A systematic review on spiritual modeling: Opportunities and challenges in religious education

Abstract

This article presents the challenges and possibilities of integrating spiritual modeling as an approach to religious education. Spiritual modeling is an emerging concept in the field of religious development, specifically in the social cognitive theory of Albert Bandura. A systematic literature review of the principles and concepts of spiritual modeling was conducted. Findings and recommendations are discussed in line with the current state of religious education, particularly in the context of Philippine Catholic schools.

Keywords

religious education spiritual modeling spirituality Christian educators

Introduction

Through the years, religious education has undergone developments in terms of definition, context, and even pedagogy. The teaching of religion in the classroom has a long history, but “the development of religious education as an academic discipline is in many ways a fairly recent one” (Gellel and Buchanan, 2015: 1). Religious education (RE) is traditionally categorized as a) confessional or b) non-confessional (Estrada et al., 2019; The Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education, 1977; Bråten, 2009). Confessional religious education is geared towards the promotion of a particular religion such as Catholicism (The Sacred Congregation for Catholic Education, 1977), while non-confessional religious education is the study of religion to provide information which hopefully will promote religious tolerance (Bråten, 2009). Confessional religious education presumes faith, while non-confessional imparts both religious literacy and the holistic spiritual growth of the student.

In the Philippines, religious education often belongs to the confessional category, most especially to Catholicism. Religious education in the Philippine context has been influenced by the prevalence of Catholic education for almost 500 years, since the time of the Spanish Colonial era. Catholic religious education is taught in selected private and public learning institutions (Baring and Cacho, 2015). Nevertheless, this understanding provides a struggle of meaning for the term religious education because it is associated with Christian religious education (Baring, 2011a). As stated in the National Catechetical Directory of the Philippines (Philippines, 1985, no. 457), “Guidelines regarding religious education in Catholic schools are founded on the principle that the teaching of religion/theology should be the distinguishing mark of a Catholic school.” This perspective often leads to the notion that religious education is a form of catechesis, especially in the Catholic Church (Congregation for Catholic Education, 1988). Catechesis shares the same desire to form and inform the receivers of religious instruction regarding the Catholic faith in general. Consequently, one must always take into consideration that the real nature of religious education is “not an exclusive Christian domain” (Baring, 2011a: 463). Human society is now highly pluralistic and religious education must also be sensitive to other faith denominations in the context of plurality (Jackson, 2004).

Religious education is an important avenue for young people’s development and to enhance their faith life. Baring (2011b: 1) emphasizes that “instruction in religious education is generally geared towards human formation and information.” Nevertheless, the challenge for religious educators is to find ways and means to teach the faith that is sensitive to the context of the recipients, especially the young. Religious education must be considered as a second language, especially in the context of religious formation among the recipients (Moran, 1989). It is important to understand that the lifelong process of the person is part of spiritual growth. As Buchanan (2005) mentioned, it is important to understand the pedagogical drift of approaches and paradigms in religious education to cater the pressing needs of young people.

Religious educators can explore pedagogical approaches such as spiritual modeling that may help form students’ religious literacy and promote spiritual growth. Spiritual modeling “expresses the idea that people may grow spiritually by imitating the life or conduct of one or more spiritual exemplars, whether the exemplar is a member of their own family or community, or the exalted founder or mystic of a world religion” (Oman and Thoresen, 2003a: 150). Religious education, whether confessional or non-confessional, can be a possible avenue to becoming acquainted with spiritual models who exemplify spiritual and religious growth.

The objective of the study

This article presents spiritual modeling as an approach to religious education through systematic literature review. Exploring approaches in religious education like spiritual modeling can provide opportunities and challenges that will meet the needs of its clientele, especially for the young people who often receive it, especially in the Philippine context. A recent study shows that religious education contributes positively to adolescent mental health in a school-based setting (Estrada et al., 2019). This underpinning is an attempt to explore the utilization of approaches that will best cater to the psychological maturity of young people. Spiritual modeling is one potential avenue to spiritual and religious growth (Oman and Thoresen, 2003b).

