Paul Yoder Survey of Mennonite Schools

Teaching and Learning Faculty Publications Teaching & Learning 2019 Survey of Mennonite Schools Council Educators Final Report Andromeda Hightower University of Nevada, Las Vegas, andromeda.hightower@unlv.edu Peter Wiens University of Nevada Las Vegas, peter.wiens@unlv.edu Paul Yoder Eastern Mennonite University Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/tl_fac_articles Part of the Educational Administration and Supervision Commons Repository Citation Hightower, A., Wiens, P., Yoder, P (2019) Survey of Mennonite Schools Council Educators Final Report 1-28 https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/tl_fac_articles/272 This Report is protected by copyright and/or related rights It has been brought to you by Digital Scholarship@UNLV with permission from the rights-holder(s) You are free to use this Report in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s) directly, unless additional rights are indicated by a Creative Commons license in the record and/ or on the work itself This Report has been accepted for inclusion in Teaching and Learning Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Digital Scholarship@UNLV For more information, please contact digitalscholarship@unlv.edu Survey of Mennonite Schools Council Educators Final Report Andromeda Hightower, University of Nevada, Las Vegas Peter D Wiens, University of Nevada, Las Vegas Paul J Yoder, Eastern Mennonite University University of Nevada, Las Vegas Las Vegas, NV, USA For additional copies of this report, contact Peter Wiens at peter.wiens@unlv.edu University of Nevada, Las Vegas 4505 S Maryland Parkway, Box 3005, Las Vegas, NV 89154 Copyright 2019 by the authors All rights reserved Suggested citation: Hightower, A., Wiens, P D & Yoder, P J (2019) Survey of Mennonite Schools Council educators: Final report https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/tl_fac_articles/272 About the Authors Andromeda Hightower, M.Ed., is a Doctoral Student of Teacher Education and Graduate Student in the Teaching and Learning Department at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) She teaches introductory teacher education courses for undergraduate students and conducts research on instructional innovation, feedback, and coaching/mentorship Prior to UNLV, she has taught both science and English, and has taught from early childhood to secondary school She has also taught across the country and internationally, such as in Las Vegas, Chicago, St Paul, and Yubari (Japan) Andromeda specializes in quantitative data analysis and statistical methods Peter D Wiens, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Teacher Education at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV), where he teaches courses in teacher preparation and conducts research in the assessment of teacher education program outcomes Prior to working at UNLV, Dr Wiens was a teacher and administrator for more than thirteen years at K12 schools including Penn View Christian School as well as schools in Taiwan and Niger Dr Wiens is a graduate of Eastern Mennonite School (’93), Goshen College (’97), and earned his Ph.D in Curriculum and Instruction from the University of Virginia Dr Wiens has published extensively in academic journals on the topics of teacher education assessment and the lingering associations between teacher preparation and instructional practices of practicing teachers Paul J Yoder, Ph.D., is an Assistant Professor of Teacher Education at Eastern Mennonite University He is a graduate of Eastern Mennonite School (’02) and EMU (’06) Dr Yoder taught history and TESOL in Virginia public schools before earning his Ph.D in Curriculum and Instruction from the University of Virginia Dr Yoder’s scholarship interests include the teaching and learning of history among culturally and linguistically diverse student populations Dr Yoder’s publications and conference presentations have additionally addressed issues related to language, student identity, and the enacted curriculum Executive Summary In the spring of 2019, a survey was distributed to the teachers and administrative staff of 21 North American-based Mennonite Schools Council institutions Paper copies were sent to institutional heads and were completed during staff meetings without the administrator present Surveys were returned in sealed envelopes Two schools did not