the differences in spiritual sensitivity between above and average ability students l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
The Differences in Spiritual Sensitivity Between Above and Average-ability Students PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
The Differences in Spiritual Sensitivity Between Above and Average-ability Students

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 36

The Differences in Spiritual Sensitivity Between Above and Average-ability Students - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 378 Views
  • Uploaded on

The Differences in Spiritual Sensitivity Between Above and Average-ability Students Petri Nokelainen Kirsi Tirri Martin Ubani University of Helsinki, Finland G4 25 August 2005 8:30-10:30 Room E102 Outline of the Presentation Introduction Theoretical Framework Sample and Method Results

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'The Differences in Spiritual Sensitivity Between Above and Average-ability Students' - RoyLauris


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
the differences in spiritual sensitivity between above and average ability students
petri.nokelainen@uta.fi

The Differences in Spiritual Sensitivity Between Above and Average-ability Students

Petri Nokelainen

Kirsi Tirri

Martin Ubani

University of Helsinki, Finland

G4 25 August 2005 8:30-10:30 Room E102

outline of the presentation
petri.nokelainen@uta.fiOutline of the Presentation
  • Introduction
  • Theoretical Framework
  • Sample and Method
  • Results
  • Conclusions
introduction
petri.nokelainen@uta.fiIntroduction
  • In childhood and in all ages, we raise the essentially spiritual questions: Who am I? Where do I belong? What is my purpose? To whom or what am I connected or responsible?
  • According to Hay (1998, 74), a task for spiritual education may be to help children to investigate their identity, and to delight in other forms of meaning making and meaning sensing.
introduction4
petri.nokelainen@uta.fiIntroduction
  • In this study, we extend the Multiple Intelligence Profile Questionnaire (MIPQ, Tirri & Komulainen, 2002) based on Howard Gardner’s Multiple Intelligence theory (1983) by presenting the eighth dimension, spiritual sensitivity.
  • The dimension was measured with twenty items (Table 2) among both above (n = 102) and average-ability (n = 81) Finnish 5th and 6th grade elementary school students.
introduction5
petri.nokelainen@uta.fiIntroduction

Spiritual Sensitivity Scale

(20 items)

sp1_1

sp2_18

sp3_3

sp4_16

Spiritual Intelligence

Dimension

(4 items)

