topics and my students worked hard to understand unfamiliar sources (such as non‐canonical early church documents) or to read familiar documents in new ways (such as considering the economic or social impact of the Deuteronomistic reforms). Most found it difficult to comprehend the theological debates that raged in the early church or in Puritan New England. But, although the material was demanding, the debates were vigorous and, as with my New Testament class, the students frequently called upon each other to support their arguments better. As one of the students wrote on the course evaluation form, "The debate‐like setting made it impossible <emph>not</emph> to learn because we all had to have some type of argument and come prepared to argue at every class." Am I satisfied with this class? Not yet. I need to figure out better ways to provide feedback to students, to help them understand difficult texts, to give them more time to plan strategy, and so forth. But I was delighted with their energetic classroom performance and am looking forward to teaching the class again this fall.</p> <p>Why do students respond so well to games and role‐play in classrooms? Carnes identified several "motivational inducements of the <emph>Reacting</emph> Pedagogy" ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref5">3</reflink>], 6–10). These include the following:</p> <p></p> <p>• •</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Escaping from oneself. This allows undergraduates to assume identities different from their own and to articulate thoughts or positions different from their own.</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• •</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Competition. Most historical moments involve conflict between different factions or ideas.</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• •</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Teamwork. Students learn to coordinate their efforts and help each other. Stronger students help weaker students and both benefit.</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• •</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Student empowerment. <emph>Reacting</emph> games empower students by allowing them to run the classroom. They decide the agenda and determine who speaks, governed by the rules of the game.</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• •</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Vicarious engagement with the past. <emph>Reacting</emph> allows students to engage with the past, rather than just reading about it. This allows them to internalize some of the ideas and thus learn them better.</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• •</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Drama. <emph>Reacting</emph> games are set at important moments in human history. Students are drawn into the drama and are less likely to skip class, especially towards the end of a module, when important decisions are made.</item> <p></p> </ulist> <p>• •</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> Liminality. The <emph>Reacting</emph> classroom is different: students run it, they reenact history, they are not themselves, but characters in a drama. Liminality is interesting and students can be drawn into the class more deeply.</item> </ulist> <p>I agree with Carnes's analysis, but I think we can go further. While Carnes's motivational inducements would have encouraged earlier generations, I believe they offer special resonance with the current generation of college students, the "Millennials" ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref6">8</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref7">6</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref8">7</reflink>]). According to Howe and Strauss, the Millennials have specific expectations about education ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref9">9</reflink>]). Notably, they suggest that Millennials tend to be very social, with large circles of friends; are used to collaborating with their peers on schoolwork; prefer "useful" work to "original" work; expect their teachers to notice them and monitor their performance in order to reward them for doing well or to offer assistance if they are doing poorly; and prefer many smaller assignments to one‐time exams or papers.</p> <p>Other scholars have noted that the Millennials have been raised in a world of games, especially computer or video games. These games may have negative effects on people (or not – the debate continues to rage), but all games involve problem‐solving, critical thinking, and strategy. Learning by playing games (whether chess, poker, or <emph>Quake</emph>) emphasizes a trial‐and‐error approach. Players try one strategy and fail; the next time they play, they try a different strategy. This approach is very different than the traditional "logical, rule‐based approach to solving problems" ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref10">14</reflink>], 40). Additionally, many games offer more than one path to victory. "The value [of the game] is not all tied up in 'winning' one way; it is more about the path to victory itself" ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref11">4</reflink>], 23). But most games are competitive and many people play games with the hope of winning.</p> <p>One could correctly argue that not all gamers are Millennials, since 20 percent of adults over fifty play games ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref12">15</reflink>], 2). But Millennials play games at much higher rates than older Americans: 77 percent of college students are gamers ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref13">17</reflink>], 10). Thus, while gaming is popular among most age demographics, it is more common among Millennials. And, contrary to popular opinion, more women (60 percent) than men (40 percent) play computer or online games, while roughly equal numbers play video games ([<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref14">10</reflink>], 6).</p> <p>What interests me is how many of Carnes's motivational inducements resonate especially well with the traits of current college students. Let's consider his list again, in light of the data about Millennials and gamers.</p> <p>Gamers are used to "escaping" from themselves, playing in computer‐generated worlds as characters very different from themselves. These characters run the gamut from super soldiers to Tolkeinesque elves and dwarves. Even those who do not play games may assume alternate roles on the web: as a famous <emph>New Yorker</emph> cartoon noted, "On the internet, no one knows if you're a dog" ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref15">20</reflink>]). For students with a history of playing games or entering chat rooms, escaping into a different character would be familiar ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref16">24</reflink>]).