literature review on school climate

• DOI: 10.3102/0034654313483907
• Corpus ID: 11313666

A Review of School Climate Research

• A. Thapa , Jonathan D. Cohen , +1 author A. Higgins‐D'alessandro
• Published 1 September 2013
• Review of Educational Research

1,760 Citations

Practices for improving secondary school climate: a systematic review of the research literature., addressing school safety through comprehensive school climate approaches, a school-university research partnership to identify disengaged students: a descriptive case analysis of school climate, school climate, teacher characteristics, and school discipline: evidence from new york city, measuring school climate: validating the education department school climate survey in a sample of urban middle and high school students, school climate practices for implementation and sustainability, inequalities in school climate in california, managing school climate issues at the school district level: a comprehensive review of the literature.

• Highly Influenced

Exploring the relationship between school-based management and school climate using PISA data

A systematic literature review of school climate in low and middle income countries, 218 references, the search for school climate: a review of the research, middle school improvement and reform: development and validation of a school-level assessment of climate, cultural pluralism, and school safety, school climate, school improvement and site-based management, the walls speak: the interplay of quality facilities, school climate, and student achievement.

• Highly Influential

School climate and implementation of the Pathways study.

Teachers' sense of efficacy and the organizational health of schools, an empirical examination of a model of social climate in elementary schools, school climate and teachers’ beliefs and attitudes associated with implementation of the positive action program: a diffusion of innovations model, teacher safety and authoritative school climate in high schools, young african american and latino children in high-poverty urban schools: how they perceive school climate., related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

School Climate and Academic Performance

• In book: School Climate and Academic Performance (pp.1-23)
• Publisher: Oxford University Press USA

• Universiti Utara Malaysia

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

• Alejandra Karina Pérez-Jaimes
• Teresa del Jesús Brito-Cruz

• Naturinda Privah

• Diana Rusmawati

• Kevin Petrie

• CHILD YOUTH SERV REV

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Investigating the influence of the school climate of church-based schools on students’ moral identity development and hope for the future

• Original Paper
• Open access
• Published: 01 September 2024

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

• Jill M. Aldridge   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0742-0473 1 &
• Felicity McLure   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-3664-9146 2  

Hope for the future provides a protective factor against mental health disorders and contributes to students’ academic success and wellbeing. We investigated whether a school’s climate influenced students’ prosocial moral identity and hope for the future to understand better how church-based schools might improve these important outcomes. Data were collected from 1080 students in two church-based schools (672 enrolled in one school and 408 in the other) using two instruments: one to assess students’ perceptions of school climate features unique to church-based schools and another to assess students’ self-reports of their moral identity and hope for the future. The results generated using structural equation modelling suggest direct positive and significant relationships between school climate factors, moral identity and hope for the future. However, there were differences between school climate factors that influenced these outcomes for the two schools, suggesting that the context of the school needs to be considered. The findings also suggest that moral identity is a positive predictor of and mediates the influence of the school climate on hope for the future. This study is significant as it adds to the understanding of how malleable features of school climates unique to church-based schools can be leveraged to promote the development of students’ moral identity and hope for the future.

Similar content being viewed by others

Relationships between school climate and adolescent students’ self-reports of ethnic and moral identity

The predictive value of school climate and teacher techniques on students’ just world beliefs: a comprehensive Brazilian sample

The longitudinal relationship of school climate with adolescent social and emotional health, explore related subjects.

• Digital Education and Educational Technology

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Introduction

Concerns have been expressed about the high levels of depression in students. According to Gilham and Reivich ( 2004 ), one in every five adolescents is expected to experience a clinical depressive episode by the end of high school. Further, there has been an increase over the past decade in the number of adolescents seeking professional help for depression from mental health services (Lu, 2020 ; Phillips & Yu, 2021 ). Hopefulness is a protective factor against depression even when students experience adverse classroom environments (Lagacé-Séguin & d’Entremont, 2010 ). Hopefulness about the future contributes to students’ academic success and wellbeing by promoting an individual’s coping and adjustment abilities (Dixson et al., 2017 ; Grund & Brock, 2019 ; Idan & Margalit, 2013 ) and is the character strength with the most significant positive correlation with life satisfaction (Park et al., 2004 ). Conversely, students with low hope levels were found to be more pessimistic and more likely to report depression symptoms (Lagacé-Séguin & d'Entremont, 2010 ; Leite et al., 2019 ). A study of students who were at risk of dropping out of secondary schooling found that when students possessed hope about the future, this was a predictive factor for them remaining in school until graduation (Worrell & Hale, 2001 ). Given the importance of adolescents’ hope for the future as a protective factor, this study examined the influence of students’ experiences of their school climate on its development.