finish, so they completed an online version during the summer Out of these schools, 17 participated in the survey, with a total of 390 participants represented a wide range of grade levels, content areas, and Mennonite educational context This report represents the major findings, analysis, and recommendations based on the data that was collected A summary of some of these findings will be discussed here Location of Participating Schools Demographics Participants identified primarily as Caucasian (90.1%) with ranges of gender identity that were similar to national averages (OECD, 2019) The vast majority identified as Christian (97.7%), with a large variety of different Christian denominations, although Mennonite is still the highest majority (n = 198, 51.8% of those who identified as Christian) The different schools that were represented in the sample also varied by numbers of Mennonite participants, with a range of 7.7% to 96.4% As far as attending Mennonite schools themselves, 31% of participants attended a Mennonite school at some point between early childhood and high school, and 36.4% attended a Mennonite college/university The average years of experience across all participants was approximately 15.5 years, similar to the national average of 15 years (OECD, 2019) Important Findings Participants self-reported their own abilities and perspectives in a variety of different questions regarding their faith, instructional practices, and political views Faith self-efficacy refers to the degree that participants felt confident in their ability to be able to apply various aspects of faith-based practices in the classroom and the school community as a whole Among the questions that were asked for this measure, participants reported having a higher amount of confidence in faith-based practices that involved love and safety, and a lower amount of confidence in making their faith-based practices more accommodating to diverse students/student experiences and connecting with students’ parents It is recommended that participants be provided with more opportunities for conversation and reflection in these key areas Instructional practices can be described in four categories: clarity of instruction, cognitive activation, classroom management, and extended activities (OECD, 2019) Overall, participants reported classroom management practices the most frequently in their classrooms, while extended activities were reported the least This report recommends that teachers be provided with more opportunities to engage with technology and project-based learning with their students Religious views of participants were found to be positively correlated with political views This meant that participants with conservative or liberal religious views were likely to have similarly conservative or liberal political views Participants perceived that their individual religious beliefs were typically similar to the religious beliefs of their colleagues at their school Frequency of MSC Educators' Teaching Practices ENHANCED ACTIVITIES CLASSROOM MANAGEMENT COGNITIVE ACTIVATION CLARITY OF INSTRUCTION Survey of Mennonite Schools Council Educators: Final Report In this report, the findings from the Survey of Mennonite Schools Council (MSC) Educators are presented The report begins with demographic information about the MSC educators that completed the survey Following that, the responses to questions about religious integration, teaching preparation, teaching practices and personal beliefs are presented The data presented in this report are not intended to be judgmental or evaluative of the educators or the schools in which they teach The responses are simply presented as they were received Limited data is presented at the school level This is because the intention of this report is not to compare the different schools in any way No data was presented from groups of fewer than nine individuals Therefore, smaller schools and teaching areas (those with fewer than nine educators completing the survey) were not presented by themselves Demographics The participants represented a total of 17 different Mennonite schools, with a total sample of 390 participants Table describes the participants in terms of grade level, while Table describes participants by content area/position Figure displays participants’ years of experience in a histogram, with an overall mean of 15.51 years Table