1. Integration: What do the Students Think? Fernando Garzon, Psy.D. Liberty University Hitomi Makino Doctoral student, LU Jenifer Ripley, Ph.D., Regent U.

2. Integration Research Aspects Why ask what students think? Variety of faculty approaches to integration (Ream, Beaty, and Lion, 2004) Student satisfaction & retention (Schreiner, 2000; Morris, Smith, & Cejda, 2003) Enhance theoretical development in the integration research area

3. Current Research Scattered, nonsystematic, non-theory- based, discipline-specific studies of student perceptions have been done The exception to nontheoretical & systematic criticisms Randall Sorenson’s research studies

4. Sorenson’s Key Findings “evidence of a professor’s ongoing process in a personal relationship with God” (Sorenson, 1997, p. 541) most important influence on student integration development Professor’s personality characteristics also mattered

5. Current Study Questions In this sample, what do undergraduate students from 20 majors rate as valuable in their integration perspective? Scholarly elements in the discipline? Applied elements? Professor’s spirituality & personality characteristics? What demographic/religiosity variables correlate with this sample’s integration values? How do psychology undergrads compare with others in this sample?

6. Survey Components Campus environment, course content, professor characteristics they value Student demographics & religiosity Religious Commitment Inventory Satisfaction with academic discipline integration and current professor characteristics

7. Method Assessment Day Predominantly on-campus students, some commuters N = 3960 out of 6742 possible (Response Rate = 59%) Screened out religious degrees, leaving N = 3421

8. F1: Integration Values How important are the following indicators of Christian integration to you in your major? If you don’t have a major yet, please rate these in your non-Biblical studies.

9. Integration Values: Top 5 Rated Items out of 12 Item # Item DescriptiveNMSD % chosen Absolutely Agree 6 Applying Biblical principles to "real life“ situations that can occur in the jobs related to my major. 34713.481.2124.1 7 Learning practical Christian conduct and behaviors relevant to the job professions derived from my major. 34693.421.1821.2 8 Classmates that are actively practicing their faith. 34693.331.1819.0 9 During a course, a sense of God's presence with us as a class. 34613.311.1919.2 3 Taking theories from my major and being exposed to scholarly biblical thought (or worldview perspectives) in regards to these theories. 34713.291.1817.7

10. Integration Values: Remaining Items Item # Item DescriptiveNMSD % chosen Absolutel y Agree 4 The use of the Bible or Christian materials in class lecture. 34723.251.1716.2 15 Learning Christian strategies of intervention (or technique) relevant to the job profession derived from my major. 34693.241.1516.2 2 Prayer/devotionals in class. 34683.211.1415.8 14 Opportunities to participate in non-Christian academic organizations related to my major in order to be a Christian witness. 34693.211.1214.4 12 Training regarding the religious traditions and needs of those I may encounter in jobs related to my major. 34713.211.1414.8 5 The use of the Bible or Christian materials in class assignments. 34673.131.1714.6 13 Opportunities to participate in research projects related to my major that promote a Christian worldview. 34713.081.1212.4

11. Integration Values (F1) Ma=Math majors, Psy=Psychology, Hi = History, Bu=Business, Cs= Computer Science ANOVA F (5,943)=2.558, p<.01, Eta Square=.013 ANCOVA F, No significance, Religious Commitment Inventory as the covariate 1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neutral 4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree Ma Cs Psy Bi/Hi Bu

12. Correlations for Integration Values Ratings Religiosity Religious Commitment Inventory (RCI): r=.516, p<.01 (N=3395) Church attendance: r=.304, p<01 (N=3324) Small group attendance: r=.258, p<.01 (N=3171) Integration Priority/Motivation: r=.156 p<.001 (N=3423) Demographics Ethnicity: F(4, 3380)=23.856.59 p<.001 Eta Square=.027 Post hoc: Caucasian>Hispanic>Multiracial>Black>Asian F (4,3350)=2.738, p<.001 Eta Score=.003 (Covariate=RCI) Post hoc: Multiracial>Asian Gender: No significant difference Age: r=-.047, p<.01 (N=3421)

13. F3: Rating importance of faculty personality characteristics in integration As you evaluate your faculty’s integration of Christianity and the subject matter in your major, how important to you are the following factors in their ability to integrate?

