Spirituality and Pedagogy

8/4/2019 Spirituality and Pedagogy

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/spirituality-and-pedagogy 1/24



L indhoLm & Astin / Spirituality and Pedagogy 185

The Review o Higher Education Winter 2008, Volume 31, No. 2, pp. 185–207Copyright © 2007 Association or the Study o Higher Education

All Rights Reserved (ISSN 0162-5748)

Spirituality and Pedagogy:

Faculty’s Spirituality and Use of Student-Centered Approaches toUndergraduate Teaching Jennier A. Lindholm and Helen S. Astin

Recent years have seen increasing interest in issues o meaning, purpose,authenticity, and spirituality in higher education. There are numerousdenitions o spirituality, but the key terms and elements constructed by those who have written extensively about spirituality include such aspectsas: seeking personal authenticity, genuineness, and wholeness; transcend-ing one’s locus o centricity; developing a greater sense o connectedness tosel and others through relationships and community; deriving meaning,purpose, and direction in lie; being open to exploring a relationship witha higher power that transcends human existence and human knowing; and

valuing the sacred (Hill, Pargament, Hood, McCullough, Swyers, Larson,& Zinnbauer, 2000; Love & Talbot, 1999; Zinnbauer, Pargament, & Scott,1999). While religious values may be connected to these key acets, spiritu-ality may well exist apart rom religion altogether in that religion is seen as“organized,” “social,” and “traditional,” whereas spirituality is conceived as“personal,” “transcendent,” and characterized by qualities o “relatedness”(Zinnbauer, Pargament, & Scott, 1999, p. 901). As one examines these various

JENNIFER A. LINDHOLM is Associate Director o the Oce o Undergraduate Evaluationand Research, and HELEN S. ASTIN is Proessor Emerita and Senior Scholar, Graduate School

o Education & Inormation Studies, the University o Caliornia, Los Angeles. Address queries

to Jennier A. Lindholm at the College o Letters and Science, University o Caliornia, Los

Angeles, A265 Murphy Hall, Los Angeles, 90095-1571; telephone: (310) 825-8622; ax: (310)

206-2228; email: [email protected].



186 The Review ofhigheR educaTion W inter 2008

denitions o spirituality, certain terms surace regularly: “transcendence,”“interconnectedness,” “authenticity,” “sel-awareness,” and “wholeness.”

Irrespective o the presence or absence o clearly dened linkages between

religion and spirituality, to ignore the role o spirituality in personal develop-ment and proessional behavior is to overlook a potentially powerul avenuethrough which people construct meaning and knowledge (Tisdell, 2001).Indeed, it is the spiritual component o human beings that gives rise to ques-tions about why we do what we do, pushes us to seek undamentally betterways o doing it, and propels us to make a dierence in the world (Zohar &Marshall, 2004). People’s abilities to access, nurture, and give expression tothe spiritual dimension o their lives have also been ound to impact howthey engage with the world and to oster within them a heightened sense o connectedness that promotes empathy, ethical behavior, civic responsibility,passion, and action or social justice (see, e.g., Astin, Astin, Lindholm, &Bryant, 2005; DeSouza, 2003; Harris & Moran, 1998). Consequently, someconceive o spirituality as an essential aspect o lielong learning and believethat it should play a signicant role in the teaching/learning process (see e.g.,Du, 2003; Lee, 1999; Lewis, 2000; Tatarkowski, 1997). Thus, in designingthis study, we expected to identiy relationships between aculty’s spirituality and aspects o their teaching practice. I spirituality involves sel-awareness

and interconnectedness with others, we expect that such personal qualitieswill play an important role in how spiritual aculty will approach theirteaching and their interactions with students.

In thinking about how our values, belies, and ways o conceptualizing ourrelationships with others and the world around us aect our behavior, wewere very interested in examining whether aculty who sel-report as beingspiritual are also more likely to behave in ways that benet their undergradu-ate students. For example, i aculty sel-identiy as spiritual, does it makea dierence in how they teach? Are spiritual aculty more other-centered,

more caring and, in general, more student-centered? Do their approachesto teaching and working with undergraduate students tend to dier notably rom those o their less spiritual colleagues? Using data rom a recent nationalstudy o college and university aculty, this article examines aculty members’preerred teaching practices as one aspect o their proessional behavior thatmay refect the spiritual dimension o their own lives. Emphasis is placedon identiying the correlates o student-centered pedagogy, with a specicocus on the mediating role o sel-reported spirituality. The inormationgleaned can be used both to enhance our understanding o pedagogicalpractice and to address more comprehensively personal and proessionalaculty development issues in undergraduate teaching and learning.




Pedagogical Practice, SPirituality, and the ProfeSSoriate

So-called active learning encompasses a variety o pedagogical tech-niques and evaluative methods and reers to a wide range o teaching/learning processes that are geared toward placing students at the center o their learning experience (Warren, 1997). Faculty use o student-centeredpedagogy—which is designed to promote students’ active engagement inthe learning process—has been associated with higher grade attainment,enhanced intellectual curiosity, and the development o superior creativity,drive, and leadership skills relative to those traits ound in students whoseinstructors employ more traditional pedagogical methods, such as lecturing(Henson, 2003). The extent to which students engage in work that is person-

ally meaningul and are encouraged to take ownership o their actions hasbeen ound to impact both depth o understanding and intrinsic motivation(Pederson & Williams, 2004). In an era characterized by increasing diversity among college students with respect to past educational experiences andlearning styles, the merits o incorporating learner-centered approachesto teaching may be especially compelling. While data rom recent nationalsurveys o college and university aculty show an increase over time in theuse o student-centered pedagogy within the overall aculty population(Lindholm, Szelényi, Hurtado, & Korn, 2005), much remains to be learned

about the extent to which aculty employ such pedagogical techniques, whichsub-populations within the proessoriate are most inclined to use student-centered teaching methods, and why they elect to use such approaches.