shows what types of licenses participants possessed, with a majority (59.0%) holding permanent/professional licenses Figure shows which states provided the licenses, with a plurality in Pennsylvania (160 participants) Table Teaching Level Early Childhood Elementary Middle Secondary Multiple Missing 5.1% 22.8% 11.5% 28.2% 9.2% 23.1% Table Content Area Elementary 22.4% Math 9.0% Science 7.8% ELA 7.3% Bible/Religion 7.3% Social Studies 7.1% Early Childhood 4.9% Administrators 4.5% Music 4.1% Physical Education/Health 3.9% Instructional Aides 3.3% Foreign Language Computers/Information Technology Art Special Education Home Economics Design and Technology/Industrial Arts Library Staff Guidance Counselor ESL Theater/Drama Business *Percentages represent individuals with combined subject areas separately 2.9% 2.9% 2.2% 2.2% 2.2% 1.8% 1.8% 1.0% 0.8% 0.2% 0.2% Figure Years of Teaching Experience Table Teaching License Provisional/Temporary Permanent/Professional Advanced Professional OCT None Other Combination 8.2% 59.0% 4.6% 0.5% 12.6% 6.4% 3.3% *6.2% did not respond Figure Licenses Issues By State Kentucky Missouri Ontario, Canada South Carolina West Virgina Wisconsin Kansas New York Illinois New Jersey Maryland Florida South Dakota Oregon Iowa Indiana Ohio Virgina Pennsylvania 20 40 60 80 100 *17 did not provide a state 120 140 160 180 A majority of participants identified as female (63.8%), with male-identified (31.5%), no response (4.4%), and gender diverse (0.3%) in the minority, as described in Table A majority of participants also identified as Caucasian/White (90.1%), with no response (6%), Hispanic/Latinx (2.1%), African American/Black (1.5%), Asian/Pacific Islander (0.3%), and Arab-American (0.3%) in the minority, as described in Table Table Gender Male-identified Female-identified No response 31.5% 63.8% 4.4% *0.3% chose both male- and female-identified Table Ethnicity Caucasian/White African American/Black Hispanic/Latinx Asian/Pacific Islander Arab-American 90.1% 1.5% 2.1% 0.3% 0.3% *6% chose not to respond A majority of the participants self-identified as Christian (97.7%), with those responding as not Christian (0.3%) and no response (2.1%) in the minority, as described in Table Among the Christian participants, there were a total of 26 different denominations present in the sample, as listed in Figure 4, as well as non-denominational Christians (12.0%) and participants unsure of their denomination status (less than 1%) About half of the participants self-identified as Mennonite (51.8%), while the rest did not consider themselves Mennonite (40.0%) or did not respond (8.2%), as described in Table Table lists schools and the percentages of participants at each school that were Mennonite, with cases of less than 10 being excluded from analysis The school with the highest percentage of Mennonite participants was Bethany Christian School (96.4%), while the lowest was The City School (all campuses averaging 7.7%) Table lists grade levels and the percentages of participants in each grade level that were Mennonite The grade level with the highest frequency of Mennonite participants was High School (67.3%), while the lowest amount was Elementary (44.9%) Table Christian Yes No No response 97.7% 0.3% 2.1% Descriptive Data Results Tables 12 through 15 all provide descriptive data for how the sample of participants responded based on their self-identified faith self-efficacy (Table 12), initial teacher preparation content areas (Table 13), feelings of preparedness based on initial teacher preparation (Table 14), and the frequency of various teacher practices utilized in a classroom (Table 15) Each of these are presented as percentages of the total sample In addition, means are provided for Tables 12, 14, and 15, and “no response” rates are also presented From Table 12, the faith self-efficacy data, there were several findings First, the generally highest-rated questions were as follows: To what extent can you show students they are loved and valued by God which enables them to value and love each other? and How well can you create a classroom/community where it is emotionally safe to raise questions, to value and learn from differences, and to care for each other? Second, the generally lowest-rated questions were as follows: To what extent you invite parents to become partners in the faith formation of their child? and How well can you eliminate