RUNNING HEAD: Spiritual Well-being and SA Practice€¦ · Web viewRUNNING HEAD: Spiritual...

Spiritual Well-being and SA Practice 1

RUNNING HEAD: Spiritual Well-being and SA Practice

The Relationship between Life Purpose, Spiritual Well-being, and Student Affairs Practice:

Report of Research Findings for the Educational Leadership Foundation of ACPA College Student Educators International

Submitted by

Tricia Seifert

Noël Harmon

Kathleen Goodman

Sherry Watt

The University of Iowa

January 2009

Please direct questions regarding this report to:Dr. Tricia SeifertN491 Lindquist CenterIowa City, IA [email protected]

We would like to thank the Educational Leadership Foundation of ACPA for their generous support of this research.

mailto:[email protected]


Introduction

In the past ten years, a growing body of research has been devoted to examining the role

of spirituality in the lives of college students (Higher Education Research Institute [HERI], 2003;

Bryant, 2006; Bryant, Choi, & Yasuno, 2003; Lee, 2002; Lindholm, 2006; Love, Bock,

Jannarone, & Richardson, 2005; Magolda & Ebben, 2006; Moran, 2007; Parks, 2000; Tisdell,

2003; Watt, 2003); how student affairs practitioners can best support students in their

development (Chickering, Dalton, & Stamm, 2006; Jablonski, 2001; Love, 2001; Love & Talbot,

1999; Manning, 2001; Parks, 2000; Rogers, & Love, 2007), and how specific demographic

groups of students can best be supported in their spiritual growth and development (Love, Bock,

Jannarone, & Richardson, 2005; Watt, 2003). Recognizing the importance of distinguishing

between religion and spirituality, some have characterized spirituality in terms of students’

journey or quest (see Bryant, 2006) in search of their own answers to the “Big Questions” (Parks,

2000) which deal with identity (“who am I?”), destiny/calling (“where am I going?”), faith

(“what can I believe in?”), wholeness (“how can I be happy?”), and mattering (“will my life

make a difference?”) (Dalton, Eberhardt, Bracken, & Echols, 2006). However, student affairs

practitioners still grapple with how to engage students in discussions about these questions in

ways that promote students’ development, while consciously recognizing the variability of both

students’ and student affairs practitioners’ spiritual/religious practices and beliefs.

Despite well-meaning efforts and intentions to define spirituality in an inclusive manner

(Chickering, 2008; Chickering, Dalton, & Stamm, 2006; Love & Talbot, 1999; Parks, 2000), the

root word, “spirit” conveys a construct that does not resonate with all students or all student

affairs practitioners (Goodman & Teraguchi, 2008; Nash, 2001). For those who the term

“spirituality” does not ring true, higher education’s renewed focus on spiritual development may

leave them without a seat at the table to discuss life’s Big Questions. Moreover, there may be a


perception that practitioners who identify as religious and/or spiritual are more inclined to

engage in practices previous research has associated with facilitating students’ spiritual

development than those who do not identify as religious and/or spiritual. Our research tested this

notion by examining the effects of student affairs practitioners’ sense of life purpose, spiritual

well-being, existential well-being, and religious well-being on their engagement in practices

associated with students’ spiritual development.

Method

Sample

We partnered with ACPA College Student Educators International to conduct this

research. ACPA sent an e-mail to all graduate and professional members within the United

States inviting them to participate. Participants followed a link to a secure website in which they

completed the 20 minute online survey. Twenty-six percent of those invited to participate chose

to do so. The respondent sample (n=1,488) was similar to the overall ACPA membership but was

overrepresented by White and female respondents. We had 1,404 respondents with complete data

on all variables across the regression models. We provide complete descriptive statistics on the

analytic sample in Table 1.