• School climate

School climate, as opposed to classroom climate, provides a measure of the school-level environment. A school’s climate is influenced by the norms, values, attitudes, and beliefs that permeate the school, which, in turn, affects the pervading tone or atmosphere experienced by those within the school (Cohen et al., 2009 ). Mounting research evidence suggests that school climate is a strong determinant of student outcomes (Cohen, 2013 ). Positive school climates have been found to reduce negative behaviours, such as bullying and delinquent behaviours (Aldridge et al., 2018 ), improve health outcomes, including mental health (Aldridge & McChesney, 2018 ) and emotional wellbeing and resilience (Riekie et al., 2017 ) and promote identity development (Aldridge et al., 2016 ; Aldridge, Ala’i, et al., 2016 ). Given the strong influence of school climate on student outcomes, it makes sense for schools to examine how it can be improved.

Our study drew on Lewin’s ( 1936 ) theory that behaviour is a function of personal characteristics interacting with the environment. As a measure of the environment, we assessed the unique school climate of church-based schools. The aspirations for a Christian ethos in church-based schools, as identified by Pike ( 2011 ), are one in which all students are valued and supported to do their best, differences are respected, service to others is stressed, and a living Christian faith is encouraged. From the outset, however, we were cognisant that the Christian ethos, espoused in school documents and websites, can fail to be translated more than superficially into everyday practice within the school (Donnelly, 2000 ). Given the high proportion of students attending church-based schools in Australia (35%) and the UK (33%), our study warranted an investigation of the unique school climate of these schools (Australian_Bureau_of_Statistics, 2023 ; Barnes, 2018 ) and an understanding of whether malleable factors that make up the school climate can be leveraged to improve hope for the future.

• Moral identity

Moral identity is the congruence between how a person acts and their beliefs about what is morally right (Hart et al., 1998 ). Moral identity is considered an essential component of the development of young people, particularly during adolescence, when beliefs about morality and personal identity coalesce (Hardy et al., 2014 ). According to Hertz and Krettenauer ( 2016 ), someone with a strong moral identity possesses a moral code by which they determine what actions to take in different circumstances. Moral identity, then, is “a commitment to one’s sense of self to lines of action that promote or protect the welfare of others” (Hart et al., 1998 , p. 515). For instance, students with a higher moral identity were shown to have more positive and inclusive behaviours towards those with disabilities (Szumski et al., 2020 ).

As with the formation of other identities, the consistency principle (Erikson, 1994 ) provides the impetus for individuals to act consistently with their identity. Further, the level of social consensus (degree of agreement about whether an issue is acceptable) for a particular moral is related to moral identity (Reynolds & Ceranic, 2007 ). In a school setting, if the social consensus for an action (such as standing up against bullying) is high, then students are more likely to act in ways that are true to themselves. Because past research has found that the school climate plays a role in students’ moral identity development (Aldridge, Ala’i, et al., 2016 ; Libbey, 2004 ; Riekie et al., 2017 ; Watson, 2008 ), we included this hypothesis in our model.

Although self-reports of moral behaviour may inflate the incidence of actual prosocial behaviour, a person’s reported moral identity has been shown to be a significant predictor of moral behaviour (Hertz & Krettenauer, 2016 ; Szumski et al., 2020 ). For instance, Szumski et al. ( 2020 ) showed that greater individual and classroom moral identity resulted in more positive attitudes towards students with disabilities.

Since one of the stated aims of education within church-based schools is the development of students’ moral or prosocial behaviour, investigating which school climate features influence the development of moral identity is pertinent.