Recent work that examined disciplinary dierences in normative ap-proaches to teaching and learning showed that women, aculty o color,and younger aculty are more inclined overall than men, White/Caucasian,and older aculty to employ student-centered approaches to teaching (Lind-holm & Szelényi, 2006). Findings rom that study also showed that aculty

in engineering, the physical sciences, and math/statistics are generally lessinclined than their counterparts in “soter” disciplines such as education,the arts, and business to adopt student-centered pedagogical practices. Just10% or less o aculty in the ormer three elds registered as “high” scorerson Student Centered Pedagogy; in the latter three elds, this gure was 25%or more. Moreover, Lindholm and Szelényi (2006) ound that the type o employing institution, in and o itsel, has a minimal eect on the use o student-centered teaching methods, although aculty at liberal arts collegesare generally more inclined than their colleagues at comprehensive col-

leges and universities to adopt teaching and evaluative strategies designedto promote active learning. Not unexpectedly, the study also revealed thataculty who are civic minded and who place high value on students’ personaldevelopment are more inclined toward student-centered pedagogy.

Proponents o constructivism, a learner-centered educational theory,contend that, “to learn anything, each [student] must construct his or




her own understanding by tying new inormation to prior experiences”(Henson, 2003, p. 13). A dual ocus on both the individual learner andsocial interaction gures prominently in this approach. Combs (1962) and

others, including Kelly (1955) and Ausubel (1968), have argued that stu-dent-centered education is essential or healthy development because thisapproach is most conducive to sel-ecacy and positive sel-concept. Basedon his review o the extant literature on learner-centered education, Hensonidentied the ollowing “dispositions” as centrally important: (a) educationshould be experience-based; (b) each individual learner’s unique qualitiesand dispositions should be considered when planning a curriculum; (c) thelearner’s perceptions should shape the curriculum; (d) the learner’s curiosity should be ed and nurtured; (e) learning is best when it involves emotions;and () the learning environment should be ree o ear.

Implementing student-centered pedagogies means more, however, thansimply introducing new teaching methods that portray an increased empha-sis on students’ interests, backgrounds, and learning styles. Such pedagogicalmethods also imply a undamental shit in the role o teachers, whereby they no longer see themselves solely—or even primarily—as “disseminators o knowledge,” but rather “construe themselves to be acilitators o studentlearning” (Robertson, 2005, p. 181). The term student- or learner-centered-

ness, however, appears to suggest that such pedagogies simply transer theocus rom teacher to learner, without acknowledging the continuing activerole o teachers in the learning process. To account or the important rolesplayed by both learner and teacher, the methods that are widely acceptedin the literature as “student-centered pedagogies” are sometimes reerred to“teacher/learner centeredness,” or “systemocentrism,” a theoretical concep-tion highlighted by Robertson (1999). Importantly,

systemocentrism treats both the teacher and the learners as unique persons,

not roles, and puts them in interaction. . . . The proessors-as-teachers inthis perspective attend to these systems and the human experience at theircore—that is, they attend to their own experience, to students’ experience,and to the interaction o the two—along with, o course, their undamentalcontent mastery. (Robertson, 1999, pp. 283–284)

Our main hypothesis in this study is that aculty’s spirituality will play akey role in the way they approach their teaching. This expectation is basedprimarily on ndings rom earlier research (Lindholm, Astin, & Astin, 2005)which showed that aculty who sel-identiy as spiritual are more likely toendorse as “important” several goals or undergraduate education that canbe considered to refect a predisposition or engaging in student-centeredapproaches to teaching, such as enhancing students’ sel-understanding,developing students’ moral character, and helping students develop personal




values. Based on the extant literature, we also hypothesize that, in additionto their values and belies (including spirituality), the aculty member’sgender, race, and disciplinary aliation, along with characteristics o the

institutions in which he or she works, will dierentiate his or her use o student-centered pedagogical approaches.

This study is specically designed to address the ollowing questions: (a)What are the personal, proessional, and organizational correlates o stu-dent-centered pedagogy among college and university aculty? (b) To whatextent does the sel-reported level o spirituality mediate aculty members’use o student-centered pedagogy in undergraduate courses?

Methodology

The data or this study are drawn rom the 2004–2005 triennial nationalFaculty Survey conducted by UCLA’s Higher Education Research Institute(HERI) (Lindholm, Szelényi, Hurtado, & Korn, 2005). Survey items encom-pass ve broad categories o aculty inormation: demographics, values,work-related activities, institutional perceptions, and aective measures.

In all 2004, a our-page survey questionnaire was distributed to 172,051aculty at 511 two- and our-year colleges and universities. Ater a second-

wave ollow-up to nonrespondents, 65,124 completed questionnaires werereceived, constituting a 38% overall response rate. The analyses presentedhere are based on the replies o 40,670 ull-time undergraduate teachingaculty rom the 414 colleges and universities that were included in HERI’snationally representative sample o institutions or the 2004–2005 survey administration.1 The normative population includes 61% men and 31%women. The ethnic/racial distribution is: 89% White/Caucasian; 5% AsianAmerican/Asian; 3% Arican American/Black; 2% Mexican American/Chi-cano/a; 2% American Indian/Alaska Native; 2% other Latino/a; 1% Puerto

Rican; 1% Native Hawaiian/Pacic Islander; and 3% “other.” Faculty respon-dents were employed at public colleges (28%), nonsectarian colleges (16%),public universities (15%), private universities (15%), and two-year colleges(7%). An additional 8% were employed at Roman Catholic colleges and13% at “other” religious colleges (primarily mainline Protestant-aliated,Baptist, or Evangelical).2

1

The normative sample includes institutions that surveyed at least 35% o their ull-timeaculty in the case o two- and our-year colleges and 25% in the case o universities. This

sample o 40,670 ull-time aculty is representative o both institutions and aculty at those

institutions.2Percentages o racial/ethnic identity add to more than 100 because survey respondents

were permitted to mark more than one racial/ethnic category, as applicable. Percentages or

institutional types also sum to more than 100 due to rounding.




We have undertaken two types o analyses: (a) cross-tabulations thatprovide a descriptive prole o aculty with respect to their teaching ap-proaches and underlying values and (b) stepwise hierarchical regression

analyses that enable us to explore how aculty members’ individual char-acteristics, including spirituality, and their institutional contexts relate totheir use o student-centered pedagogy. In all analyses, we used weights tocorrect or nonresponse bias based on gender, rank, and institutional type,thus approximating as closely as possible the results that would have beenobtained i all ull-time undergraduate teaching aculty within the UnitedStates had responded. To keep the degrees o reedom at an appropriatelevel or purposes o statistical inerence, we normalized weights to yieldthe original sample sizes.

