Toward Shaping the Agenda: A National Survey of Catholic Religious Education, Survey of Diocesan Leaders, 1993

Data Archive > U.S. Surveys > Religious Groups > Members or Leaders > Catholic > Analysis


APPRO5

One purpose of this study is to contribute to planning for the future of Catholic religious education. Sketched briefly here are several possibilities or new approaches. Please give your rating on each of these possibilities. -- Parish High Tech Learning Centers: Parish or regional 'high-tech' interactive learning centers staffed with well-prepared catechists would operate after school and on evenings and weekends (using computer-based scheduling) with small groups of students. These facilities would operate 40 weeks per year. Students would learn basic religious concepts, explore religious values and applications, and receive personal feedback on their views/learning, including printouts they could share with their parents. The centers would have 5-10 microcomputers and a room set up for small group (5-10) interactive video-disk instruction with a key pad for every student. Students (parents) would pay a per-use fee and schedule, on average, one session per month.
  1) Extremely promising
  2) Definitely promising
  3) Somewhat promising
  4) Not promising
  5) To be avoided

Category Frequency Percentage Cumulative Percentage Z-Score
Extremely promising 14 7.3% 7.3% -1.93
Definitely promising 43 22.4% 29.7% -1.01
Somewhat promising 64 33.3% 63% -.1
Not promising 51 26.6% 89.6% .82
To be avoided 20 10.4% 100% 1.74

Variable Comparisons


Tenure (I-TENURE)

Less than two years 2-4 years 5-10 years Over 10 years TOTAL
Extremely promising 0.0%
0
7.8%
4
7.4%
5
12.2%
5
7.3%
14
Definitely promising 9.7%
3
23.5%
12
26.5%
18
24.4%
10
22.5%
43
Somewhat promising 38.7%
12
27.5%
14
33.8%
23
34.1%
14
33.0%
63
Not promising 32.3%
10
33.3%
17
23.5%
16
19.5%
8
26.7%
51
To be avoided 19.4%
6
7.8%
4
8.8%
6
9.8%
4
10.5%
20
TOTAL 100.0%
31
100.0%
51
100.0%
68
100.0%
41

191


Vocation (I-STATUS)

Priest Brother Sister Layman Laywoman TOTAL
Extremely promising 10.7%
3
0.0%
0
10.7%
8
2.8%
1
4.2%
2
7.3%
14
Definitely promising 17.9%
5
50.0%
2
26.7%
20
25.0%
9
14.6%
7
22.5%
43
Somewhat promising 39.3%
11
25.0%
1
28.0%
21
36.1%
13
35.4%
17
33.0%
63
Not promising 21.4%
6
25.0%
1
28.0%
21
25.0%
9
29.2%
14
26.7%
51
To be avoided 10.7%
3
0.0%
0
6.7%
5
11.1%
4
16.7%
8
10.5%
20
TOTAL 100.0%
28
100.0%
4
100.0%
75
100.0%
36
100.0%
48

191


Education (I-DEGREE)

Advanced degree No advanced degree TOTAL
Extremely promising 5.8%
8
11.5%
6
7.4%
14
Definitely promising 21.9%
30
23.1%
12
22.2%
42
Somewhat promising 33.6%
46
32.7%
17
33.3%
63
Not promising 28.5%
39
23.1%
12
27.0%
51
To be avoided 10.2%
14
9.6%
5
10.1%
19
TOTAL 100.0%
137
100.0%
52

189


Number of students (I-#STUDNTS)

5K & under 5001-10K 10001-15K 15001-20K Over 20K TOTAL
Extremely promising 6.4%
3
6.3%
2
3.7%
1
26.7%
4
7.9%
3
8.2%
13
Definitely promising 21.3%
10
28.1%
9
11.1%
3
26.7%
4
21.1%
8
21.4%
34
Somewhat promising 31.9%
15
31.3%
10
48.1%
13
26.7%
4
36.8%
14
35.2%
56
Not promising 29.8%
14
31.3%
10
25.9%
7
13.3%
2
18.4%
7
25.2%
40
To be avoided 10.6%
5
3.1%
1
11.1%
3
6.7%
1
15.8%
6
10.1%
16
TOTAL 100.0%
47
100.0%
32
100.0%
27
100.0%
15
100.0%
38

159