In addition to the demographic, education, and professional experience questions, we

collected information on respondents’ spiritual and religious involvement and orientation. To our

knowledge, this is the only study to date that has asked student affairs practitioners these kinds of

questions. Nearly two-thirds of sample respondents (63.5%) indicated they were involved in an

organized religion. Approximately 20% of respondents stated they participate in religiously-

affiliated activities a few times a year while 30% stated they participate weekly. A small number

of respondents (less than 2%), who identified as not being part of an organized religion,


participate in religiously-affiliated activities a few times a year and sometimes with even greater

frequency. Conversely, a small number (less than 1%), who identified as belonging to an

organized religion, do not participate in religiously-affiliated activities. In terms of asking about

respondents’ denominational and religious/spiritual orientation, we augmented the list used by

the Higher Education Research Institute’s Spirituality in Higher Education research project

(HERI, 2003). Despite a broad listing of religious denominations and religious/spiritual

orientations, Other (18.7%) was one of the three most frequently selected categories with

Catholic (22.9%) and Protestant (29.3%) having the greatest percentages. Fourteen percent of

respondents identified as Agnostic, Atheist, or Humanist.

Instrument

In order to measure our independent variables of interest, we intentionally selected pre-

existing instruments used by psychological and social science researchers for nearly 20 years.

The first section was the fourteen-item Life Purpose scale of psychological well being (Ryff,

1989). We chose this scale because we felt it measured purpose in life in a secular way that did

not reference “God” or spirituality. The scale measures the degree to which an individual has:

1) goals in life and a sense of direction; 2) feels there is a meaning to present and past life; 3)

holds beliefs that give life purpose; and 4) has aims and objectives for living (Ryff, 1989; Ryff &

Keyes, 1995).

The twenty item Spiritual Well-Being Scale (SWBS) (Ellison & Paloutzian, 1982;

Ellison, 1983) comprised the second section of the instrument. We chose the SWBS, because it

measures the two dimensions in which spirituality seems to be seated. Specifically, people have a

level of well-being related to their life existence (similar to Ryff’s life purpose scale) but also

have a level of well-being connected to a higher power. The ten item Religious Well-Being


subscale assesses one’s relationship with God, while the ten-item Existential Well-Being

subscale assesses one’s sense of life purpose and life satisfaction. When the two subscales are

summed, the result is a general indicator of spiritual well-being. The SWBS instrument uses the

term “God” as a focus of the higher power in the religious well-being scale, which did not

resonate with all of our respondents. It is important to note that seventy-two respondents chose

not to complete the Religious Well-Being subscale, leaving those questions pertaining to “God”

blank. In order to have comparable analytic samples, we did not include the respondents who did

not complete the Religious Well-Being scale in our regression models.

The third section of the instrument consisted of items measuring the frequency with

which student affairs practitioners’ engage in various practices with students (see Table 2). These

items are a significant revision of items pilot tested with a convenience sample at a state-wide

conference in the midwest in October 2005. These survey questions were originally created as

part of a survey developed in a doctoral seminar titled “Spirituality and Student Affairs

Practice.” We selected these practices based on previous research indicating they contribute to

students’ spiritual development (Cannister, 1999; Chickering, Dalton, & Stamm, 2006; Daloz,

Keen, Keen, & Parks, 1996; Koth, 2003 Love, 2002; Manning, 2001; Parks, 2000; Tisdell,

2003). The student affairs practitioners’ practice items comprised the dependent variables for the

study.

The survey instrument concluded with demographic questions. We included a number of

these demographic variables as important controls in our analyses. In order to better estimate the

unique effect of the independent variables of interest on student affairs practitioners’ engagement

with students, we controlled for gender (female was the reference group), age, race/ethnicity

(White was the reference group), if the respondent had a graduate degree in higher education or


student affairs, if the respondent was involved in an organized religion, and if the respondent

worked at a religiously-affiliated institution.

Analysis

We analyzed these data from three perspectives. First, we factor analyzed the student

affairs practice items to see if the individual items suggested the presence of underlying

constructs of student affairs practice. These constructs then comprised our dependent variables.

Next, we examined bivariate correlations among the dependent and independent variables (life

purpose, spiritual well-being, existential well-being, and religious well-being). Finally, we ran a

series of ordinary least squares regressions to estimate and compare the magnitude of the unique

effects of our independent variables of interest on each of our dependent measures. For each

dependent measure, we estimated three regression models. The first model estimated the effects

of life purpose and spiritual well-being on student affairs practice; the second model examined

the effects of life purpose and existential well-being; and the third model regressed the student

affairs practice variables on life purpose and religious well-being. All models controlled for

gender, age, race/ethnicity, higher education/student affairs graduate degree, involvement in an

organized religion, and whether the respondent’s institution was religiously-affiliated.