the obstacles that exclude or hinder the ability of students to receive a faith-infused, education of excellence? These determinations reflect the rate of high responses (A Great Deal, Quite a Bit) and low responses (Very Little, Not at All) as well as the mean scores (1.40 and 1.63 for the highest-rated, 2.79 and 2.44 for the lowest rated, respectively), with lower scores representing higher faith self-efficacy Based on these findings, it appears that emotional strength and demonstrating values such as love and safety is generally reported to be more within the capabilities of the participants in the sample On the other hand, participants reported that making their community accessible to all individuals, including the parents of children, were areas for growth It is recommended from these findings that participants be provided more training, resources, administrative support, and cooperation in the areas of accessibility and involvement/communication/connection with students’ home lives and community, especially parents and caregivers 11 0.0% 1.40 0.3% 48.2% 37.2% 12.1% 2.1% 0.3% 1.69 0.3% 39.2% 36.9% 21.5% 2.1% 0.0% 1.86 0.3% 46.9% 43.1% 8.7% 0.8% 0.0% 1.63 0.5% 33.1% 45.9% 18.2% 1.8% 0.0% 1.89 1.0% 40.3% 40.5% 17.4% 1.0% 0.3% 1.80 0.5% 34.1% 39.2% 21.0% 4.6% 0.3% 1.97 0.8% 49.7% 34.1% 13.1% 2.6% 0.0% 1.68 0.5% 13.1% 38.5% 36.4% 8.7% 0.8% 2.44 2.6% 41.3% 34.9% 18.1% 5.2% 0.3% 1.88 0.8% 13.6% 22.3% 38.5% 18.5% 5.1% 2.79 2.1% 36.4% 39.0% 20.3% 2.6% 0.8% 1.91 1.0% 35.1% 42.1% 20.5% 1.8% 0.0% 1.89 0.5% 1.91 12 No Response Very Little (4) 0.5% Mean Some Influence (3) Faith Self-Efficacy To what extent can you show students they are loved and valued by God which enables them to value and love each other? To what extent can you teach and model peacebuilding, including regularly modeling and practicing a lifestyle of nonviolence, seeking justice and being part of a reconciling faith community? To what extent can you teach values that are responsive to cultural, racial and socio-economic diversity? How well can you create a classroom/community where it is emotionally safe to raise questions, to value and learn from differences, and to care for each other? To what extent can you enable students to practice global awareness, cultural sensitivity, anti-racism, and compassionate living? To what degree can you guide students to grow in their understanding of stewardship of all God has entrusted to them, including the natural environment? To what extent can you help students grow in understanding the process of biblical discernment by asking questions, practicing spiritual disciplines, and engaging with other Christians? To what extent can you encourage students to grow in relationship with Jesus and to follow Jesus in daily life through attitudes and practice? How well can you eliminate the obstacles that exclude or hinder the ability of students to receive a faithinfused, education of excellence? To what extent can you use stories and symbols of faith and reconciliation regularly in your class? To what extent you invite parents to become partners in the faith formation of their child? To what extent you build a strong faith and learning community in which students and staff support each other? To what degree can you enable students to live a life of curiosity, wonder and mystery as they join with God to bring the reign of God on earth as it is in heaven? Aggregate Mean Not at All (5) Quite a Bit (2) 4.4% A Great Deal (1) 64.9% 30.0% Table 12 From Tables 13 and 14, the content and feelings of preparedness of teachers’ initial preparation, there were several findings First, in terms of the content of the initial teacher preparation, the following were the least present: Teaching in a multicultural or multilingual setting, Use of ICT (information communication technology) for teaching, and Integrating my faith into my teaching Second, in terms of feelings of preparedness regarding initial teacher preparation, the previous three were also the lowest scored, in addition to one other category, which was Teaching in a mixed ability setting, despite its higher content presence during initial teacher preparation These identifications were made based on the rate of high responses (Yes, A Great Deal, Quite a Bit) and low responses (No, Very Little, Not at All) as well as the mean scores (Multicultural at 2.51, ICT at 2.59, Integrating faith at 2.45, and Ability