introduction6
petri.nokelainen@uta.fiIntroduction
  • The operationalization of the spiritual intelligence is based on Hay’s (1998) and Bradford’s (1995) categories of spiritual sensitivity:
    • awareness sensing,
    • mystery sensing,
    • value sensing
    • community sensing.
introduction7
petri.nokelainen@uta.fiIntroduction
  • Our goal in this paper is to study,
    • if the items reflect the four dimensions of spiritual sensitivity in the empirical sample, and
    • if there exists differences between responses of the above and average-ability children in the spiritual sensitivity scale.
theoretical framework
petri.nokelainen@uta.fiTheoretical Framework
  • Peter Salovey and John Mayer (1990; Mayer, Salovey, & Caruso, 2000) suggested that a new kind of intelligence – “emotional intelligence” (EI) - gives us awareness of our own and other people’s feelings.
  • Daniel Goleman (1995) was first to develop valid measures of emotional intelligence and to explore its significance.
theoretical framework9
petri.nokelainen@uta.fiTheoretical Framework
  • Daniel Goleman (1995) has suggested that
    • Emotional intelligence (EQ) gives us awareness of our own and other people’s feelings, it gives us empathy, compassion, motivation and the ability to respond appropriately to pain or pleasures, and
    • EQ is a basic requirement for the effective use of IQ.
theoretical framework10
petri.nokelainen@uta.fiTheoretical Framework
  • Zohar and Marshall (2000) have applied the concept of spiritual intelligence (SQ) to the discussion concerning IQ and EQ:
    • SQ helps us to assess the most meaningful course of action.
    • It is the necessary foundation for the effective functioning of both IQ and EQ: SQ is our ultimate intelligence (Zohar & Marshall, 2000).
theoretical framework11
petri.nokelainen@uta.fiTheoretical Framework
  • The difference between EQ and SQ deals with the concrete situation in which they are used.
    • EQ allows us to judge what situation we are in and then to behave appropriately within it - working within the boundaries of the situation, allowing the situation to guide us.
    • SQ allows us to ask if we want to be in this particular situation in the first place. Would we rather change the situation and create a better one?
theoretical framework12
petri.nokelainen@uta.fiTheoretical Framework
  • Emmons (1999) describes spiritual intelligence as ‘the adaptive use of spiritual information to facilitate everyday problem solving and goal attainment’.
  • According to Emmons, the foundational characteristic of spirituality is the search for the sacred (1999, 176).
theoretical framework13
petri.nokelainen@uta.fiTheoretical Framework
  • Hay (1998) has identified with his empirical studies of spirituality three categories of spiritual sensitivity.
    • Awareness sensing
    • Mystery sensing
    • Value sensing
theoretical framework14
petri.nokelainen@uta.fiTheoretical Framework
  • Awareness sensing refers to a state of high alertness when we choose to be aware by “paying attention” to what is happening.
    • Mediation, tuning, flow.
theoretical framework15
petri.nokelainen@uta.fiTheoretical Framework
  • Mystery sensing may open up to us with the experience of wonder and awe:
    • Sunrise and sunset can be explained scientifically, however, the beauty and wonder of these phenomena’s includes the sense of mystery even after the scientific explanations are presented.
theoretical framework16
petri.nokelainen@uta.fiTheoretical Framework
  • Value sensing emphasizes the importance of feelings as a measure of what we value.
    • Delight and despair, ultimate goodness, meaning.
theoretical framework17
petri.nokelainen@uta.fiTheoretical Framework
  • Bradford (1995) has identified three types of spirituality:
    • Human spirituality refers to the needs of care, love, security and responsibility we all desire.
    • Devotional spirituality is built upon this human spirituality and it is expressed within a certain religious tradition, culture and language.
    • In practical spirituality both other types of spiritualities merge. Practical spirituality is shown in our everyday lives giving us the direction and influencing our social responsibilities and concerns (Bradford, 1995).
theoretical framework18
petri.nokelainen@uta.fiTheoretical Framework
  • Bradford’s definitions are connected to the social aspect in the domains of spiritual intelligence emphasized by Gardner (1999) and they also include the viewpoints of Zohar and Marshall (2000) and Emmons (1999).
  • In this study, we have defined the social dimension of spirituality, community sensing, to be the fourth sub scale of Spiritual sensitivity.
theoretical framework19
petri.nokelainen@uta.fiTheoretical Framework
  • The operationalization of the Spiritual sensitivity is as follows:
    • Awareness sensing
    • Mystery sensing
    • Value sensing
    • Community sensing

Hay (1998)

Bradford (1995)