</p> <p>Millennials are used to competition and may participate in organized sports at higher rates than the previous generation ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref17">8</reflink>], 172). The games they play are also competitive, offering either computer‐generated opponents, or the option to play with or against other human players. Losing (dying) often has little cost, but players still strive to win. In <emph>Reacting</emph>, winning may help a student's final grade a fraction, but losing has a low cost; nonetheless, students want to win the game. Finally, competition is part of our society in business, sports, and other fields, although not usually in the classroom. Rather than fight the competitive model, <emph>Reacting</emph> co‐opts it for an educational benefit.</p> <p>While sports and video games are competitive, both offer the opportunity to participate in team activities. This may be obvious for most sports, but starting in the 1990s (first with the game <emph>Doom</emph> and later with <emph>Quake</emph>), team play became available to gamers. This first appeared on computer games on local area networks ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref18">12</reflink>]) and later on the internet. Gamers arranged teams not only in first‐person shooters (FPS), but also in massively multiplayer online games (MMOGs) such as <emph>Everquest</emph> or <emph>World of Warcraft</emph>. User demand has prompted manufacturers to add this feature to game consoles, such as the X‐Box or PlayStation3. Additionally, many students have previous experience in team projects and collaborative learning ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref19">8</reflink>], 155). In short, allowing students to form teams and collaborate channels tendencies they already have into improving their classroom performance.</p> <p>Empowering students works especially well with Millennials. Games empower people, allowing them to play characters very different from themselves or from any regular person. Gangsters, super heroes, and super soldiers populate games, allowing players to vicariously live these roles. Other games, like the popular <emph>Sims</emph> franchise or <emph>Black and White</emph> are called "God games," since the player directs the lives of the characters in the game. What empowerment! But most classrooms disempower students; even in discussion‐based seminars, the instructor remains in charge. <emph>Reacting</emph> changes this: during game‐play, the students run the classroom. The instructor becomes a resource, a guide, or a mentor, who can help the students by offering suggestions on ways to improve their efforts, while allowing students to be empowered in the classroom.</p> <p>The idea of engaging with the past fits Millennials' fondness for useful work. Rather than learning for learning's sake, students have a practical, pragmatic reason to master abstract ideas: they want to be able to argue and convince indeterminate characters to support them. While Millennials may not see much use for original work, most instructors do. <emph>Reacting</emph> addresses this pedagogical need as well. Each character role has a slightly different argument, so students cannot easily crib their papers; since their speeches have to be made from note cards, they have to have achieved a certain level of mastery of the material to succeed. Finally, students are rewarded for good arguments by garnering the support of their peers.</p> <p>Appealing to the students' sense of drama does not seem to have an obvious connection to Millennials. Nor do we often think of games as offering us a dramatic narrative. Indeed, most traditional card games (bridge or hearts) or board games (chess) offer no significant story; rather, they are abstract strategy games. Some video games are similar, with almost no narrative structure (<emph>Tetris</emph>), but many successful franchises develop major characters, and gamers purchase games to see what happens in the story. According to Lawrence Kutner, popular games offer "complex characters and very interesting, intricate plots" ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref20">11</reflink>]). The most profitable game to date is <emph>Grand Theft Auto IV</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref21">16</reflink>]) which offers "a richly textured and thoroughly compelling work of cultural satire disguised as fun," featuring "a pungent script by Dan Houser and Rupert Humphries that reveals a mastery of street patois to rival Elmore Leonard's" ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref22">18</reflink>]). In short, drama may be universally appealing, but students expect it in games.</p> <p>Finally, the liminality offered by <emph>Reacting</emph> is similar, in some ways, to online worlds such as <emph>Second Life</emph>, or games like <emph>World of Warcraft</emph>. In computer or video games, different rules apply, such as the ability to heal instantly with a "med‐pack." Except for the popular <emph>Sims</emph> franchise, most games are not set in the mundane world; rather, gamers are thrown into the future, the past, or a dangerous version of the present. Accessing any computer or video game is a liminal event, in so far as the experience is mediated by a computer or game system. All these attributes are paralleled in the <emph>Reacting</emph> classroom. It is different than typical classrooms and different rules apply. It is also different from the real world, since students are set in different time periods or different places in the world. The liminal aspect of the <emph>Reacting</emph> game is enhanced by having some activity appropriate to the setting begin the class session, such as "sacrificing" a pig in the Athens game or singing "God Save the Queen" for the Darwin game. It is also enhanced by having students use their character names during class or while discussing class materials or activities, much as gamers use "handles" or aliases in video games.</p> <p>The grading of <emph>Reacting</emph> games also appeals to Millennial expectations. Students write multiple short papers and do many presentations, rather than having one major assignment. Thus, the faculty member has many opportunities to evaluate their performance and mastery of the material. Faculty can intervene as appropriate, again meeting the Millennial expectation for monitoring and having their difficulties noticed.