Research methodology

Researchers employed a qualitative research design in conducting a systematic review of spiritual modeling in religious education. To attain the objective of the study, content analysis was employed by doing a literature review on the topic. The search for relevant literature and studies was undertaken using electronic databases such as Google Scholar, Ebscohost, ProQuest, Scopus, and other journal aggregates. Researchers searched for books and journal articles about spiritual modeling and religious education. After a content analysis of the books and articles, we will discuss the possibilities and challenges of spiritual modeling in religious education in the Philippine context.

Concepts of spiritual modeling

This portion highlights the results of the content analysis of the literature review with a discussion of the possibilities and challenges of utilizing spiritual modeling in religious education in the Philippine context.

Spiritual modeling and character formation

Sanderse (2013) said that the effect modeling has on children depends on how “modeling” is conceived. According to Steutel and Spiecker (2004), “modeling is understood as a kind of Aristotelian habituation, which is learning by doing virtuous things frequently and consistently under the guidance or authority of a virtuous tutor” (p. 536).

Further, Bandura (1977), as cited in Sanderse (2013), explained that modeling is a powerful process that can account for diverse forms of learning. His research revealed that modeling can occur even in the absence of reinforcement stimuli (rewards). In addition, children can learn patterns of behavior simply by observing, without actually performing actions or receiving rewards. Moreover, Bandura regarded modeling as a much more cognitive process.

Bandura (1977), as cited in Engler (2016), identified three factors that may influence modeling. The first factor deals with the characteristics of the model. People are more likely to be influenced by others who are similar to themselves. Simple behaviors are more easily emulated than complex ones. The second factor focuses on the attributes of the observer. People who lack self-esteem are less likely to follow the style of a model. However, a highly motivated person will also emulate a model to master the desired behavior. Lastly, the third factor concerns the rewards or consequences associated with a behavior. People attempt to emulate a behavior if their actions lead to positive short-term or even long-term results.

Likewise, Sanderse (2013) mentioned that in modeling, the child does not only want to emulate the actions and emotional reactions of the model, but also recognizes the educator as representing a virtuous ideal, since they know what is virtuous about a person. This kind of habituation will only be effective if educators explain to children why they act the way they do. She also stated that there are two cognitive elements of modeling. First, there is the learner’s understanding of why the quality that is possessed by the model is worthy of being valued. Second, the learner will need to think about how one can alter oneself to acquire quality behavior. The behavioral aspect of emulation is that the learner takes action in order to acquire the desirable quality.

In looking at models, the questions raised by Sanderse (2013) could be of help in clarifying the concept of modeling. They are as follows: 1) What virtues do I/we want to be a model of? 2) Why do I/we want to model these character traits? and 3) How can I/we model these virtues best?

Modeling in social cognitive theory

This study is anchored in Bandura’s social cognitive theory (1986). According to this theory (1986: 47), “most human behavior is learned by observation through modeling.” Oman and Thoresen (2003b) explain that “Social cognitive theory offers several tools for conceptualizing and empirically studying the relationship between exalted and everyday modeling influences. Possession of both exalted and everyday models may be understood as an example of diversified modeling” (p. 207). Furthermore, the process of learning from models is called observational learning (Oman and Thoresen, 2003b).

Bandura (1986) suggests that four main processes govern observational learning: attention, retention, reproduction, and motivation.

Attention is influenced by the characteristics of the model, the nature of the activity, and the nature of the object (Bandura, 1977 as cited in Engler, 2016). Some models are more noticeable than others. Hence, it is easy for others to copy or emulate them. Furthermore, in association with spiritual modeling, “all major religious traditions promote social and cultural patterns that draw attention to spiritual exemplars” (Oman and Thoresen, 2003a: 154).

Retention influences observational learning (Bandura, 1977 as cited in Engler, 2016). When observing someone’s behavior without immediately performing it, a person must represent it in other ways to use later as a guide for action. Representations can be in the form of verbal and imaginal. In relation to spiritual modeling, “All major religious traditions encourage patterns of life through which major and minor biographical events and teachings of spiritual exemplars are repeatedly brought to mind” (Oman and Thoresen, 2003a: 154).