The dependent variable, Student-Centered Pedagogy is a composite mea-sure o eight items included on the 2004–2005 HERI Faculty Survey thatasked respondents to indicate on a our-point Likert scale (“all” to “none”)the extent to which they employ selected instructional strategies and evalu-ation methods in their undergraduate courses. Derived through a rotatedvarimax actor analytic approach, the scale is specically comprised o itemsthat query eight instructional and evaluation strategies (cooperative learn-ing, group projects, refective writing/journaling, student-selected course

topics, class discussions, student presentations, student sel-evaluations,and student evaluations o each other’s work). Cronbach’s alpha reliability or the Student-Centered Pedagogy measure is .81. With respect to thescale’s construct validity, we nd that Student-Centered Pedagogy correlatessignicantly with aculty’s placing high value on student development (r= .29) and being employed at a student-centered institution (r = .09). Onthe other hand, we nd a signicant negative correlation between aculty’suse o student-centered pedagogy and their research orientation (r = -.08).While contemplation and meditation have been ound to aect learning

(see, e.g, Hall, 1999; Robinson, 2004) and it would have been interesting toinclude them in the teaching practices that comprised this scale, the use o secondary analysis o existing data prevented us rom doing so.

The key independent variable, Spirituality, was also constructed usingrotated varimax actor analysis. It is comprised o three survey items: sel-identication as a spiritual person, personal priority placed on seeking op-portunities to grow spiritually, and personal value attributed to integratingspirituality into one’s lie. The Cronbach alpha or this measure is .88. Amongthe remaining independent variables are demographic characteristics, aca-demic discipline/eld, teaching experiences, institutional characteristics,and personal values. A complete list o the variables that were included inthe analysis and their coding is provided in the appendix.

To urther explore the connections between aculty spirituality andteaching behaviors as refected on the Student-Centered Pedagogy scale, we




categorized aculty as having scored “high” or “low” on each o these twomeasures. On the Spirituality measure, a aculty member’s score refects thedegree to which he or she sel-identies as possessing the quality, state, or

circumstance being assessed. On the Student-Centered Pedagogy measure,a aculty member’s score refects the degree to which he or she sel-reportsas engaging in the particular teaching practice being queried. We developed“high” and “low” scores on both measures based on aculty members’ pat-terned responses to the items that comprise each scale.

deScriPtive findingS

Overall, 22% o aculty register as “high” scorers on the Student-Centered

Pedagogy measure and 21% are “low” scorers. Not surprisingly, as shown inTable 1, class discussions are the most prevalently used “student-centered”teaching method; eight in 10 aculty report that they engage students inclass discussion in “most” or “all” o the courses they teach. For many ac-ulty, cooperative learning, student presentations, and group projects arealso practical teaching techniques. Less widely used “student-centered”teaching methods include student evaluations o their own work, refectivewriting/journaling, student evaluations o each other’s work, and student-

selected course topics.Table 2 displays the proportions o aculty who score “high” and “low”on Student-Centered Pedagogy and the dierential use they make o eacho the teaching approaches included in the composite measure. Here, wend dramatic dierences in the percentages o “high” and “low” scorerson Student-Centered Pedagogy who employ each o the teaching methodsincluded in the composite measure in “most” or “all” o their courses. Forexample, nearly all “high” scorers (99%) use discussion in “most” or “all”o their courses, while less than one-third (31%) o “low” scorers report

the same. In addition, hal or more o those who score “high” on Student-Centered Pedagogy employ all but one o the teaching methods included inthe composite measure—student-selected course topics—in “most” or “all”o their courses. In contrast, with the exception o class discussions, ewerthan 10% o “low” scorers use any o the pedagogical practices included inthe measure in “most” or “all” o their courses.

Turning to the Spirituality measure, we ound that over three-quarters(81%) o aculty consider themselves to be a spiritual person; more thantwo-thirds (69%) say that they seek opportunities to grow spiritually; and

just under hal (47%) consider it “essential” or “very important” to integratespirituality into their lives. Based on their responses to the three items, wecategorized 43% o aculty as “high” scorers on spirituality and 15% as“low” scorers. While at rst glance such a nding appears to be surprising,




given aculty’s strong stance on empirical evidence and observation, the actremains that the sample o aculty responding to the survey is a non-biasedrepresentation o teaching aculty at U.S. colleges and universities.

Looking specically at the pedagogical practices o “high” and “low”scorers on Spirituality, we nd that just over one-quarter (28%) o thosewho score “high” on Spirituality are also “high” scorers on Student-Centered

Class discussions 81.7Cooperative learning (small groups) 47.8Student presentations 44.7Group projects 33.3Student evaluations o their own work 19.4Refective writing/journaling 18.0

Student evaluations o each other’s work 16.0Student-selected course topics 15.0

table 1

Student-centered Pedagogy: faculty uSe of variouS

MethodS in “MoSt” or “all” courSeS

Student-Centered Indicator Percent

Class discussions 99.0 31.2 +67.8Cooperative learning 91.3 4.2 +87.1Student presentations 90.1 8.3 +81.8Group projects 74.3 2.0 +72.3Student sel evaluation 62.4 0.7 +61.7Student evaluation o each other’s work 55.0 0.2 +54.8

Refective writing/journaling 53.6 1.1 +52.5Student-selected course topics 44.6 0.8 +43.8

table 2

uSe of variouS teaching MethodS aMong “high” and “low” ScorerS on Student-centered Pedagogy

(in percentages)1

Student-Centered Pedagogy Student-Centered Indicator High Scorers Low Scorers Dierence

1Percent who use selected method in “all” or “most” o their courses.




Pedagogy. In contrast, just 12% o “low” Spirituality scorers are “high” scorerson Student-Centered Pedagogy. Those who score “high” on the Spirituality measure also tend to use all types o student-centered approaches more

requently than their “low” scoring colleagues. The greatest pedagogicalvariance between “high” and “low” Spirituality scorers is evident in thepercentages who use cooperative learning in “most” or “all” o their courses(54% o “high” Spirituality scorers versus 35% o “low” scorers) (Table 3).

Irrespective o their Spirituality score, women are more likely than mento score “high” on Student-Centered Pedagogy. Not unexpectedly, however,both women and men who are “high” scorers on Spirituality are notably more inclined than their “low”-scoring, same-sex colleagues to score “high”on Student-Centered Pedagogy. For example, 36% o women and 20% o men who score “high” on Spirituality also score “high” on Student-CenteredPedagogy. By comparison, just 19% o women and 10% o men who score“low” on Spirituality score “high” on Student-Centered Pedagogy.