</p> <p>In short, using role‐playing games builds on the traits of both Millennials and gamers. Since many college students fall into both categories, the <emph>Reacting</emph> methodology would seem especially appealing. An additional benefit that <emph>Reacting</emph> may offer is that it could be a way to encourage male student engagement. One concern faculty might have about Millennials is that female students significantly outperform their male colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref23">8</reflink>], 222–229; [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref24">6</reflink>]). Nationally, women comprise about 60 percent of the student body and are generally more satisfied with their education than their male counterparts ([<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref25">13</reflink>], 13, 10). How can colleges stop "male flight"? One way might be to use games in the classroom. In both my New Testament class and my <emph>Reacting</emph> class, my subjective impression was that male students performed better than in my other, more traditional classes. Their attendance was better and they were more likely to have prepared the material and to participate. I have heard similar comments from other instructors who have used <emph>Reacting</emph> in different colleges. Unfortunately, the question of gender response to the <emph>Reacting</emph> methodology has yet to be studied, since most of the <emph>Reacting</emph> assessment data has come from women's colleges ([<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref26">22</reflink>]). Still, the anecdotal reports suggest that role‐play encourages male student involvement in classes, which might improve their retention and persistence‐to‐graduation statistics.</p> <p>Finally, I mentioned above that I noticed that students came to empathize with their characters, even in my early attempts to use role‐playing. This has been noted by professors using the <emph>Reacting</emph> methodology ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref27">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref28">19</reflink>], 3; [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref29">21</reflink>]) and may be of particular interest to faculty teaching courses in religion or theology. Many of my students come from rural settings or small towns in central Illinois. It is not a region teeming with religious diversity. Getting students to understand different faiths or different versions of their faith is challenging. It is even more challenging to get students to empathize or sympathize with those holding different viewpoints. Role‐playing allows students to articulate viewpoints different from their own and, in so doing, come to understand those viewpoints more sympathetically.</p> <p>Most of my classes have similar learning goals. I want students to read challenging texts, think critically about them, and articulate their responses to them cogently in discussion, speeches, or writing. The <emph>Reacting</emph> methodology helps to achieve these goals, but offers additional benefits. For example, it encourages student leadership, independent thinking, and the recognition that there can be multiple "correct" viewpoints about issues. It also helps to demonstrate that history is not predetermined, but that if certain ideas or movements had "won," the world might be very different than it is today. <emph>Reacting</emph> allows these diverse learning goals to be met because it draws upon and utilizes tendencies already present in the Millennial generation of game‐playing students.</p> <ref id="AN0034449845-2"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref3" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Carnes, M. 2004. " The Liminal Classroom. The Chronicle Review, October 8, 22 – 24.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref27" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Carnes, M. 2005a. " Inciting Speech. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning 37, no. 2 : 6 – 11.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref5" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Carnes, M. 2005b. " Reacting to the Past. Pedagogy Manual. New York: Longman.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref11" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Carstens, A., and J. Beck. 2005. " Get Ready for the Gamer Generation. TechTrends 49, no. 3 : 22 – 25.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref1" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Gowen, A. 2002. " The Last Tsar. Washington Post Magazine, April 7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref7" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Hesel, R. A., and J. H. Pryor. 2007. " Millennial Students: What Do We Know and What Does It Mean for Admissions ?" 2007 College Board National Forum. New York, N.Y. <ulink href="http://www.artsci.com/CollegeBoardNatForumMillenialPresOct24%5f07.pdf">http://www.artsci.com/CollegeBoardNatForumMillenialPresOct24%5f07.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref8" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Hoover, E. 2007. " Researchers Challenge View of 'Millennia' Students. Chronicle of Higher Education 54, no. 11 (November 9): A33.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref6" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Howe, N. and W. Strauss. 2000. Millennials Rising. New York: Vintage Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref9" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Howe, N. and W. Strauss 2003. Millennials Go To College. American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers. Washington, D.C.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jones, S. 2003. Let the Games Begin. Washington, D.C.: Pew Internet & American Life Project.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kutner, L. 2008. " Sex, Drugs, and Video Games. On the Media, 2 April. <ulink href="http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/05/02/06">http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/05/02/06</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> LAN Party. 2008. Wikipedia. <ulink href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lan%5fparty">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lan%5fparty</ulink> (22 February).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Noel‐Levitz. 2007. 2007 National Student Satisfaction and Priorities Report: Executive Summary. Noel‐Levitz Inc. https://<ulink href="http://www.noellevitz.com/NR/rdonlyres/CB7710B8‐C2B9‐4F93‐99D6‐BEBEEC9488F4/0/2007NationalStudentSatisfactionReport.pdf">www.noellevitz.com/NR/rdonlyres/CB7710B8‐C2B9‐4F93‐99D6‐BEBEEC9488F4/0/2007NationalStudentSatisfactionReport.