Reproduction occurs when a person converts behavioral symbolic representation into action (Bandura, 1977 as cited in Engler, 2016). Reproduction includes cognitive organization, initiation, monitoring, and refinement of the response. In connection with spiritual modeling, “Religious traditions unanimously affirm that virtues such as charity, truthfulness (veracity), and humility must be enacted in daily life, and warn against the emptiness of virtuous words unconnected to good deeds” (Oman and Thoresen, 2003a: 154).

The significance of motivation to social learning theory is that it leads to performance of virtuous behavior, rather than mere acquisition (Bandura, 1977 as cited in Engler, 2016). People are more likely to engage with a modeled behavior when it leads to valued consequences. No behavior transpires without adequate prize or incentive. Hence, motivation becomes a vital component of learning through observation (Bandura, 1977 as cited in Engler, 2016). This holds true for spiritual modeling: “religious figures, especially the founders and mystics, offer repeated testimony of the great peace that comes to persons who persist in the spiritual quest. Expressions of gratitude and thanksgiving are encouraged by religious and spiritual groups and may elicit testimonials or other information about benefits that community members attribute to adherence to spiritual practice” (Oman and Thoresen, 2003a: 155).

Spiritual modeling

Spiritual modeling was first explored by Oman and colleagues, who sought to understand how role modeling might work in relation to religion and spirituality. Consequently, Oman and Thoresen (2003a) concluded that imitating the life of one or more spiritual exemplars—whether they are members of the family, community or spiritual leaders, or founders of religious movements—can help people grow spiritually. Effective relationships with spiritual models that facilitate progress in a spiritual search may promote faith development (Fowler, 1981).

Spiritual modeling approaches aim to employ observational learning of significant spiritual skills (Oman and Thoresen, 2003a). This approach may provide a theoretical foundation and practical importance to spirituality and religion. “The essential aim of the approach is to capitalize upon the recognition that spirituality involves the ongoing learning of behaviors and skills as well as beliefs and attitudes, and sometimes, transformative experiences, through social cognitive processes about which a great deal is already known” (Oman and Thoresen, 2003a: 160).

For Bandura (2003), social modeling functions within the sets of uniquely human attributes that give the capability to become a spiritual being. These attributes include “the capacity for symbolization, abstract vicarious learning, forethought, self-regulation, and self-reflection” (Bandura, 2003: 167). He further explained that “Much human learning occurs either designedly or unintentionally from the models in one’s immediate environment” (p. 169).

People pattern their behavior according to models that may come in varied forms and sources (Bandura, 2003). “Some involve behavioral modeling in informal everyday activities or formally structured social arrangements” (Bandura, 2003: 169). Bandura (2003:170) said that “social modeling is not a matter of wholesale incorporation of a given model nor scripting specific behaviors for particular circumstances.” Consequently, modeling is the construction of connected experiences that are synthesized in a unique lifestyle arrangement.

Without concrete models, people remain uncertain how to apply the abstract concept of spirituality (Bandura, 2003). The practice of religiosity is grounded socially, rather than through personal encounters with the Supreme Being. Bandura (2003) explains that modeling becomes a way to cultivate personal and collective efficacy. Authentic models are competent to express knowledge, capabilities, and ways of managing various life situations.

Silberman (2003) applies the theories of Oman and Thoresen (2003a) regarding spiritual modeling to the context of Judaism. She also note that, for some religions, the emulation of God is the archetype of all spiritual role modeling. However, she also noted the negative effects that spiritual role modeling can have, an area which was neglected by Oman and Thoresen (2003a). One such example is the Sept. 11 attacks in the US which were guided by spiritual models with sanctified, meaningful goals.

Oman and Thoresen (2003b) affirm Silberman's (2003) notion of God as a spiritual model. However, they also pointed out that adding the term “role” in spiritual modeling as Silberman proposed would not add any advantages.

Oman et al. (2008) explored the integration of spiritual modeling in education by designing a college course that addresses spiritual management and spiritual growth. They applied concepts from the psychology of religion to design a pedagogy that will nurture key features of religious wisdom and traditions. They also argue that “There is good reason to believe that regularly exposing students to spiritual models (both religious and non-religious) can help them absorb and emulate the models’ character strengths” (p. 82).