We also compared the use o Student-Centered Pedagogy or those scor-ing “high” and “low” on Spirituality in each o 14 disciplinary aliationsand in eight types o colleges and universities. Disciplinary dierences inaculty members’ use o Student-Centered Pedagogy based on their spiri-tual sel-identication are shown in Table 4. Variations in the percentages

o “high” scorers on Student-Centered Pedagogy based on their Spirituality score are most pronounced in English (46% o “high” scorers on Spirituality versus 27% o “low” scorers scored “high” on Student-Centered Pedagogy)and health science (29% o “high” scorers versus 9% o “low” scorers onSpirituality scored “high” on Student-Centered Pedagogy). In contrast, therewas a dierence o only ve percentage points or less in the proportionso “high” and “low” scorers on Spirituality who scored “high” on Student-Centered Pedagogy in the biological sciences, the physical sciences, busi-ness, and math/statistics. Only in engineering did more “low” than “high”

scoring aculty on Spirituality score “high” on Student-Centered Pedagogy (12% versus 11%).

Looking at type o employing institution (Table 5), we nd that the great-est dierence in “high” use o Student-Centered Pedagogy based on “high”or “low” Spirituality score status is evident among aculty at private two-yearcolleges, private universities, Catholic colleges, and public our-year colleges(17–19 percentage point dierences or each). Markedly smaller dierences(5–6 percentage points) were apparent among aculty at public universitiesand public two-year colleges.

r egreSSion analySiS

To explore the role o aculty’s spirituality in their teaching in greaterdepth, we undertook a stepwise multiple regression analysis employing Stu-




Class discussions 84.5 76.3 +8.2Cooperative learning 53.6 35.4 +18.2Student presentations 48.6 36.5 +12.2Group projects 37.0 24.3 +12.7Student evaluation o each other’s work 24.8 10.8 +14.8Student sel-evaluation 24.8 10.8 +14.0Refective writing/journaling 23.9 10.0 +13.9Student-selected course topics 17.8 10.2 +7.6

table 3

uSe of variouS Student-centered teaching MethodS

aMong “high” and “low” ScorerS on SPirituality(in percentages)1

Spirituality Student-Centered Indicator High Scorers Low Scorers Dierence

English 46.1 27.3 +18.8Education 42.9 34.5 +8.4Fine arts 36.7 26.7 +10.0Other (unspecied) major 33.2 15.6 +17.6Health science 29.1 8.7 +20.4Business 23.9 20.1 +3.8Humanities 21.8 11.7 +10.1Social science 19.3 6.0 +13.3Agriculture/orestry 18.4 5.3 +13.1Biological science 12.9 7.6 +5.3

Other (unspecied) technical eld 12.4 4.2 +8.2Engineering 10.8 12.3 -1.5Physical science 8.1 3.5 +4.6Math/statistics 5.1 2.0 +3.1

1 Percent who use selected method in “all” or “most” o their courses.

table 4

PercentageS of “high” and “low” ScorerS on SPirituality who Score “high” on Student-centered Pedagogy, by

diSciPline

(in percentages)

Spirituality Discipline High Scorers Low Scorers Dierence




dent-Centered Pedagogy as the dependent variable. We identied 41 variablesas critical correlates o student-centered pedagogy. The selection o thesevariables was based on our hypotheses that certain demographic character-istics, educational experiences and practices, and types o institutions whereaculty are employed will play a role in the choices they make with respectto using certain teaching and evaluation strategies. Ater we controlled orthese variables, we entered aculty’s score on the Spirituality measure to as-sess whether sel-reported spirituality dierentiated aculty with respect totheir pedagogy independent o their personal and proessional characteristics

and the characteristics o their employing institutions.Ater accounting or the eects o background characteristics, work vari-

ables, institutional characteristics, and the spirituality variable, we enteredan additional 15 variables that represent personal views and behaviorsalong with aculty’s personal goals and work experiences, including stressand satisaction levels. We entered these variables at later steps or the solepurpose o gaining a better understanding o the characteristics, values, andbehaviors that are associated with the use o student-centered pedagogy. Intotal, 31 variables entered the regression equation with signicant weights

(Table 6). Ater we controlled or these variables, the aculty’s spirituality score entered the equation with a highly signicant weight (beta = .12), in-dicating that aculty who sel-report as being spiritual are much more likely to use a student-centered pedagogy in “most” or “all” o their courses—achoice that occurs independent o their personal characteristics, their elds,or their institutional aliations.

Catholic our-year college 32.3 14.6 +17.7Nonsectarian our-year college 29.7 15.4 +14.3

Public our-year college 29.2 12.1 +17.1Other religious our-year college 28.0 14.0 +14.0Private two-year college 27.2 8.2 +19.0Private university 26.8 8.9 +17.9Public university 25.0 9.4 +5.6Public two-year college 22.4 17.4 +5.0

table 5

PercentageS of “high” and “low” ScorerS on SPirituality

who Score “high” on Student-centered Pedagogy, by tyPe of eMPloying inStitution

(in percentages)

Spirituality Institutional Type High Scorers Low Scorers Dierence




Sex: Female .24 .24 .13Political orientation .06 .04 .10Race: Asian American -.04 -.03 -.04

White -.01 -.05 -.03Age -.07 -.04 -.06Race: Latino .01 -.03 -.02Single .03 -.02 -.03Field: Education .22 .20 .12Multi-disciplinary work .16 .17 .12Field: Fine arts .11 .14 .05

English .13 .14 .06Math/statistics -.18 -.11 -.16Physical science -.16 -.10 -.14Social science -.12 -.11 -.16Biological science -.10 -.10 -.10

Taught interdisciplinary course .12 .08 .07Research orientation -.11 -.08 .00Received award or outstanding

teaching .06 .06 .05Field: Business .03 .05 .02Academic rank -.14 -.06 -.05Held academic administrative post .04 .05 .05Hours per week spent preparing or

teaching .06 .04 .04Field: Humanities .00 -.05 -.07Taught ethnic studies course .10 .04 .03Highest degree held -.12 -.04 -.03Field: Other technical -.04 -.03 -.04

Engineering -.04 -.04 -.03

Health science .02 -.02 -.03Forestry/agriculture -.02 -.03 -.02

Institutional citizenship climate .20 .13 .12Institutional type: University -.11 -.06 -.06Positive collegial environment .02 -.03 -.03Spirituality .21 .12 .12

table 6

correlateS of Student-centered Pedagogy

Variables R Beta in Final Beta 1,2

1Bolded coecients are signicant (p < .01).2 “Final” step refects beta at step when Spirituality entered the regression equation.Note: R2 = .27




As we hypothesized, women are much more likely to employ a student-centered pedagogy independent o their disciplinary aliation or type o employing institution. Likewise, the aculty member’s eld o study appears

to play a signicant role. Irrespective o their individual characteristics andinstitutional circumstances, aculty in education, ne arts, English, andbusiness are much more likely to use student-centered teaching and evalu-ation approaches. In contrast, aculty in math/statistics, the social sciences,biological sciences, physical sciences, and engineering are the least likely toemploy a student-centered pedagogy.