Results

Factor Analysis

We were interested in learning what effect life purpose and spiritual well-being (and the

sub-scale components of existential and religious well-being) had on practices in which student

affairs practitioners engage students. We sought to answer this question by first seeing if

correlations existed between the set of twenty practices. We used principal components factor

analysis to examine if the collection of items tapped any underlying constructs related to student


affairs practitioners’ engagement with students. Setting an eigenvalue of one as the threshold, we

found the student affairs practice items clustered into three separate constructs: community

building, modeling authenticity, and reflective practice. Community building reflects student

affairs practitioners’ intentional creation of opportunities for students to engage with one another

and their larger community, often with social justice and civic engagement as a centering point

for the activity. Modeling authenticity denotes student affairs practitioners’ willingness to

recognize students’ individuality, engage students in conversations about purpose and balance

and to share their own experience. Reflective practice refers to student affairs practitioners’

deliberate use of time and various modes (e.g., art, music, film, journaling) to think about their

actions, intentions, and values. We present constituent item factor loadings and scale reliabilities

in Table 2.

Correlations

We then examined the correlations between our independent variables of interest (life

purpose, spiritual well-being, existential well-being, and religious well-being) and our dependent

variables (community building, modeling authenticity, and reflective practices). We found our

dependent variables related to one another in a modest manner (bivariate correlations ranged

between .504 and .603, p < .01). With the exception of the life purpose and the existential well-

being scales (r = .715, p < .01), the correlations between the life purpose scale and the

components of the spiritual well-being scale were lower than the correlations between the

dependent variables. We provide correlations between the independent variables of interest and

dependent measures in Table 3.

Regression Analysis


The focus of this research study was to examine the effect of student affairs practitioners’

sense of life purpose, spiritual well-being, existential well-being, and religious well-being on the

extent to which they used community building, modeling authenticity, and reflective practices in

their work with students. We provide beta coefficients for all models in Table 4. Beta

coefficients can be interpreted as a standard deviation increase in X yields a beta standard

deviation increase in Y. Controlling for demographic characteristics, we found student affairs

practitioners’ sense of life purpose had a significantly positive effect on practitioners’

engagement in community building (beta = .165, p < .001), modeling authenticity (beta = .159, p

< .001) and reflective practices (beta = .135, p < .001), whereas practitioners’ spiritual well-

being (the sum of the existential and religious well-being scales) had no effect on their engaging

in these practices.

We hypothesized student affairs practitioners’ religious well-being may obscure the

relationship between spiritual well-being and engaging in these practices. Specifically, we

considered practitioners’ sense of existential well-being might be more influential in their work

with students than practitioners’ religious well-being. To examine this hypothesis, we compared

the unique effects of life purpose and existential well-being on practitioners’ engagement in

practices. With both life purpose and existential well-being entered into the model, we found

practitioners’ sense of life purpose contributed positively to their engagement in community

building (beta = .119, p < .01), modeling authenticity (beta = .157, p < .001), and reflective

practices (beta = .113, p < .01), but their level of existential well-being had no effect on engaging

in these practices. The non-significant effect of existential well-being is likely due to its fairly

high correlation with the life purpose scale (r = .715, p < .001). Although the tolerance and

variance inflation factor indices were not outside of normal parameters (average tolerance


= .480) (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003), this degree of multicollinearity may have affected

the amount of unique variance the life purpose and existential well-being scales could explain in

the models.

Finally, we investigated the effect of life purpose and religious well-being on student

affairs practitioners’ engagement in community building, modeling authenticity, and reflective

practice. We found religious well-being had no effect on practitioners’ engagement with

practices associated with students’ spiritual development but life purpose positively predicted

practitioners’ engagement in community building (beta = .170, p < .001), modeling authenticity

(beta = .166, p < .001), and reflective practices (beta = .144, p < .001).