sample and method
petri.nokelainen@uta.fiSample and Method
  • The data (N = 183) was collected in Fall 2003 from Finnish elementary school 5th and 6th grade students.
  • Respondent’s age median was 12 years.
  • 104 of the respondents were girls (56.5%) and 79 were boys (43.5%).
sample and method21
petri.nokelainen@uta.fiSample and Method
  • Normal schools (n = 21, n = 41, n = 19) follow normal curriculum and offer education for grades 1 to 6
  • The special school (n = 102) has grades from 3 to upper secondary school.
  • The special school has its own curriculum and applicants for the third grade are tested with entrance examination containing linguistic, logical and spatial tasks.
  • In this study, we consider the students of the special school as above-average students and the other group of students as average-ability students.
sample and method22
petri.nokelainen@uta.fiSample and Method
  • The children filled out a 20-item web-based questionnaire measuring four dimensions of the spiritual intelligence with 20 items (Table 2).
  • Each item had a response scale from 1 (Completely disagree) to 5 (Completely agree).
sample and method23
petri.nokelainen@uta.fiSample and Method
  • We analyzed the first research question with exploratory factor analysis and Bayesian network modeling in order to produce the most plausible structure for the spiritual dimension.
  • The second research question was issued by comparing the above average-ability group (School 4) to other three groups (Schools 1, 2, 3) with parametric and non-parametric group difference comparisons.
sample and method24
petri.nokelainen@uta.fiSample and Method
  • We applied two-group comparison design instead of k group comparison, as we combined the average-ability group’s spiritual sensitivity ratings to allow comparable group sizes.
  • Although Mann-Whitney U and t-tests were performed, a 2x2 factorial MANOVA (group, gender) was conducted to validate the findings (and study the effect of Type I error).
results of the rq 1 construct validity of the spiritual intelligence scale
petri.nokelainen@uta.fiResults of the RQ 1: Construct Validity of the Spiritual Intelligence Scale
  • Exploratory factor and Bayesian network analysis confirmed that spiritual intelligence, based on Hay’s (1998) and Bradford’s (1995) categories of spiritual sensitivity, consisted of following four dimensions in all the four samples: (1) awareness sensing, (2) mystery sensing, (3) value sensing and (4) community sensing.
results of the rq 1 construct validity of the spiritual intelligence scale26
petri.nokelainen@uta.fiResults of the RQ 1: Construct Validity of the Spiritual Intelligence Scale
  • The results of reliability analysis showed that 20-item solution was adequate to describe the spiritual sensitivity scale (Table 1).
results of the rq 2 comparison between above and average ability children
petri.nokelainen@uta.fiResults of the RQ 2: Comparison between Above and Average-ability Children
  • The results in Table 2 show that there are statistically significant differences between the groups at .05 level in four items out of twenty.
    • The results of MANOVA were analogous, no group*gender interaction effect was found.
results of the rq 2 comparison between above and average ability children28
petri.nokelainen@uta.fiResults of the RQ 2: Comparison between Above and Average-ability Children
  • The first three items belong to the second, mystery sensing category, where imagination has a central role.
results of the rq 2 comparison between above and average ability children29
petri.nokelainen@uta.fiResults of the RQ 2: Comparison between Above and Average-ability Children
  • Above average-ability children reported higher values for the mystery sensing dimension than average-ability children.
conclusions
petri.nokelainen@uta.fiConclusions
  • The analysis confirmed that spiritual intelligence, based on Hay’s (1998) and Bradford’s (1995) categories of spiritual sensitivity, consisted of following four dimensions in all the samples: (1) awareness sensing, (2) mystery sensing, (3) value sensing and (4) community sensing.
  • The results of reliability analysis showed that the 20-item solution was adequate to describe the spiritual sensitivity dimension.
conclusions31
petri.nokelainen@uta.fiConclusions
  • Results showed that in three items out of five above average-ability children reported higher values for the mystery sensing dimension than average-ability children.
  • This finding supports the assumption that typical characteristics of above average-ability children include creative use of imagination.
conclusions32
petri.nokelainen@uta.fiConclusions
  • The above average-ability children rated an item measuring social conscience clearly higher than average-ability children.
  • We found no statistically significant difference between the group means in awareness sensing and value sensing dimensions of spiritual sensitivity.
    • Some items showed clear difference between the group means (for example, “sp1_13 When I concentrate on some activity with all my heart I may forget the things around me.”).
discussion
petri.nokelainen@uta.fiDiscussion
  • The data was collected with nonprobability (convenience) sampling.
  • The females were over represented in the sample:
discussion34
petri.nokelainen@uta.fiDiscussion
  • Are we able to measure such concept as spirituality with self-rating instruments? (Richard Roberts, Steve Stemler)
    • Congnitive vs. behavioral aspect (VR, etc.)
discussion35
petri.nokelainen@uta.fiDiscussion
  • Finnish population is not very diverse, thus setting in a way lower requirements for the flexibility of the education system (PISA results).
    • Lack of private schools in Finland; educational standards of the public schools are perceived to be high.
    • Education is free in all levels in Finland enabling low income families to educate their children up to their abilities.
discussion36
petri.nokelainen@uta.fiDiscussion
  • Who benefits of intelligence measures?
    • Monetary aspect (Mindy Kornhaber)
      • MI is free
    • Outcome aspect (Steve Stemler)
      • Academic + social/practical/spiritual intelligence
      • Do we need to give other than ’chocen ones’ the extra boost on s/p/s intelligence?