Interestingly enough, aculty who are older, those whose academic rankis more senior (e.g., ull proessor versus associate/assistant proessor), andaculty who list their political aliation as “conservative” are much lesslikely to use a student-centered pedagogy compared to their colleagueswho are more junior with respect to age and career status and to those whosel-identiy as more politically “liberal.” Moreover, aculty who engage ininterdisciplinary teaching and whose academic work spans a variety o disciplines are much more likely to use a student-centered pedagogy. Also,not surprisingly, aculty who spend more hours preparing or teachingand who have been recognized with an award or outstanding teaching aremuch more likely to employ a student-centered pedagogy than their less

teaching-oriented colleagues. In addition, aculty who indicate a strongresearch orientation—i they are employed at a university—are also lesslikely to use a student-centered pedagogy. Also noteworthy is that aculty who are employed at an institution they describe as valuing good citizen-ship (as refected by such indicators as the institutional priority placed ondeveloping community among aculty and students, teaching students howto change society, and creating and sustaining partnerships with their localcommunities) are much more likely to use student-centered teaching andlearning strategies. Experiencing a positive collegial environment, which

has a positive simple correlation with student-centered pedagogy, changedsigns when citizenship climate entered the equation, suggesting a suppressoreect based on the high correlation between these two variables.

Ater we controlled or Spirituality, we entered 12 additional variablesthat represent aculty’s values and personal goals, as well as their aectivestates. Table 7 shows those variables and their nal betas in the equation.These ndings were not surprising. One denitely gets a clear impressionthat aculty who employ a student-centered approach in their teaching arecivic minded both in the values they hold and in their actual practice. They want to be good teachers and serve as role models to their students. They also place great value on students’ personal development. While they eelsatised overall with their jobs, they are also more likely to indicate that they experience stress resulting both rom their jobs and rom aspects o their




personal lives. Finally, those who are oriented toward using student-centeredpedagogy also tend to consider achieving congruence between their personalvalues and those o their employing institution as very important.

diScuSSion and concluSion

Findings rom the present study reinorce the notion that the teachingmethods aculty elect to use refect who they are and what they believe. Inparticular, those who are more spiritual—based on their own sel-identi-cation, the personal priority they place on seeking opportunities to growspiritually, and the personal value they attribute to integrating spirituality into their lives—are much more likely to use “student-centered” pedagogi-cal methods when teaching undergraduate students. Most importantly, this

Civic-minded practice .36 .26 .21Diversity advocate .34 .16 .11Experiencing work stress .18 .07 .06Personal goal:

Serve as a role model orstudents .23 .06 .03

Holding civic-minded values .36 .07 .04Be a good teacher .18 .05 .04Focus on students’ personaldevelopment .30 .05 .05

Belie: Individual can do littleto change society -.19 -.03 -.03

Experiencing personal stress .16 .03 .03Overall job satisaction .02 .03 .03Personal goal: Have congruence

between personal and institutionalvalues .21 .02 .02

Belie: College increases earningpower -.05 -.02 -.02

table 7

faculty valueS and goalS aS they r elate to Student-

centered Pedagogy

Variables r Beta in Final Beta 1,2

1Bolded coecients are signicant (p < .01).2 “Final” step refects beta at last step o the regression equation.Note: R2 = .3




spirituality eect is largely independent o the aculty member’s personalcharacteristics, eld o study, or institutional aliation. That said, the nd-ings also suggest a number o potentially subtle, but important, interrelation-

ships among aculty members’ personal and proessional characteristics, theirspirituality, and their approaches to undergraduate teaching and learningthat warrant uture study. Here, we ocus on the overarching importanceo understanding how aculty members’ spiritual inclinations may impacttheir teaching methods and suggest additional work aimed at advancingempirically based knowledge in this area.

Why should we be concerned with the spiritual dimension o collegeand university aculty members’ lives and its implications or proessionalpractice? One reason is that aculty attitudes and behaviors are known tohave important consequences or student development. The actions o aculty both in and outside the classroom impact the learning and devel-opment o uture teachers, lawyers, physicians, and policymakers, not tomention their very own academic successors and the thousands o otherswhose work aects our daily lives. Interpersonal interaction with aculty enhances a wide variety o student outcomes and, as Terenzini, Pascarella,and Blimling (1996) have shown, is one o the most infuential sources o undergraduate student learning.

As the primary adult agents o socialization in the college environment,aculty have the ability to impact student experiences and outcomes bothpositively and negatively. Beyond infuencing students’ intellectual andcareer development, interacting with aculty has been shown to enhancestudents’ personal identity awareness and moral development (see, e.g.,Bowen, 1977). In addition, student outcomes research shows that inormal(out-o-class) interaction between students and aculty increases aculty infuence on undergraduate students’ values, belies, and behaviors (see,e.g., Pascarella & Terenzini, 2005) and positively aects students’ intel-

lectual curiosity, interpersonal skills, and maturational development (see,e.g., Astin, 1993; Terenzini & Pascarella, 1994). Faculty mentoring has alsobeen positively associated with student inclinations toward humanitarianbehavior (Kuh, 1995).