In an additional series of analysis, we examined if existential well-being or religious

well-being had a stronger influence on practitioners’ engagement in these practices. We found

practitioners’ existential well-being predicted engaging in practices associated with students’

spiritual development but religious well-being had no effect. These findings were consistent with

our earlier results and clearly demonstrated practitioners’ sense of life purpose and its

commensurate construct, existential well-being, have greater effects than religious well-being on

engaging in practices associated with facilitating students’ spiritual development.

In summary, net of other influences, a practitioners’ life purpose had a statistically larger

positive effect on the extent to which practitioners engage in community building, modeling

authenticity, and reflective practices with students than their levels of spiritual well-being,

existential well-being, and religious well-being. The fact that life purpose clearly yielded the

greatest influence on practitioners’ willingness to engage in practices associated with students’

spiritual development calls on practitioners to rethink the language they use to discuss spiritual


development and to reconsider their own journey in asking and answering life’s Big Questions.

We discuss what this research means for students affairs practice in subsequent sections.

Discussion and Implications for Practice

Privilege

Those who identify as spiritual (typically with a reference to God or some higher power)

and/or religious may unfairly earn a degree of privilege due to the perception they are more

likely to engage in practices associated with students' spiritual development. This perception,

however, is unfounded. Although those who feel spiritually called to the profession may believe

a higher power gives center to their practice, our findings suggest that it matters little whether

practitioners have a spiritual and/or religious grounding. In engaging in practices associated with

facilitating students’ spiritual development, what matters most is that student affairs practitioners

have a strong sense of meaning or purpose to their life. A strong sense of life purpose, and

similarly a high level of existential well-being, is that which truly influences the way student

affairs practitioners engage with students in community building, modeling authenticity, and

reflective practice.

Change the Discourse

Given that life purpose matters most, we assert higher education’s recent and vociferous

focus on “spirituality” (Astin, 2004; Chickering, 2003; Palmer, 1998) may unwittingly

perpetuate the idea that those who identify as spiritual and/or religious are the only ones prepared

to assist students in wrestling with life’s Big Questions. Student affairs practitioners’ disposition

and understanding of their own life purpose, not their spiritual or religious well-being, makes the

biggest difference in their motivation to engage in practices that build community, model

authenticity, and engage students in reflective ways. If the field is sincerely resolute in using


inquiry to foster holistic student learning, then it is time to change the discourse to reflect the

evidence.

The term “spirituality” is particularly confusing and synonymous to many with religion

(Nash, 2001) and is often ill-defined. Some participants in our study chose not to respond to

questions on the religious well-being scale because the references to God did not resonate with

them. The discord generated by this set of survey items led us to think about what level of

dissonance is caused when higher education broadly references “spirituality” (and the extent to

which the term spirituality is associated with “God” or a higher power) for students and others

for whom this construct simply does not resonate. For example, how many students may want to

attend a program to discuss living authentically with purpose and meaning but find the

“spirituality” marketing of the program distressing? In an effort to make a space at the table for

all, we offer the term “inner development” to describe this quest or journey. We find “inner

development” to more inclusively invite students, faculty, and student affairs practitioners to the

table to wrestle with life’s Big Questions. In an effort to meet all students where they are, we

encourage student affairs practitioners to refocus their interactions around students’ inner

development instead of spirituality.

Student affairs practitioners may need to clearly delineate (for themselves and students)

when they are discussing inner development and when they are discussing spirituality or religion.

Religion may be one dimension of inner development, spirituality may be another, and the

broader search to live authentically with a sense of purpose and meaning may still be another.

This is not to say, however, that these dimensions are mutually exclusive. For some students (and

practitioners alike), a conversation about inner development may center in a conversation about

religious belief or personal spiritual practice. However, to assume that inner development has


these connotations for all students removes places at the table for a host of students (particularly

agnostics, atheists, free-thinkers, secular humanists, and others) (Goodman & Teraguchi, 2008;

Nash, 2001). If we are “to know as we are known,” as Parker Palmer (1983) urges, then a

welcoming and inclusive language must serve as our community’s foundation.