at 2.30), with lower scores representing higher feelings of preparedness from teachers’ initial preparation Based on these findings, it is not surprising that Integrating my faith into my teaching was ranked lower, given that 29% of the sample never attended a Christian university, and it is unlikely that many alternate routes to licensure would provide this content area However, Teaching in a multicultural or multilingual setting and Use of ICT (information communication technology) for teaching were both ranked poorly in terms of content and feeling of preparedness, which suggests that school sites should increase opportunities to provide professional development and experience in these areas in order to fill potential gaps – this is especially the case for Teaching in a mixed ability setting, which despite having a high presence in initial teacher preparation with the sample was still not highly ranked in terms of feelings of preparedness Table 13 Included in Pre-service Teacher Preparation Content of some or all subject(s) I teach Pedagogy of some or all subject(s) I teach General pedagogy Classroom practice in some or all subject(s) I teach Teaching in a mixed ability setting Teaching in a multicultural or multilingual setting Teaching cross-curricular skills (e.g creativity, critical thinking, problem solving) Use of ICT (information and communication technology) for teaching Student behavior and classroom management Monitoring students’ development and learning Integrating my faith into my teaching Fostering students’ social and emotional growth 13 Yes 82.3% 79.2% 85.1% 81.5% 74.1% 53.3% 70.8% No No Response 12.6% 5.1% 14.6% 6.2% 9.7% 5.1% 13.1% 5.4% 20.3% 5.6% 41.3% 5.4% 22.8% 6.4% 52.1% 41.5% 6.4% 82.3% 80.8% 40.0% 65.4% 6.2% 5.9% 5.4% 5.1% 11.5% 13.3% 54.6% 29.5% Mean No Response 41.5% 44.9% 49.7% 44.4% 30.3% 25.6% 37.7% Not at all (4) 40.5% 27.2% 27.7% 30.5% 20.5% 15.9% 20.8% Somewhat (3) Well (2) Feelings of Preparedness in Pre-service Teacher Preparation Content of some or all subject(s) I teach Pedagogy of some or all subject(s) I teach General pedagogy Classroom practice in some or all subject(s) I teaching Teaching in a mixed ability setting Teaching in a multicultural or multilingual setting Teaching cross-curricular skills (e.g creativity, critical thinking, problem solving) Use of ICT (information and communication technology) for teaching Student behavior and classroom management Monitoring students’ development and learning Integrating my faith into my teaching Fostering students’ social and emotional growth Aggregate Mean Very well (1) Table 14 11.5% 0.8% 20.0% 2.1% 15.1% 1.5% 17.4% 2.1% 37.9% 5.1% 37.9% 12.6% 29.2% 4.4% 1.71 1.97 1.90 1.90 2.30 2.51 2.19 5.6% 5.9% 5.9% 5.6% 6.2% 7.9% 7.9% 12.3% 28.5% 35.6% 15.1% 2.59 8.5% 21.8% 17.7% 16.2% 19.7% 2.07 2.13 2.45 2.19 2.16 6.2% 6.9% 6.7% 5.9% 45.6% 47.9% 34.9% 40.8% 24.4% 2.1% 24.6% 2.8% 26.4% 15.9% 29.5% 4.1% From Table 15, the frequency of teacher practices are divided into four main categories: Clarity of Instruction, which includes practices that guarantee the learning objectives and ensure retention; Cognitive Activation, which includes practices that require students to utilize higher levels of cognition and complex thinking; Classroom Management, which includes practices that ensure students are on task with the learning objectives and create a safe learning environment; and Extended Activities, which includes practices that require students to complete large-scale projects and utilize current technology In terms of frequency, Classroom Management practices were the most common (mean of 2.02, lower numbers signify higher frequency), followed by Clarity of Instruction (2.05), Cognitive Activation (2.45), and Extended Activities with the least amount of practices (2.52) Individually, the most frequent practices (with means less than 2.00) were I calm students who are disruptive (1.93), and I explain how new and old topics are related (1.94) The least frequent practices (with means greater than 2.50) were I give students projects that require at least one week to complete (2.71), and I ask students to decide on their own procedures for solving complex tasks (2.64) Based on these findings, the sample suggests that participants may benefit from more opportunities to facilitate student work on more complex projects, particularly those where higher-level thinking skills