The second reason that aculty members’ spirituality is a salient actorin the academy is that the values and belies o college and university ac-ulty represent the undamental standards by which institutional decisionsare made and priorities are set. Consequently, aculty play a central role inshaping both the culture and the climate o their institutions. By exten-sion, their values lie at the heart o higher education’s capacity to change.As suggested by the results o this study, aculty who work in environmentswhere they perceive an interest in community development among aculty and students and where they perceive a positive institutional citizenship




climate are more likely to embrace a student-centered pedagogy. Equally noteworthy is the act that those in the proessoriate who are most inclinedto use a student-centered approach to teaching are also likely to place a high

value on achieving congruence between their own values and those o theiremploying institution. On the one hand, this nding can be interpreted asa penchant or activism; these aculty may eel passionate about their pre-erred approach to teaching and expend eort to persuade others in theirinstitutional environments to share their views. An alternative interpreta-tion is that those who employ a heavily student-centered approach to theirundergraduate teaching and who also state the importance o achievingcongruence between their own values and those o the institution may simply be refecting their desire to express themselves authentically and,in doing so, to be accepted and embraced by those with whom they work.Most likely, these points o view are not diametrically opposed. Both per-spectives, however, represent potentially powerul orces or change in theacademy. The act that younger aculty are more likely than their older col-leagues to employ student-centered approaches to undergraduate teachingoreshadows a potentially substantial change in coming years with respectto the normative perspectives and practices that characterize undergraduateteaching and learning.

In light o current accountability demands or learning outcomes, whatsignicance can we attribute to aculty’s adoption o student-centeredpedagogical practices? Certainly, the positive student development outcomestypically associated with exposure to student-centered pedagogical practiceare meaningul in and o themselves (see, e.g., Henson, 2003; Pederson &Williams, 2004). However, especially in light o the myriad and complexchallenges acing higher education and the larger society today, it is alsoimportant to refect on how the apparent connections between aculty members’ spiritual sel-conceptions and their proessional practice may

impact undergraduate education both directly and indirectly.While many o the core literary and philosophical traditions that com-

prise the liberal education curriculum are grounded in the maxim, “Knowthysel,” there is generally little attention paid in today’s secular colleges anduniversities to acilitating student development in the inner realm o sel-un-derstanding (Astin, 2004). Spiritual aspects o student development were cor-nerstones o early American college curricula. However, the Enlightenmentideals, positivistic modes o thinking, and scientic worldviews that beganto exert a powerul infuence on American thought in the late nineteenthcentury continue today to dominate societal values and individual goal ori-entations (see, e.g., Marsden, 1994; Cohen, 1998). Rather than providing adevelopmental context characterized by sel-refection, open dialogue, andthoughtul analysis o alternative perspectives, many o today’s college and




university environments mirror the strong societal emphasis on individualachievement, competitiveness, materialism, and objective knowing. Theways in which our society and our higher education institutions are evolv-

ing necessitates that we reconsider long-standing expectations and deeply held assumptions about many aspects o our work as academics and theirassociated eects both within and beyond the academy.

Certainly, given the broad ormative roles that colleges and universi-ties play in our society, higher education represents a critical ocal pointor responding to the question o how we can balance the “exterior” and“interior” aspects o our lives more eectively. And, given the undamentaltenets o student- or learner-centered pedagogy, it intuitively makes sensethat spiritually inclined aculty would be more likely to employ teachingpractices that invite students to engage actively in an academic community and help them develop their capacity or connectedness, responsiveness,and accountability. Bennett (2003), or example, writes about those in theacademy whom he characterizes as having “relational spiritualities,” den-ing these individuals as being “no less committed to the enlargement andextension o learning, but [emphasizing] openness and community ratherthan exclusion and separatism” (p. 11). Unaraid o change and transor-mation, these aculty—whom Bennett denes as “educators” as opposed

to “instructors”—view students as “potential colleagues in the quest orlearning” and “value the invitation to grow that attending to and caring orothers involves” (p. 12).3 In light o the current challenges we ace both inthe academy and beyond, such an orientation on the part o aculty may beespecially instrumental in rearming a commitment to contribute moreully to the well-being o their institutions, their students, and the larger com-munity. Also important to consider, o course, is how the academic rewardstructure, various institutional dynamics, and general characteristics o theacademic proession as a whole may, or many aculty, militate against their

embracing nontraditional approaches to their academic work.From a research standpoint, with ew exceptions (see, e.g., Astin & Astin,

1999; Braskamp, 2003; Lindholm, Astin, & Astin, 2005), the empirical re-search on spirituality that has been conducted in higher education institu-tions has ocused primarily on students, ignoring completely the experiences,attitudes, expectations, and behaviors o aculty. The result is a critical gapin our understanding o how we can create educational environments thatmaximize the personal and proessional potential o students and aculty and that best prepare students to respond eectively to the demands o an

3Bennett distinguishes educators rom instructors based on the roots o each word:

“educator” rom the root educare, “to draw out,” and “instructor” rom the root instruere,

“to build in” (p. 2).




increasingly complex and global society. Our study helps close this gap by examining one small aspect o this as-yet-largely-untapped area o inquiry.Yet, while it is inormative to know that spiritually oriented aculty are gen-

erally more inclined than their less spiritual colleagues to employ a student-centered pedagogy when working with undergraduates, much remains tobe learned about the intersections between aculty members’ spirituality and their pedagogical choices. For example, ndings rom this study revealmany salient correlates o student-centered pedagogy; much o the variancein aculty’s use o student-centered pedagogy remains unaccounted or inthe model tested here. Nonetheless, the ndings presented here provide anationally normative starting point rom which to examine in greater deptha wide range o potentially relevant associations and eects.

Qualitative ollow-up research that is aimed at understanding how aculty view their spirituality’s role in interactions with students and colleagueswould be especially useul. Our earlier research shows that students whoenter college today are actively engaged in a spiritual quest and have highexpectations or the role their colleges and universities will play in theirspiritual and emotional development (Astin, Astin, Lindholm, & Bryant,2005). It is also important to examine how the curricular content o aculty members’ courses—in conjunction with their pedagogical style—support

students’ developmental interests and needs in this realm. Future researchthat employs qualitative and quantitative methodologies to explore the cur-rent state o aculty belies and behaviors related to undergraduate students’spiritual development can contribute substantially to our understandingo how—in dierent types o campus contexts—to most appropriately and most eectively create and implement curricular programming thatincorporates spiritual issues and perspectives.

aPPendix

variable definitionS and coding ScheMeS

Background CharacteristicsSex: Female Dichotomous variable: 1 = no, 2 = yes

Dependent Variable

Use o Student-Centered Pedagogy 8-item1 actor scale (α = .81)

Independent Variables

1 Factor includes: teaching practice: cooperative learning, group projects, student presentations, studentevaluations o each other’s work, class discussions, refective writing/journaling, student evaluations o their own work, student-selected course topics.