Spiritual modeling is empowered by the ability of the individual to emulate and acquire lifestyles, self-regulatory norms, aspirations, and a sense of personal and collective efficacy (Bandura, 1986, 1997, 2003). Oman and Thoresen (2003b) also affirmed Bandura’s statement (2003) that self-efficacy, both in the individual and the collective manner, could be a potential avenue in studying the empirical aspects of spiritual modeling.

Spiritual modeling scales

One uniqueness of spiritual modeling is that it lends itself to empirical measurement. Scholars have created scales and inventories for assessing spiritual modeling in life environment and self-efficacy. The following measures and scales are examples of the empirical exploration of spiritual modeling.

Oman et al. (2009) developed the theoretical background and psychometric properties of the Spiritual Modeling Inventory of Life Environments (SMILE), which aims to measure perceptions of spiritual models in a given environment. The development of the instrument was grounded on the definition of constructs such as spirituality. Three techniques were employed to define the constructs: 1) defining spirituality and spiritual models using Tillich’s (1951) notion of ultimate concern––“what’s most important in life”; 2) discussion of how people experience the concept of ultimate concerns, how they learn from models, and how they act or respond to these concerns; and 3) the instrument was structured to allow earlier questions to set the context of the succeeding questions.

Another assessment tool was developed by Oman et al. (2012). They created the Spiritual Modeling Self-Efficacy (SMSE) to be the first spiritually oriented measure for self-efficacy. This instrument measured the perceived efficacy of learning from spiritual models. It had a very good test–retest reliability score (r = 0.77) and internal consistency (α = 0.85). There are two types of spiritual models from which learners can learn: 1) community-based models (models in their communities) and 2) prominent models (models encountered through storytelling, reading, and other forms of media).

Lastly, Oman (2013) published a chapter that focused on spiritual modeling, concerning social learning in spirituality and religion. This chapter explores the theoretical background of both SMILE (Spiritual Modeling Inventory of Life Environments) and SMSE (Spiritual Modeling Self-Efficacy).

Spiritual modeling in religious education

Possibilities

Religious education is not just the instruction of faith but also an avenue for human and values formation. Baring and Cacho (2015: 150) stated that “The classical way of teaching the faith through catechism requires a shift to adult education where people are able to think critically and decide more wisely for themselves on issues affecting their lives.” There must be a pedagogical shift in terms of delivery of religious education if it aims not just to develop the minds of the recipients but to form them holistically as individuals.

The modeling approach is widely used in various disciplines (Credo and Del Castillo, 2019), including religious education. Spiritual modeling is one of the possible approaches that a religious educator may employ. Religious education can promote human and values formation in the teaching of faith and religion through spiritual modeling. Human and values formation involves the moral development of a person, especially when a person is faced with the realities of life. In the case of moral exemplars, “We develop our moral sensibilities by encountering the values and virtues that we find actually existing and experientially available in exemplary characters” (Vos, 2017: 7). The famous saying that “values are caught not taught” encapsulates this idea that morals are exemplified by models. Bandura (2003) mentioned that without concrete models, people are uncertain how to apply the abstract concept of spirituality. Models of spirituality like the saints and Mary are still influential to young people (Sarmiento, 2016), while religious educators themselves can be spiritual models who are exemplars of morality.

In the Philippine context, the possibility of using spiritual modeling in religious education, especially in teaching faith and morals, constitutes the call to holiness (pagpapakabanal). The Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (1999), in their pastoral letter on Filipino spirituality, stipulated that holiness incorporates six categories, and one of them is to be holy is to be human (Pagpapakabanal, pagpapakatao). Moreover, Pagpapakatao can be integrated as part of religious education at all levels (Cueto et al., 2019). This understanding of holiness is attuned to spiritual modeling because models show what it means to be holy by being humane (pakikipagkapwa) in their lives. Spiritual modeling as an approach can help people grow spiritually by imitating the life of one or more spiritual exemplars (Oman and Thoresen, 2003a). These exemplars can be family members, religious and spiritual leaders, community leaders, and even those who witnessed to their faith such as the saints. Spiritual models are examples of living out ones’ spirituality or “pangangatawan” (De Mesa and Cacho, 2012). Moreover, they articulated the connection of pangangatawan with living beautifully as a way of Christian discipleship. This means committing to do what is beautiful especially in the realms of moral life.