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oblinger, D. 2003. " Boomers, Gen‐Xers, and Millennials: Understanding the New Students. Educause Review, July/August: 37 – 47.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oblinger, D. 2006. " Simulations, Games, and Learning. Educause May: 1 – 6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pham, A. 2008. " ' Grand Theft Auto IV' Steals Video Game Sales Record. Los Angeles Times, May 8. <ulink href="http://www.latimes.com/technology/la‐fi‐gta8‐2008may08,0,1579612.story">http://www.latimes.com/technology/la‐fi‐gta8‐2008may08,0,1579612.story</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rainie, L. 2007. Homo Connectus. Washington, D.C.: Pew Internet & American Life Project.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schiesel, S. 2008. " Grand Theft Auto Takes on New York. New York Times, April 28. <ulink href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/arts/28auto.html">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/28/arts/28auto.html</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Slater, N. W. 2005. " Re‐Inventing the Trivium: Debate, Dialogue, and Empathy. Liberal Arts Online, May: 1 – 4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Steiner, P. 1993. " On the Internet, Nobody Knows You're a Dog. New Yorker 69, no. 20 : 61.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stroessner, S. S. 2007. " Reports on the Assessment of the ReActing to the Past Pedagogy, 1999–2006." Unpublished paper.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stroessner, S. S. 2008. Personal communication. Email.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Theissen, G. 1987. The Shadow of the Galilean: The Quest of the Historical Jesus in Narrative Form. J. Bowden. Minneapolis, Minn.: Fortress Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Turkle, S. 1997. Review of in Life on the Screen: Identity in the Age of the Internet. New York: Touchstone.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yamasaki, G. 2004. " Acts: The Game – An Experiment in Student Engagement." AAR/SBL conference presentation. San Antonio, Tex.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Adam L. Porter</p> <p>Reported by Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref22"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref29"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ850337
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Role-Playing and Religion: Using Games to Educate Millennials
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Porter%2C+Adam+L%2E%22">Porter, Adam L.</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Teaching+Theology+%26+Religion%22"><i>Teaching Theology & Religion</i></searchLink>. Oct 2008 11(4):230-235.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley-Blackwell. 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148. Tel: 800-835-6770; Tel: 781-388-8598; Fax: 781-388-8232; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: PhysDesc
  Label: Physical Description
  Group: PhysDesc
  Data: PDF
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 6
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2008
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Descriptive
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Higher+Education%22">Higher Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Philosophy%22">Philosophy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Religious+Education%22">Religious Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Role+Playing%22">Role Playing</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Games%22">Games</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Teaching+Methods%22">Teaching Methods</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22College+Students%22">College Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Age+Groups%22">Age Groups</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Influence+of+Technology%22">Influence of Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learner+Engagement%22">Learner Engagement</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Expectation%22">Expectation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Interests%22">Student Interests</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1111/j.1467-9647.2008.00468.x
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1368-4868
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: I have been experimenting with using role-playing and games in my religion classes for several years and have found that students respond well to these pedagogical tools and methods. After reviewing my experiences, I explore the reasons for students' positive response. I argue that role-playing games capitalize on our students' educational expectations and fondness for game-play, by drawing them into exploring significant texts and ideas. Of particular interest for religion and theology professors, these sorts of games also encourage empathy towards other viewpoints.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 25
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2009
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ850337
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ850337
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1111/j.1467-9647.2008.00468.x
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 6
        StartPage: 230
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Philosophy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Religious Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Role Playing
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Games
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Teaching Methods
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: College Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Age Groups
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Influence of Technology
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learner Engagement
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Expectation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Interests
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Role-Playing and Religion: Using Games to Educate Millennials
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Porter, Adam L.
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 10
              Type: published
              Y: 2008
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1368-4868
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 11
            – Type: issue
              Value: 4
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Teaching Theology & Religion
              Type: main
ResultId 1