Age 10-point scale: 1<30 to 10 = 70+Race: White/Caucasian Dichotomous variable: 1 = no, 2 = yes

Arican American/Black Dichotomous variable: 1 = no, 2 = yes Latino/a2 Dichotomous variable: 1 = no, 2 = yes

Asian American/Asian Dichotomous variable: 1 = no, 2 = yes American Indian/Alaska Native Dichotomous variable: 1 = no, 2 = yes Native Hawaiian/Pacic Islander Dichotomous variable: 1 = no, 2 = yes Other Dichotomous variable: 1 = no, 2 = yes

Marital Status: Single Dichotomous variable: 1 = no, 2 = yes Married Dichotomous variable: 1 = no, 2 = yes Living with partner Dichotomous variable: 1 = no, 2 = yes

Political orientation 5-point scale: 1 = Far Right. To 5 =Far Let

Work-Related VariablesResearch orientation 3-item3 actor scale (α = .76) Engage in work spanning multiple Dichotomous variable: 1 = no, 2 = yes

disciplinesDegree earned 4-point scale: 1 = none to 4 =

doctorate or proessional Major: Agriculture/orestry Dichotomous variable: 1 = no, 2 = yes

Biological sciences Dichotomous variable: 1 = no, 2 = yes Business Dichotomous variable: 1 = no, 2 = yes Education Dichotomous variable: 1 = no, 2 = yes Engineering Dichotomous variable: 1 = no, 2 = yes

English Dichotomous variable: 1 = no, 2 = yes Fine arts Dichotomous variable: 1 = no, 2 = yes Health sciences Dichotomous variable: 1 = no, 2 = yes Humanities Dichotomous variable: 1 = no, 2 = yes Math/statistics Dichotomous variable: 1 = no, 2 = yes Physical sciences Dichotomous variable: 1 = no, 2 = yes Social sciences Dichotomous variable: 1 = no, 2 = yes Other technical eld Dichotomous variable: 1 = no, 2 = yes Other major Dichotomous variable: 1 = no, 2 = yes

Taught an interdisciplinary course Dichotomous variable: 1 = no, 2 = yes Taught a women’s studies course Dichotomous variable: 1 = no, 2 = yes

Academic rank 4-point scale: 1 = lecturer/instructor /other to 4 = ull proessor Held academic administrative position Dichotomous variable: 1 = no, 2 = yes Hours per week spent preparing or teaching 9-point scale: 1 = none , 9 = 45+Received award or outstanding teaching Dichotomous variable: 1 = no, 2 = yes

Institutional Characteristics Institutional control: Private Dichotomous variable: 1 = no, 2 = yes Institutional selectivity Average SATM + SATVNumber o undergraduate students Continuous variable: 72 to 37,605Institutional type: University Dichotomous variable: 1 = no, 2 = yes

2 Latino/a includes: Mexican/Chicano/a, Puerto Rican, and other Latino.3Factor includes: hours per week: research and scholarly writing; primary interest: research; and work activity: number o proessional writings published/accepted or publication in past two years.




Institutional citizenship climate 5-item4 actor scale (α = .79)Positive collegial environment 15-item5 actor scale (α = .87)

Spirituality

Spirituality 3-item6 actor scale (α = .88)

Faculty Values, Perceptions, and Goals Personal goal: Become an authority in my

eld 4-point scale: 1 = not important, 4 = essential

Help others in diculty 4-point scale: 1 = not important, 4 = essential

Have congruence between personalvalues and institutional values 4-point scale: 1 = not important,

4 = essential Be very well-o nancially 4-point scale: 1 = not important,

4 = essential Obtain recognition rom colleagues 4-point scale: 1 = not important,

4 = essential Be a good teacher 4-point scale: 1 = not important,

4 = essential Serve as a role model to students 4-point scale: 1 = not important,

4 = essential Be involved in programs to clean up

the environment 4-point scale: 1 = not important,

4 = essential Focus on personal/spiritual development 6-item7 actor scale (α = .88)Civic-minded values 8-item8 actor scale (α = .80)Civic-minded practice 7-item9 actor scale (α = .71)

4Factor includes: institutional priority: develop a sense o community among students and aculty, developleadership ability in students, teach students how to change society, provide resources or aculty to engagein community-based teaching/research, create/sustain partnerships with surrounding communities.5 Factor includes: institutional opinion: my research is valued by aculty in my department, my teaching isvalued by aculty in my department, there is adequate support or aculty development, my department

mentors new aculty well, aculty are involved in campus decision-making, the criteria or advancementand promotion are clear, my values are congruent with institutional values; institutional description: aculty here respect each other, there is respect or diverse values and belies, aculty are typically atodds with administrators (recoded); institutional priority: mentor new aculty; and satisaction: proes-sional relations with aculty, social relations with aculty, competency o colleagues, relationships withadministrators.6 Factor includes: personal characteristics: consider mysel a spiritual person and seek opportunities togrow spiritually; and personal objective: integrate spirituality into my lie.7 Factor includes: goals or undergraduates: develop moral character, provide or emotional development,help develop personal values, enhance sel-understanding, enhance spiritual development, and acilitatesearch or meaning/purpose in lie.8Factor includes: personal objectives: infuence social values, infuence political values; goals or undergradu-

ates: instill a commitment to community service, prepare or responsible citizenship; general opinions:colleges should be actively involved in solving social problems, colleges are responsible or working withsurrounding communities, colleges should encourage students to be involved in community service,community service as part o a course is a poor use o resources (recoded).9Factor includes: general activities: collaborated with the local community in research/teaching, used your scholarship to address local community needs, engaged in public service/proessional consultingwithout pay; hours per week: community/public service; teaching practice: community service as a parto coursework, taught a service learning course, advised student groups in community service.




r eferenceS

Astin, A. W. (1993). What matters in college? Four critical years revisited. San Fran-cisco: Jossey-Bass.

Astin, A. W. (2004). Why spirituality deserves a central place in liberal education.Liberal Education, 90 (2), 34–41.

Astin, A. W., & Astin, H. S. (1999). Meaning and spirituality in the lives o college aculty: A study o values, authenticity, and stress. Los Angeles: Higher Educa-tion Research Institute, UCLA.

Astin, A. W., Astin, H. S., Lindholm, J. A., & Bryant, A. N. (2005). The spiritual lie o college students: A national study o college students’ search or meaning and purpose. Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.

Ausubel, D. P. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York: Holt,Reinhardt, and Winston.

Bennett, J. B. (2003). Academic lie: Hospitality, ethics, and spirituality. Boston, MA:

Anker.