In the Philippines, religion is still seen as very important in the lives of adult Filipinos, as shown by the results (83%) of the Social Weather Stations survey (2020). The significance of religion among adult Filipinos may influence youth’s views on lifestyles. Filipino youth’s attitude towards religion includes the behavioral dimension and the “religious lifestyle” (Baring et al., 2018: 11). Given this, religious lifestyle and ethical spirituality can be taught in religious education by using spiritual modeling through exposure to spiritual exemplars who manifest a moral life especially in living out their faith.

Challenges

Spiritual modeling may face challenges as an approach in religious education. However, these challenges can be surpassed by giving consideration to them.

First and foremost, it is important to consider the person of the religious educator. As religious educators, teachers can showcase their role as spiritual models. Durka (Durka, 1995: 65) mentioned that “the teaching of religious education and the teaching of spirituality are not mutually exclusive: they are complementary.” Religious educators are witnesses to faith (Buchanan and Hyde, 2006). The role of a religious educator does not end inside the classroom but extends to his/her entire life outside the school. They must accept the challenge to become “paragons of virtue” (Del Castillo, 2013). There is a need for ongoing spiritual formation programs among religious educators so that they can be spiritual models for their students (Gowdie, 2017; Mulligan, 2005; Earl, 2005). In addition, there is a dearth of religious educators in the Philippines. Few higher education institutions offer degrees in religious education and theological studies.

Another challenge, especially in the Philippine context, is the idea of contextualization and inculturation. Inculturation is “the endeavor and process of making the Gospel relevant and challenging in a particular culture” (De Mesa and Cacho, 2012: 186). It is also the rootedness of the Gospel in a culture. Religious educators must find ways to present spiritual modeling in a manner that is sensitive to Filipino culture in particular. It is pointed out by the Second Plenary Council of the Philippines (PCP II) (Philippines, 1992) that there is a need to develop a catechesis that is authentically Filipino, which is truly inculturated (PCP II, #210).

Emerging youth culture (Lanuza, 2000) in the Philippines poses a great challenge to the utilization of spiritual modeling in religious education. The youth of today are “digital natives” because they are born in the age of technology and media (Prensky, 2001). Filipinos are among the top social media network users in the world in terms of time spent (Adel, 2019). Social media presents a variety of personalities whom young people perceive as models. Consequently, social media can predict attitudes and behavior among youth (Lanuza, 2003). Young people may pattern their beliefs and values on social media personalities. This adds to the challenge for religious education in utilizing spiritual modeling as an approach to cope with social media as one of the landscapes of new evangelization (Sarmiento, 2017).

Lastly, the socio-political climate can be a great challenge to using spiritual modeling as an approach, especially in the Philippine context. Teaching youth in a socially toxic environment may also pose a challenge (Durka, 2000). But even in this situation, religious educators can present spiritual models that are exemplars of the prophetic calling to champion the values of justice, morality, peace, and beauty of life. Durka (Durka, 2000: 452) said that “Moral beauty and moral power go hand in hand.” Spiritual models highlight moral beauty because this represents what it means to have moral power in fighting against evil in society. Religious education is challenged by postsecularism and by the impacts of spiritualities and religions within the social sphere (Stambach et al., 2011).

Conclusion

The place of religious education in the spiritual and moral formation of young people is still a prevalent reality in the Philippines. It is in this light that religious education must find ways and means to form the young into the best persons they can be. After exploring the various facets of spiritual modeling as an approach in religious education, it can be said that it is a promising approach which religious educators can use in teaching faith and morals. Spiritual models have the power to influence and inspire people to follow what is “true, good and beautiful” (Francis, 2015). Religious educators can always consider the possibilities and challenges of spiritual modeling and become spiritual models as well. Further discussion and research are recommended in the utilization of spiritual modeling in religious education.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iDs

Fides del Castillo

Philip Joseph Sarmiento

References

Adel

(2019 August 25) Filipinos spend ‘most time’ on social media in the world — poll. Philippine Star, August 25. Available at: https://www.philstar.com/headlines/2019/08/25/1946329/filipinos-spend-most-time-social-media-world-poll.