In order to be inclusive of all students, student affairs practitioners from either end of the

spectrum (highly religious to atheist) will likely need to re-conceptualize and reconcile how they

support students’ inner development. This may first require student affairs practitioners to

recognize and acknowledge their own stance on religious and spiritual beliefs and practices as

well as their responses to the Big Questions in order to assess how their biases may impact their

work with students. It seems that learning more about one’s beliefs and the beliefs of others,

despite the fact that religion and spirituality are “hot topics” (Nash, Bradley, & Chickering,

2008), is necessary for practitioners to best educate in a holistic manner.

An Examined Life

In order for student affairs practitioners to be personally and professionally available to

journey with students into the land of Big Questions, they must examine their own inner

development and personal journey into student affairs work, asking themselves intentional

questions about their calling as student affairs practitioners. Intentional question to ask could

include: in what ways am I clear about what I do and the purpose behind my commitment to the

student affairs profession? What motivates me personally towards this profession? What

assumptions do I have about inner development or rather, my sense of living authentically with

purpose and meaning? What assumptions do I have about spirituality and religion? What role do

I believe higher education should play in fostering students’ inner development, particularly as

this may relate to spirituality and religion for some students? What is my comfort zone in


discussing “hot topics” and asking (and struggling to answer) the “Big Questions?” How does

my personal belief structure influence my work with all students? Student affairs practitioners

have to be willing to engage in their own inner development in order to be “good company”

(Baxter Magolda, 2005) on students’ inner development journeys.

A helpful start to unpacking student affairs practitioners’ biases on the topics of religion,

spirituality, and inner development is to create professional development opportunities that focus

on these issues. Student affairs practitioners need occasions to think through their own sense of

life purpose and how they are living an authentic life. They need time to think about and honestly

assess their biases, how they came to those biases, and what they are willing to work on in order

to best meet the needs of students.

Spirituality is the new “buzz” word in higher education and as with issues such as race

and sexual orientation, student affairs professionals often shy away from conducting and

honoring their self-assessments, particularly if their personal values deviate from what they

perceive is the normative expectation of the profession. However, by not unpacking, confronting,

and reconciling one’s feelings about issues such as spirituality, life purpose, and religion, student

affairs practitioners may due unintentional harm, or at the very least negatively influence the

students with whom they work. Facilitating conversations about inner development and

wrestling with Big Questions with students likely comes easier to practitioners who have had the

chance and taken the time to think through and wrestle with these issues themselves.

The inner development work for which we argue requires a big leap for most

practitioners. First, it means setting aside precious time that could otherwise be used on

something tangible, like planning a program, to reflect and think about the far less tangible. It is

difficult to quantify the “outcomes” of time spent thinking about what one’s purpose is in the


profession or how to act more authentically with students and co-workers. When the profession

rewards only that which can be measured, the inner development of practitioners is devalued.

However, if student affairs practitioners are truly to be “good company” on students’ journeys,

they must take the time to prepare their own provisions. The “outcomes” of this kind of inner

development, while less tangible, will manifest in richer, fuller interactions with not only

students but colleagues.

Even if one takes the time, the inner development work done by practitioners may

languish if a community engaged in similar pursuits does not support and celebrate it. Convening

a mentoring community (Parks, 2000) to provide a place for practitioners to grapple with the Big

Questions and articulate, interrogate, process, and commit to a self-authored purpose is

necessary. This may mean finding or creating different spaces for both practitioners and students

where they feel safe to reflect and converse about difficult issues. It may also mean establishing

or creating a culture where engaging in discussions about inner development is valued and

respected as a worthy pursuit and essential to the lifeblood of the community. This may be a

challenge. Our fast-paced society conditions us that time spent in reflection or in conversation is

wasteful. However, recent research has shown that today’s students crave the chance to explore

these issues (HERI, 2003). Student affairs professionals have long been stewards of holistic

learning, unwavering in their commitment to the development of the “whole” student (Evans &

Reason, 2001), a concept that continues to evolve. As the needs of our students change, so too

must the profession. Student affairs professionals must continue to think broadly and inclusively

about the multitude of facets of student development, finding ways—whether comfortable or not

—to meet that historic edict.


Conclusion

In order to best facilitate students’ inner development, we need to first change the

discourse to reflect the diverse beliefs and values of today’s college students. Attempting to

repackage spirituality and spiritual development as inclusive terms denies the power and

privilege that they engender for those on the margins. In order to engage in practices that reach

all students, students affairs practitioners must re-commit to questioning, reflecting,

understanding, and where necessary, developing their own sense of meaning and life purpose.