10 Factor includes: personal characteristics: experience joy in your work, eel good about the directionin which your lie is headed, achieve a healthy balance between your personal and proessional lie, eelthat your work adds meaning to your lie, experience close alignment between your work and personalvalues.11Factor includes: institutional opinion: This institution should refect diversity more strongly in thecurriculum; general opinions: A racially/ethnically diverse student body enhances the educational experi-ences o all students, promoting diversity leads to the admission o too many underprepared students(recoded); personal objective: promote racial understanding; goal or undergraduates: e nhance knowledge

o/appreciation or other racial/ethnic groups.12Factor includes: source o stress: household responsibilities, child care, care o elderly parent, my physicalhealth, health o spouse/partner, personal nances, children’s problems, marital riction, being part o adual-career couple, sel-imposed high expectations, lack o personal time, subtle discrimination.13Factor includes: source o stress: committee work, aculty meetings, job security, change in work respon-sibilities, working with underprepared students, research/publishing demands, institutional proceduresand “red tape,” teaching load, keeping up with inormation technology, review/promotion process.

Positive outlook 5-item10 actor scale (α = .78)Diversity advocate 5-item11 actor scale (α = .78)Personal stress 12-item12 actor scale (α = .71)Work stress 10-item13 actor scale (α = .72)

Belie: Individuals can do little to changesociety 4-point scale: 1 = disagree strongly .

4 = agree strongly I have to work harder than my

colleagues to be perceived as a legitimatescholar 3-point scale: 1 = not at all, 3 = to a

great extent The chie benet o college is that it

increases earning power 4-point scale: 1 = disagree strongly to4 = agree strongly

Overall job satisaction 4-point scale: 1 = not satisfed to4 = very satisfed




Bowen, H. (1977). Investment in learning: The individual and social value o Americanhigher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Braskamp, L. A. (2003). Fostering student development through aculty development:

A national survey o chie academic ofcers at church-related colleges. Chicago:Loyola University Chicago.Cohen, A. M. (1998). The shaping o American higher education: Emergence and

growth o the contemporary system. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Combs, A. (1962). Perceiving, behaving, becoming. Washington, DC: Association or

Supervision & Curriculum Development.DeSouza, M. (2003). Contemporary infuences on the spirituality o young people:

Implications or education. International Journal o Children’s Spirituality,8 (11), 269–279.

Du, L. (2003). Spiritual development and education: A contemplative view. Inter-

national Journal o Children’s Spirituality, 8 (3), 227–237.Hall, P. D. (1999). The eect o meditation on the academic perormance o Arican

American college students. Journal o Black Studies, 29 (3), 408–415.Harris, M., & Moran, G. (1998). Reshaping religious education. Louisville, KY:

Westminster John Knox Press.Henson, K. T. (2003). Foundations or learner-centered education: A knowledge

base. Education, 124 (1), 5–15.Hill, P. C., Pargament, K. I., Hood, R. W., Jr., McCullough, M. E., Swyers, J. P., Larson,

D. B., & Zinnbauer, B. J. (2000). Conceptualizing religion and spirituality:

Points o commonality, points o departure. Journal or the Theory o Social Behavior, 30 , 51–77.

Kelly, G. (1955). Principles o personal construct psychology. New York: Norton.Kuh, G. D. (1995). The other curriculum: Out-o-class experiences associated with

student learning and personal development.The Journal o Higher Education,66 (2), 123–155.

Lee, D. M. (1999). Reinventing the university: From institutions to communities o higher education. Journal o Adult Development, 6 (3), 175–183.

Lewis, J. (2000). Spiritual education as the cultivation o qualities o the heart

and mind: A reply to Blake and Carr. Oxord Review o Education, 26 (2),263–283.Lindholm, J. A., Astin, H. S., & Astin, A. W. (2005). Spirituality and the proessoriate.

Los Angeles: Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.Lindholm, J. A., & Szelényi, K. (2006). Disciplinary dierences in aculty use o stu-

dent-centered pedagogy. Unpublished manuscript.Lindholm, J. A., Szelényi, K., Hurtado, S., & Korn, W. S. (2005). The American college

teacher: National norms or the 2004–2005 HERI aculty survey. Los Angeles:Higher Education Research Institute, UCLA.

Love, P. G., & Talbot, D. (1999). Dening spiritual development: A missing consid-

eration or student aairs. NASPA Journal, 37 (1), 361–375.Marsden, G. M. (1994). The soul o the American university: From Protestant estab-

lishment to established nonbelie. New York: Oxord University Press.Pascarella, E. T., & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college aects students: A third decade

o research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.




Pederson, S., & Williams, D. (2004). A comparison o assessment practices and theireects on learning and motivation in a student-centered learning environ-ment. Journal o Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia,13(3), 283–306.

Robertson, D. L. (1999). Proessors’ perspectives on their teaching: A new constructand developmental model. Innovative Higher Education, 23 (4), 271–294.Robertson, D. R. (2005). Generative paradox in learner-centered college teaching.

Innovative Higher Education, 29 (3), 181–194.Robinson, P. (2004). Meditation: Its role in transorming learning and the oster-

ing o an integrative vision or higher education. Journal o Transormative Education, 2 (2), 107–119.

Tatarkowski, M. (1997). Should spirituality be taught in post-compulsory educa-tion? Justications or its inclusion in urther education curriculum. Pastoral Care, 15 (3), 23–29.

Terenzini, P. T., & Pascarella, E. T. (1994). Living with myths: Undergraduate educa-tion in America. Change, 26 (1), 28–32.

Terenzini, P. T., Pascarella, E. T., & Blimling, G. S. (1996). Students’ out-o-classexperiences and their infuence on learning and cognitive development: Aliterature review. Journal o College Student Development, 37 (2), 149–162.

Tisdell, E. J. (2001). Spirituality in adult and higher education. ERIC Clearinghouseon Adult, Career, and Vocational Education. Columbus, OH. (#ED459370)

Warren, R. G. (1997). Engaging students in active learning. About Campus, 2 ,16–20.

Zinnbauer, B. J., Pargament, K. I., & Scott, A. B. (1999). The emerging meanings o religiousness and spirituality: Problems and prospects. Journal o Personality,67 , 889–919.

Zohar, D., & Marshall, I. (2004). Spiritual capital: Wealth we can live by. San Fran-cisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

Documents

Spirituality and Pedagogy