14. Ratings of Importance of Various Faculty Personality Characteristics Item # Item DescriptiveNMSD % chosen Absolutely Necessary 26Firm commitment to Christian beliefs. 34683.671.24 33.5 30Evidence of ongoing development in personal relationship with God. 34643.641.17 28.4 27Well developed Christian worldview. 34663.631.17 28.6 28Rich in Christian insights and wisdom. 34673.541.15 23.7 31Openness to differing points of view. 34643.461.12 20.1 29Sense of humor, even about the things of our faith. 34663.441.15 21.4 32Openness to new thinking. 34673.381.13 18.8

15. Correlations with F3 Religiosity Religious Commitment Inventory (RCI): r =.556 p<.01(N=3414) Church attendance: r =.282 p<.01 (N= 3345) Small group attendance: r =.227 p<.01 (N=3191) Integration Priority/Motivation : r=.126, p<.001, (N=3440) Demographics Ethnicity: F(4, 3401)=47.04 p<.001, Eta Square=.052 Post hoc: Caucasian > African American, Asian American Hispanic > Asian American, African American Multiracial > African American, Asian American African American > Asian American - ANCOVA F (4, 3401) = 47.04 p<.001 Eta Squared=.052 Gender: No significant difference Age: r = -.087, p<.01 (N=3442)

16. F3-Importance of Faculty Personal Qualities ANOVA F(5,943)= 3.601, p<.01, Eta square=.019 Post Hoc comparison -Math>Computer Science -Biology> Computer Science -Business> Computer Science ANCOVA (RCI covariate) No significance 1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neutral 4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree Cs Bu His Psy Ma Bi

17. F4: Importance of faculty modeling “I definitely learn integration in my major from…”

18. Ratings of Importance of Various Faculty Modeling Characteristics Item # Item DescriptiveNMSD % Chosen Strongly Agree 35 Seeing faculty who have practiced their faith much longer that I have and so can be a role model to me. 34643.800.9823.7 36 Faculty that are strong in the unchanging wisdoms of our faith. 34613.790.9824.4 38 Seeing faculty live out their faith in group settings like classes, chapels, and meetings or projects. 34683.741.0124.0 37 Spending time with faculty in one-on-one meetings, out of class conversations, and emails. 34623.531.0418.0 33 Faculty's open discussion with me in the struggles with their faith. 34623.431.0314.9 34 Faculty that tend to change their stance on spiritual things as they mature and grow in their faith. 34663.400.9812.6

19. F4-Importance of Faculty Modeling ANOVA No significance Hi 1 Strongly Disagree 2 Disagree 3 Neutral 4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree Cs Bu Ps Ma Bi

20. Correlations with F4 Religiosity Religious Commitment Inventory (RCI): r =.118 p<.01(N=3411) Church attendance: r =.109 p<.01 (N= 3341) Small group attendance: r =.080 p<.01 (N= 3188) Integration Priority/Motivation: r=.240 p<.01 (N=3435) Demographics Ethnicity: F (4,3399)= 2.69 p<.05 Eta Square=.003 Gender: F (1,3314)= 7.664, p Male) Age: No Significance

21. Majors Comparison

22. Comparing the Subscales: What is Most Valuable in Integration? Students rated items related to faculty spirituality (modeling and personal characteristics) consistently higher for integration than the actual course content aspects of integration Of the top 5 rated items in the entire survey (excluding F2), three came from faculty spiritual modeling characteristics (#35, 36, 38) & two from spiritually related personal characteristics of faculty (#26, 30)

23. Top Five Rated Items in Entire Survey (excluding F2) Item 35 (F4): “Seeing faculty who have practiced their faith much longer than I have and so can be a role model to me.” Item 36 (F4): “Faculty that are strong in the unchanging wisdoms of our faith. Item 38 (F4): “Seeing faculty live out their faith in group settings like classes, chapels, and meetings or projects. Item 26 (F3): “Firm commitment to Christian beliefs. Item 30 (F3): “Evidence of ongoing development in personal relationship with God”

24. Key Findings in this Sample When Religious Commitment is controlled for, students’ values across majors Re integration do not substantially differ The biggest priority for students appears to be interacting with deeply spiritual faculty Students desire applied integration (connected to jobs, real life) as well as theoretical and conceptual