can be utilized and that require more applications of technology These kinds of activities may also increase student engagement, which is linked with reduced behavior management issues Likewise, we recommend that administrators consider providing opportunities for professional develop that utilizes these methods – technology (ICT) in particular – given that it is reasonable to assume the lack of teaching practices that utilize technology is linked with the lack of feeling of preparedness in this area 14 Occasionally (3) Never or Almost Never (4) Mean No Response 2.3% 2.04 2.8% I set goals at the beginning of instruction 25.4% 45.4% 26.2% 1.3% 2.03 1.8% I explain what I expect the students to learn 30.0% 53.8% 12.6% 1.5% 1.85 2.1% I explain how new and old topics are related 23.8% 57.4% 15.4% 1.3% 1.94 2.1% 14.9% 52.8% 27.9% 2.3% 2.18 2.1% 11.5% 49.2% 33.8% 2.8% 2.29 2.6% 5.4% 23.8% 51.3% 16.7% 2.05 2.82 2.8% 0.8% 2.03 2.3% I have students work in small groups to come up with a 14.6% 44.1% 34.6% 4.1% joint solution to a problem or task I ask students to decide on their own procedures for 5.9% 33.6% 47.4% 10.3% solving complex tasks Cognitive Activation Aggregate Mean I tell students to follow class rules 33.3% 34.1% 27.2% 3.3% 2.29 2.6% 2.64 2.8% 2.45 2.01 2.1% Clarity of Instruction Classroom Management Cognitive Activation I refer to a problem from everyday life or work to demonstrate why new knowledge is useful I let students practice similar tasks until I know that every student has understood the subject matter Clarity of Instruction Aggregate Mean I present tasks for which there is no obvious solution I give tasks that require students to think critically Frequently (2) 18.2% 58.7% 17.9% Always (1) Teacher Practices I present a summary of recently learned content Table 15 18.2% 58.7% 20.0% I tell students to listen to what I say 30.3% 39.2% 24.6% 3.3% 2.01 2.6% I calm students who are disruptive 26.9% 51.8% 18.2% 0.8% 1.93 2.3% 26.7% 35.9% 29.2% 5.4% 2.18 2.8% 9.7% 27.9% 40.0% 19.0% 2.02 2.71 3.3% 2.34 3.1% Enhanced Activities When the lesson begins, I tell students to quiet down quickly Classroom Management Aggregate Mean I give students projects that require at least one week to complete I let students use ICT (information and communication technology) for projects or class work Enhanced Activities Aggregate Mean Aggregate Mean 15 15.6% 42.3% 29.5% 9.5% 2.52 2.26 Tables 16 and 17 present the mean scores for participants’ religious views, faith self-efficacy, and frequency of teaching practices divided by grade level and content area respectively Religious views are represented on a scale of to 10, with representing liberal religious views, and 10 representing conservative religious views Faith self-efficacy is represented on a scale of to 5, with representing high faith self-efficacy, and representing low faith self-efficacy Teaching practices, as shown in the primary categories of Clarity of Instruction, Cognitive Activation, Classroom Management, Enhanced Activities, and a total mean of all four categories, are represented on a scale of to 4, with representing a high frequency of practices, and representing a low frequency Table 16 revealed several findings for differences in grade levels For religious views, the most conservative views were found in Early Childhood, followed by Middle School, Elementary, and High School with the most liberal religious views For faith self-efficacy, Elementary was the highest, followed by Middle School, High School, and Early Childhood as the lowest faith selfefficacy In terms of total instructional practices, the most frequent was Middle School, followed by Elementary, High School, and Early Childhood with the least frequency Instructional Practices – Clarity of Instruction Instructional Practices – Cognitive Activation Instructional Practices – Classroom Management Instructional Practices – Enhanced Activities Instructional Practices – Total Mean Means of Religious Views, Faith Efficacy and Instructional Practices By Grade Level Early Childhood Elementary Middle School High School Faith Self-Efficacy Table 16 Religious Views These findings provide the curious insight that Early Childhood teachers simultaneously represented the most conservative religious views of the sample, and yet had the lowest faith self-efficacy, which involves the degree to which an educator is able to effectively