Student affairs practitioners own inner development impacts the degree to which they engage in

community building, modeling authenticity, and reflective practices—all of which have been

shown to positively promote student development. Given the resurgence of interest in

facilitating students’ spiritual development (of which we have renamed inner development),

refocusing student affairs practitioners’ efforts to ask and struggle with their own Big Questions

may be what best serves students. We assert that only then will student affairs practitioners have

the fullest capacity to be good company for students on their inner quest and journey.


References

Astin, A.W. (2004). Why spirituality deserves a central place in liberal education. Liberal

Education, 90(2), 34-41.

Baxter Magolda, M. (2002). Helping students make their way to adulthood: Good company for

the journey. About Campus, 6(6), 2-9.

Bryant, A.N. (2006). Exploring religious pluralism in higher education: Non-majority religious

perspectives among entering first-year college students. Religion & Education, 33(1), 1-

25.

Bryant, A., Choi, J., & Yasuno, M. (2003). Understanding the religious and spiritual dimensions

of students' lives in the first year of college.” Journal of College Student Development,

44(6), 723-45.

Chickering, A.W. (2003). Reclaiming our soul: Democracy and higher education. Change, 35(1),

38-44.

Chickering, A.W. (2008, March). Curricular content, powerful pedagogy, and student activities

to encourage spiritual growth. Presentation at the Iowa State University’s Conference on

Spirituality, Ames, IA.

Chickering A.W., Dalton, J.C., & Stamm, L. (2006). Encouraging authenticity & spirituality in

higher education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Cannister, M.W. (1999). Mentoring and the spiritual well-being of late adolescents. Adolescence,

34(136), 769-779.

Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S.G., & Aiken, L.S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation

analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd edition). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.


Daloz, L.A., Keen, C. H., Keen, J.P., and Parks, S.D. (1996). Common Fire. Boston, MA:

Beacon Press.

Dalton, J.C., Eberhardt, D., Bracken, J., & Echols, K. (2006). Inward journeys: Forms and

patterns of college student spirituality. Journal of College & Character, 7(8), 1-21.

Ellison, C. W. (1983). Spiritual well-being: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of

Psychology and Theology, 11, 330-340.

Evans, N. J. & Reason, R. D. (2001). Guiding principles: A review and analysis of student affairs

philosophical statements.” Journal of College Student Development, 42(4), 359-377.

Goodman, K. M., & Teraguchi, D. H. (2008). Beyond spirituality: A new framework for

educators. Diversity & Democracy, 11(1), 10-11.

Higher Education Research Institute (HERI). (2003). The spiritual life of college students: A

national study of college students’ search for meaning and purpose. Los Angeles:

Author.

Jablonski, M.A.(Ed.) (2001). The implications of student spirituality for student affairs practice.

New Direction for Student Services, no. 95. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Koth, K. (2003). Deepening the commitment to serve: Spiritual reflection on service-learning.

About Campus, 7(6), 2-7.

Lee, J.J. (2002). Changing worlds, changing selves: The experience of the religious self among

Catholic collegians. Journal of College Student Development, 43(3), 341-356.

Lindholm, J.A. (2006). The "interior" lives of American college students: Preliminary findings

from a national study.” In J.L. Heft (Ed.), Passing on the faith: Transforming traditions

for the next generation of Jews, Christians, and Muslims (pp. 75-102). New York:

Fordham University Press.


Love, P.G., Bock, M., Jannarone, A., & Richardson, P. (2005). Identity interaction: Exploring

the spiritual experiences of lesbian and gay college students. Journal of College Student

Development, 46(2), 193-209.

Love, P.G. (2001). Spirituality and student development: Theoretical connections. In M.A.

Jablonski (Ed.), The implications of student spirituality for student affairs practice (pp. 7-

16). New Directions for Student Services, no. 95, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Love, P.G. (2002). Comparing spiritual development and cognitive development. Journal of

College Student Development, 43(3), 357-373.