Bandura

(1977) Social Learning Theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura

(1986) Social Foundations of Thought and Action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bandura

(1997) Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman/Times Books/Henry Holt & Co.

Bandura

(2003) On the psychosocial impact and mechanisms of spiritual modeling. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 13(3): 167–173.

Baring

(2011a) Plurality in unity: Challenges toward religious education in the Philippines. Religious Education 106(5): 459–475.

Baring

(2011b) Introduction. In: Baring

(ed.) Studies in Religion and Theology: Issues and Perspectives. Quezon City: Central Book Supply, Inc.: 1–17.

Baring

Cacho

(2015) Contemporary engagements and challenges for Catholic religious education in South East Asia. In: Buchanan

Gellel

(eds) Global Perspectives on Catholic Religious Education in Schools. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, pp. 143–153.

Baring

Sarmiento

Sibug

, et al. (2018) Filipino College students’ attitudes towards religion: An analysis of underlying factors. Religions 9(3): 85.

10.

Bråten

(2009) A comparative study of religious education in state schools in England and Norway. United Kingdom: Doctoral dissertation, University of Warwick. Available at: http://wrap.warwi ck.ac.uk/3122/(accessed April 18, 2020).

11.

Buchanan

(2005) Pedagogical drift: The evolution of new approaches and paradigms in religious education. Religious Education 100(1): 20–37.

12.

Buchanan

Hyde

(2006) The role of the religion teacher: Ecclesial and pedagogical perceptions. Journal of Christian Education 49(2): 23–34.

13.

Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (1985) National Catechetical Directory of the Philippines. Manila: CBCP.

14.

Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines (1992) Acts and decrees of the second plenary council of the Philippines (PCP II). Manila: CBCP Secretariat.

15.

Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (1999) Landas ng pagpapakabanal: Sulat Pastoral ng Kapulungan ng mga Obispong Katoliko ng Pilipinas sa mga Pilipinong Katoliko. Available at: http://cbcpwebsite.com/1990s/1999/filspirituality.html (accessed on 18 April 2020).

16.

Congregation for Catholic Education (1977) The Catholic school. Available at: http://www.vatican.va/roman curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rcconccatheduc_doc_19770 319_catholic-school_en.html (accessed January 5, 2017).

17.

Congregation for Catholic Education (1988) Religious dimension of education in a Catholic school. Available at: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_19880407_catholic-school_en.html (accessed January 5, 2017).

18.

Credo

Del Castillo

(2019) The effect of modeling approach in teaching catechesis vis-a-vis formation of value and prayer life of the Soup Kitchen Children in the Philippines. International Journal of Research Studies in Education 8(4): 11–20.

19.

Cueto

Del Castillo

Lago

(2019) Perspectives on Kabanalan (Holiness) among Filipino Young Professionals: Implications in Theology and Catholic Education. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research 7(4): 1–11.

20.

de Mesa

Cacho

(2012) When Beauty Beckons: Theological Ethics of Filipino Aesthetics. Manila: St. Scholastica’s College.

21.

Del Castillo

(2013) Teaching values using creative strategies: An Asian perspective. In: The Asian Conference on Society, Education, and Technology 2013. Osaka, Japan: The International Academic Forum.

22.

Durka

(1995) Religious educators as teachers of spirituality. The Way Supplement 84: 58–66.

23.

Durka

(2000) Teaching youth in a socially toxic environment. Religious Education 95(4): 443–452.

24.

Earl

(2005) Spiritual formation for Catholic educators: Understanding the need. Journal of Catholic Education 8(4): 513–530.

25.

Engler

(2016) Theories of Personality (9th Edition). Taguig: Cengage Learning Asia Pte Ltd.

26.

Estrada

CAM

Lomboy

MFTC

Gregorio

, et al. (2019) Religious education can contribute to adolescent mental health in school settings. International Journal of Mental Health Systems 13(28).

27.

Fowler

(1981) Stages of Faith: The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.

28.

