New Religious Studies: Innovations in Higher Education Learning Management for the 21st Century, Learning from Foreign Religious Studies Methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study aims to (1) analyze learning-management innovations in religious studies in international contexts and (2) propose approaches to developing religious-studies learning management for the Thai higher-education context. This study employed a qualitative documentary approach analyzing 85 peer-reviewed sources from 12 countries (2017-2025). Data were extracted with a structured document-analysis form and coded using content analysis and cross-case synthesis to surface trends, models, and best practices in higher-education religious studies. The findings reveal two main results: 1. Innovations in religious studies in international contexts exhibit five significant trends: (1) a shift toward analytical approaches to religion, (2) integration of digital technologies, (3) experiential and practice-based learning, (4) promotion of 21st century skills, and (5) interdisciplinary integration. These innovations are often accompanied by diverse assessment methods that reflect deep and multidimensional learning processes. 2. The proposed new approaches for developing religious studies in Thailand are organized at two levels: (1) Practical Level - learning design should be responsive to the Thai social context by connecting religion with real-life experiences, contemporary social phenomena, future scenarios, economic dynamics, technology, and active participation of local communities. Moral and ethical foundations and civic responsibility must also be maintained, and (2) Structural and Policy Level - the goal is to create a sustainable learning ecosystem through curriculum designs that allow for critical inquiry into religion based on frameworks such as Critical Religious Studies and Religious Literacy. Faculty development should be supported through ongoing practical training and the establishment of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) and Communities of Practice (CoPs). In addition, the promotion of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) and the integration of religious studies with contemporary social and global goals are essential.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".