Love, P.G., & Talbot, D. (1999). Defining spiritual development: A missing consideration for

student affairs. NASPA Journal, 37, 361-375.

Magolda, P., & Ebben, K. (2006). College student involvement and mobilization: An

ethnographic study of a Christian student organization. Journal of College Student

Development, 47(3), 281-298.

Manning, K. (2001). Infusing soul into student affairs: Organizational theory and models. In

M.A. Jablonski (Ed.), The implications of student spirituality for student affairs practice

(pp. 27-35). New Directions for Student Services, no. 95, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Moran, C.D. (2007). The public identity work of evangelical Christian students. Journal of

College Student Development, 48(4), 418-434.

Nash, R. (2001). Religious pluralism in the academy: Opening the dialogue. New York: Peter

Lang Publishing.

Nash, R., Bradley, D.L., Chickering, A. (2008). How to talk about hot topics on campus: From

polarization to moral conversation. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Palmer, P. J. (1993). To know as we are known. San Francisco: Harper.


Palmer, P.J. (1998). Evoking the spirit in public education. Educational Leadership, 56(4), 6-11.

Paloutzian, R.F. & Ellison, C.W. (1982). Loneliness, spiritual well-being and the quality of life.

In L.A. Peplau and D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory,

research and therapy (pp. 224-237). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Parks, S.D. (2000). Big questions, worthy dreams. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Rogers, J.L., & Love, P.G. (2007). Exploring the role of spirituality in the preparation of student

affairs practitioners: Faculty constructions. Journal of College Student Development,

48(1), 90-104.

Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of

psychological well-being.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069-1081.

Ryff, C. D., & Keyes, C. L. M. (1995). The structure of psychological well-being revisited.

Journal of Personal and Social Psychology, 69, 719-727.

Tisdell, E.J. (2003). Exploring spirituality and culture in adult and higher education. San

Francisco: John Wiley & Sons.

Watt, S.K. (2003). Come to the river: Using spirituality to cope, resist, and develop identity. In

M.F. Howard-Hamilton (Ed.), Meeting the needs of African American women (pp. 29

40). New Direction in Student Services, no. 104, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.


Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Analytic Sample: N=1,404

Mean SD Min Max

Independent Variables of InterestLife Purpose 5.05 0.59 1.93 6.00Religious Well-being 4.18 1.53 1.00 6.00Existential Well-being 5.13 0.65 1.60 6.00Spiritual Well-being 4.65 0.9 1.80 6.00

Dependent VariablesCommunity BuildingModeling Authenticity 3.80 1.29 1.00 7.00Reflective Practice 5.89 0.98 1.00 7.00

3.90 1.38 1.00 7.00n Percent*

Demographic VariablesGender

Men 443 31.6Transgendered 957 68.2Women 3 0.2Information not available 1 0.1

Race/Ethnicity**African American 146 10.4Native American 8 0.6Asian Pacific Islander 42 0.6White 1112 79.2Latino/a 54 3.8Multiracial 43 3.1Other 20 1.4

Age21-25 280 19.926-30 358 25.531-35 214 15.236-40 172 12.341-45 105 7.546-50 85 6.151 or older 190 13.5

* Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding. ** N size does not sum to 1,404 as some respondents chose more than one racial/ethnic category as opposed to marking "Multiracial."


Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Analytic Sample: N=1,404, page 2

n PercentEducation and Professional ExperienceDegree Completed

Associate's 1 0.1Bachelor's 256 18.2Master's 860 61.3Ph.D. 273 19.4Postdoctoral 13 0.9Information not available 1 0.1

Higher Education/Student Affairs Graduate DegreeNo 474 33.8Yes 930 66.2

Years in FieldLess than a year to 3 years 344 24.54-6 years 289 20.67-9 years 186 13.210-14 years 187 13.315-19 years 149 10.620 or more years 247 17.6Information not available 2 0.1

Institutional Type2-year Community College 55 3.94- year Public Institution 822 58.54-year Private Institution 516 36.82- or 4-year For-profit 5 0.4Information not available 6 0.4