Francis (2015) Marriage: Unique for a reason. United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Available at: http://www.marriageuniqueforareason.org/2015/10/19/the-good-true-and-beautiful-at-the-world-meeting-of-families/.

29.

Gellel

Buchanan

(2015) Contextualising the Catholic Religious Education Project. In: Buchanan

Gellel

(eds) Global Perspectives on Catholic Religious Education in Schools. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, pp. 143–153.

30.

Gowdie

(2017) Stirring the Soul of Catholic Education: Formation for Mission. Australia: Vaughan Publishing.

31.

Jackson

(2004) Rethinking Religious Education and Plurality: Issues in Diversity and Pedagogy. New York, NY: Routledge.

32.

Lanuza

(2000) Youth culture and globalization: The articulation of tradition, modernity, and postmodernity in the youth culture of students of the University of the Philippines, Diliman. Social Science Diliman 1(1): 1–30. Available at: https://www.journals.upd.edu.ph/index.php/socialsciencediliman/article/view/34/84.

33.

Lanuza

(2003) The mediatization of Filipino youth culture: A review of literature. Global Media Journal 2(3): 1–34. Available at: http://www.globalmediajournal.com/open-access/the-mediatization-of-filipino-youth-culture-a-review-of-literature.pdf.

34.

Moran

(1989) Religious Education as a Second Language. Birmingham: Religious Education Press.

35.

Mulligan

(2005) Catholic Education: Ensuring a Future. Ottawa: Novalis.

36.

Oman

(2013) Spiritual modeling and the social learning of spirituality and religion. In: Pargament

Exline

Jones

(eds) APA Handbook of Psychology, Religion, and Spirituality (Vol 1): Context, Theory, and Research. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 187–204.

37.

Oman

Flinders

Thoresen

(2008) Integrating spiritual modeling into education: A college course for stress management and spiritual growth. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 18(2): 79–107.

38.

Oman

Thoresen

(2003a) Spiritual modeling: A key to spiritual and religious growth? The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 13(3): 149–165.

39.

Oman

Thoresen

(2003b) Authors’ response: The many frontiers of spiritual modeling. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 13(3): 197–213.

40.

Oman

Thoresen

Park

, et al. (2009) How does one become spiritual? The Spiritual Modeling Inventory of Life Environments (SMILE). Mental Health, Religion & Culture, 12(5): 427–456.

41.

Oman

Thoresen

Park

, et al. (2012) Spiritual modeling self-efficacy. Psychology of Religion and Spirituality 4(4): 278–297.

42.

Prensky

(2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon 9: 1–6.

43.

Sanderse

(2013) The meaning of role modeling in moral and character education. Journal of Moral Education 42(1): 28–42.

44.

Sarmiento

PJD

(2016) Attitude and practices of Filipino Catholic youth towards Mary, the Mother of God: Implications to religious education in the Philippines. In: Abstracts and Proceedings of the 5th National Conference on Catechesis and Religious Education, Manila, Philippines: De La Salle University, pp. 72–82.

45.

Sarmiento

PJD

(2017) Re-contextualization of Christian dogmas on God, Christ and grace: Implications to Catholic religious education. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research 5(4): 120–125.

46.

Stambach

Marshall

Nelson

, et al. (2011) Religion, Education, and Secularism in International Agencies. Comparative Education Review 55(1): 111–142. 10.1086/657650.

47.

Silberman

(2003) Spiritual role modeling: The teaching of meaning systems. The International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 13(3): 175–195.

48.

Social Weather Stations (2020) Fourth Quarter 2019 Social Weather Survey: Record-high 83% of adult Filipinos say religion is "very important”. Available at: https://www.sws.org.ph/swsmain/artcldisppage/?artcsyscode=ART-20200412155426 (accessed on 18 April 2020).

49.

Steutel

Spiecker

(2004) Cultivating sentimental dispositions through Aristotelian habituation. Journal of Philosophy of Education 38(4): 531–549.

50.

Tillich

(1951) Systematic Theology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

51.

Vos

(2017) Learning from exemplars: emulation, character formation and the complexities of ordinary life. Journal of Beliefs and Values 39(1): 1–12.