integrate faith-based practices in the classroom and, more generally, in a school context To some extent, the low presence of instructional practice in Early Childhood is reasonable given how different the context is to other grade levels However, this data suggests that the practices of Early Childhood classrooms and schools should be examined more carefully 5.85 5.67 5.81 4.79 2.14 1.78 1.95 2.04 2.33 1.98 2.06 2.12 2.69 2.46 2.49 2.48 1.76 1.80 1.88 2.25 3.19 2.68 2.41 2.38 2.49 2.23 2.21 2.31 *Combined grade levels are shown separately for each grade level identified 16 Instructional Practices – Clarity of Instruction Instructional Practices – Cognitive Activation Instructional Practices – Classroom Management Instructional Practices – Enhanced Activities Instructional Practices – Total Mean Means of Religious Views, Faith Efficacy, and Instructional Practices By Content Area Elementary English Language Arts (ELA) Math Science Social Studies Foreign Languages Bible/Religion Special Education Physical Education/Health Pre-kindergarten/Early Childhood Instructional Aide Administrators Home Economics Music Art Other (Any areas < 10 cases) Faith Self-Efficacy Table 17 Religions Views Table 17 revealed several findings for differences in content areas For religious views, the most conservative views were found in Special Education (6.82) and Pre-kindergarten/Early Childhood (6.04) The most liberal views were found in Music (4.17) and Instructional Aide (4.44) For faith self-efficacy, the highest means were found for English Language Arts (ELA) (1.75), Elementary (1.78), and Social Studies (1.79) The lowest faith self-efficacy means were found in Art (2.42) In terms of total instructional practices, the most frequent practices were found in English Language Arts (ELA) (2.09), Home Economics (2.12), and Social Studies (2.15), with the least practices found in Pre-kindergarten/Early Childhood (2.52), Music (2.46), and Special Education (2.43) 5.67 5.16 5.93 5.61 4.77 5.17 5.41 6.82 5.53 6.04 4.44 5.91 5.33 4.17 4.55 4.81 1.78 1.75 2.06 2.07 1.79 2.08 1.86 1.91 1.96 2.16 2.00 1.83 2.04 2.10 2.42 2.07 1.98 2.01 2.02 2.10 2.09 2.08 2.20 1.97 2.26 2.36 2.18 2.00 2.14 2.22 2.18 2.10 2.46 2.33 2.32 2.48 2.34 2.52 2.44 2.88 2.55 2.74 2.51 2.30 2.33 2.80 2.34 2.42 1.80 2.06 2.27 2.18 2.08 2.17 2.22 2.10 1.89 1.77 1.91 2.03 1.81 1.93 2.25 2.10 2.68 1.96 2.70 2.51 2.10 2.35 2.15 2.75 2.61 3.20 2.78 2.38 2.21 2.90 2.14 2.32 2.23 2.09 2.33 2.32 2.15 2.28 2.25 2.43 2.33 2.52 2.35 2.18 2.12 2.46 2.23 2.24 *Combined content areas are shown separately for each content area identified Figure displays a histogram of the counts for each response recorded on a scale of reported religious views, with representing the most liberal and 10 representing the most conservative Figure displays a similar histogram reporting political views, with representing the most liberal and 10 representing the most conservative Table 18 shows a strong Pearson correlation (r = 0.893) between these variables This demonstrates that participants in this sample who rated themselves as conservative were likely to so for both religious and political views, and vice versa 17 Figure Figure 18 Table 18 Figure displays a histogram regarding the number of responses recorded that reported participants’ perceptions of the religious views of their colleges at their school, scaled from to 10 (liberal to conservative) Figure is a similar histogram, with an identical scale, reporting participants’ perceptions of the religious views of the students’ families at their school Tables 19 and 20 report the Pearson correlations for each of these variables respectively as compared to participants own religious views The correlations found that participants’ own religious views were less related to their perceptions of the religious views of students’ families (r = 076) compared to their perceived colleagues’ religious views (r = 187) This means that participants were slightly more likely to expect that their own religious beliefs were similar to those of their colleagues than to expect that students’ families held their same religious beliefs Figure 19 Table 19 Figure 20 Table 20 21 Appendix Other Colleges Attended by Participants Allegheny College American Band College Anabaptist Learning Institute Antioch New England Asbury University Azusa Pacific University Azusa Pacific University Ball State University Beaver