Religious InstitutionNo 1138 81.1Yes 266 18.9

Religious Involvement and OrientationInvolvement in an Organized Religion

No 512 36.5Yes 892 63.5

Participates in Religiously-affiliated ActivitiesDoes not participate 503 35.8A few times a year 262 18.7Monthly 154 11Weekly 411 29.3Daily 74 5.3


Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Analytic Sample: N=1,404, page 3

n PercentReligious orientation, regardless of participation

Agnostic 132 9.4Atheist 49 3.5Buddhist 15 1.1Catholic 321 22.9Evangelical 58 4.1Hindu 1 0.1Humanist 15 1.1Jehovah's Witness 0 0Jewish 53 3.8Mormon 5 0.4Muslim 5 0.4Pagan 7 0.5Protestant 411 29.3Quaker 5 0.4Seventh Day Adventist 3 0.2Sikh 0 0Wiccan 1 0.1Other 262 18.7Information not available 61 4.3


Table 2. Scales of Student Affairs Practice Related to Spiritual Development

Community Building α = .877

Factor loadings

Incorporate service learning into programming model

Create opportunities for intercultural interactions

Use outdoor/wilderness environment as learning tool

Conduct ally/social justice training

Discuss rights and responsibilities of being a citizen in a community

Create opportunities for social/political awareness

Include issues of social justice in programming model

Conduct community-building exercises

Provide opportunities for community service/volunteerism

.603

.665

.486

.686

.602

.746

.789

.622

.707

Modeling Authenticity α = .848

Discuss life purpose

Share relevant personal experiences during conversations w/ students

Discuss balance with students in terms of self care, stress, conflict management

Communicate and interact with students in sincere and genuine ways

Seek to understand the unique individuality of each student

Mentor students in their personal development

Discuss career and future professional life with students

.448

.654

.692

.841

.824

.712

.776

Reflective Practices α = .732

Provide time to reflect and share during class or meeting

Provide time for written reflections during class meetings

Use art, music, poetry, or film as learning tools

Use and discuss values clarification

.695

.813

.531

.565


Table 3. Correlations of Independent and Dependent Variables in Study

MODELING AUTHENTICITY

COMMUNITY BUILDING

REFLECTIVE PRACTICE

LIFE PURPOSE

RELIGIOUS WELL- BEING

EXISTENTIAL WELL-BEING

SPIRITUAL WELL-BEING

MODELING AUTHENTICITY

r 1 .526** .504** .153** .034 .120** .072**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000 .206 .000 .007

COMMUNITY BUILDING

r .526** 1 .603** .144** -.027 .133** .025Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000 .308 .000 .351

REFLECTIVE PRACTICE

r .504** .603** 1 .130** -.008 .112** .033Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000 .777 .000 .218

LIFE PURPOSE r .153** .144** .130** 1 .221** .715** .446**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

RELIGIOUS WELL-BEING

r .034 -.027 -.008 .221** 1 .247** .936**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.206 .308 .777 .000 .000 .000

EXISTENTIAL WELL-BEING

r .120** .133** .112** .715** .247** 1 .571**

Sig. (2-tailed)

.000 .000 .000 .000 .000 .000

SPIRITUAL WELL-BEING

r .072** .025 .033 .446** .936** .571** 1Sig. (2-tailed)

.007 .351 .218 .000 .000 .000

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).


Table 4. Beta Coefficients for Regression Modelsa

Community Building Modeling Authenticity Reflective PracticesI II III I II III I II III

Life Purpose .165**.119

* .170** .159** .157** .166** .135** 0.113** .144**Spiritual Well-being 0.005 0.026 0.031

Existential Well-being0.06

8 0.017 0.048Religious Well-being -0.018 0.021 0.019

R2 0.060.06

2 0.06 0.05 0.049 0.05 0.034 0.035 0.034* p < .01; ** p < .001;a All models include controls for gender, age, race/ethnicity, whether one has a graduate degree in higher education/student affairs, whether one belongs to an organized religion, and whether one is employed at a religiously-affiliated institution.

RUNNING HEAD: Spiritual Well-being and SA Practice€¦ · Web viewRUNNING HEAD: Spiritual...

Documents

Transcript of RUNNING HEAD: Spiritual Well-being and SA Practice€¦ · Web viewRUNNING HEAD: Spiritual...