College Bloomsburg University Bob Jones University Bowie State University Bridgewater College Bucknell University Cabrini College California University of Pennsylvania Calvin College Capital University Cedarville University Chatham College Chestnut Hill College Clarion University College of Wooster Concordia University Dayton University Denver Baptist Bible College DeSales University Drexel University Duke University Eastman School of Music Elizabethtown College Ellsworth Community College Flagler College Florida State College Freeman Academy Fresno State University Frostburg State University Full Sail University Fuller School of Theology Geneva College Grace College Grand Canyon University Gratz College Greenville College Hagerstown Community College Harrisburg Area Community College Harvard Heidelberg University Heston College Holy Family University Houghton College Illinois Central College Immaculata University Indiana University South Bend Indiana Wesleyan University Iowa State University Iowa State University Ithaca College John Hopkins University Juniata College Kansas State University Kaplan University Kirkwood Community College Lamar University Lambeth University LaSalle University LeTourneau University Lesley University Lehigh University Los Angeles Baptist College Luther College Lycoming College Manatee Community College Mansfield University Marquette University Masters University of Divinity Missio Seminary Mississippi State University Moravian College Morehead State University Morningside College Mount Holyoke College Mt Olive College National Institute for Learning Development National Louis University Nazarene University Northampton Community College Northern State University Nyack College Ohio Dominican College Ohio State University Olivet Open University of Catalonia Oregon Institute of Technology Oxford Seminar Pacific School of Religion Penn Foster School Penn State World Campus Pennsylvania College of Technology Pensacola Christian College Philadelphia University Portland State University Purdue University Radford University Reading Area Community College Regent University Ridgetown College of Agricultural Technology Rutgers University Salisbury University Scranton University Shepherd University South America Southern Oregon University Southern Oregon University State College of Florida Stockholm University Sunbridge College Tabor College The City School The College of New Jersey The King's College The State University of New York Towson University Trinity Christian College Trinity Theological Seminary Tri-State University Truman State University Tulane Universidad de Santiago de Chile University of Barcelona University of California Berkeley University of Colorado University of Delaware University of Guelph University of Kansas University of Maine University of Maryland University of Montana University of Northern Colorado University of Paraguay University of Pennsylvania University of Phoenix University of Pittsburgh University of Salamanca, Spain University of South Carolina University of South Dakota University of Southern California University of Tennessee, Knoxville University of the Arts University of Valley Forge University of Virginia University of Waterloo University of Western Ontario University of Wisconsin-Madison University of South Florida Utah State University Vanderbilt Vandercook College of Music Villanova University Walden University Waldon University Walsh University West Virginia University Western Governess University Western Governor’s University Western Kentucky University Westminister Choir College Whitworth University Wichita State University Wilfred Laurier University William Penn University Wilson College Wright State University Yale University York College York College of Pennsylvania 23 24 25 .. .Survey of Mennonite Schools Council Educators Final Report Andromeda Hightower, University of Nevada, Las Vegas Peter D Wiens, University of Nevada, Las Vegas Paul J Yoder, Eastern Mennonite. .. University of Barcelona University of California Berkeley University of Colorado University of Delaware University of Guelph University of Kansas University of Maine University of Maryland University of. .. University of Northern Colorado University of Paraguay University of Pennsylvania University of Phoenix University of Pittsburgh University of Salamanca, Spain University of South Carolina University of