• Hope for the future

Hope theory developed by Snyder et al. ( 1991 ) conceptualises hope as having three aspects: future goals, strategies to reach those goals, and a sense of agency that supports the implementation of strategies. In contrast, optimism is more like wishful thinking without any pathway to achievement. Existential hope is based on trust in oneself and others, in the ingenuity of humans and goodness in the world (Ojala, 2012 ; Webb, 2007 ). Although existential hope may not be well developed, since it does not include pathways to address problems, it does provide an antidote to despair and acts as a motivator towards expending energy in finding positive pathways forward (Freire, 1992 ). At the heart of critical hope is the recognition that things are not as they should be, but that addressing wicked problems will require persistence to overcome challenges to reach the desired goals, but importantly, the person believes these goals are possible to reach (Miceli & Castelfranchi, 2010 ). Thus critical hope is often accompanied by worry about possible future outcomes (Ojala, 2007 ) and an understanding of the complexity of the problems facing the world (Satterfield, 2000 ). In an era where students are constantly bombarded with media reports of wicked problems that the world faces, it is imperative that schools provide opportunities for students to engage with critical hope through understand the complexity of these problems and taking action to address them through service learning (Grain & Land, 2017 ).

In our study, hope for the future is about students hope for the world and their own lives, including both possibility thinking and agency. Hopefulness about the future is a malleable outcome, as evidenced by a study by Marques et al. ( 2011 ) who developed an intervention that focused on aspects of hope over a five-week intervention. The results reported an increase in students’ hopefulness about the future, self-worth and life satisfaction that persisted over an 18-month period. In another study, when the development of hope for the future involves raising students’ awareness of possibilities, promoting meaning making, and supporting students in making meaningful choices, there were positive benefits for academic success and general wellbeing (Idan & Margalit, 2013 ).

In an age when the urgency of climate change is front and centre in the media, and many adolescents express pessimism about the future of the world (Nordensvaard, 2014 ; Threadgold, 2012 ), explicit strategies that improve students’ hope for their (and the world’s) future are needed (Ojala, 2017 ). Promoting critical hope and providing students with pathways for action is even more urgent when we consider that most students have a low expectation of socio-ecological outcomes and hence choose not to enact sustainable behaviours (Grund & Brock, 2019 ).

Hope for the future has been identified as an important outcome by church-based schools (Carson et al., 2017 ). Hope can be nurtured in the classroom through teachers acting as role models of ways in which they are hopeful about the future and can create communities of hope within the classroom where habits of hopefulness are enacted (Shade, 2006 ). Giving students an opportunity to engage with the complexity of wicked problems affecting the world is one way of helping them develop critical hope (Satterfield, 2000 ). People are also more likely to engage in addressing future problems if they experience changes brought about by their own actions (Ojala, 2012 ). Although past research suggests that a ‘pedagogy of hope’ can be promoted through encouraging resilience and resourcefulness in the face of challenges and by giving students opportunities to practice hope though developing agency in addressing real-world problems (Idan & Margalit, 2013 , p.16), our study builds on and extends this past research by examining whether malleable school climate factors can be leveraged to influence student hope.

The present study

Given the theory and findings of past research, we postulated that a healthy school climate in church-based schools would positively influence development of students’ prosocial moral identity (hypothesis 1) and hope for the future (hypothesis 2) and that a students’ prosocial moral identity would directly influence hope for the future and also mediate the influence of school climate on hope for the future (hypothesis 3). Figure  1 portrays the theoretical model used to guide the study.

SEM theoretical model

Using this model, the specific objectives of our study were to investigate and compare (in two schools):

Whether the school climate influenced students’ development of a positive moral identity.

Whether the school climate influenced students’ development of hope for the future.

Whether students’ prosocial moral identity had a direct influence on and mediated the influence of school climate on hope for the future.

Research methods

This section describes the school sites from which the samples were drawn and the students who participated.

School sites

The principals of two independent church-based schools, referred to as School A and School B, agreed to be involved in the study. Both schools cater for students from many different faith backgrounds. In both schools, all students were expected to participate in chapel and/or religious studies classes several times per week. School A had a focus on character building and an ethic of service, and in religious studies classes students were invited to actively reflect on the Christian faith, and critique various philosophies and world views. In School B, the core values of inclusiveness and respect were highlighted, and students were encouraged to develop a deeper understanding of the value of developing a relationship with God through Jesus Christ. In both cases, religious studies classes were taught by teachers who were either ordained in the church or attended church regularly. The teachers of other subjects, however, were not necessarily professing or practicing Christians, although they all had agreed to uphold the Christian ethos of their respective school. The first school, School A, was situated in a major city where a high percentage of the population was born outside of Australia, and the other school, School B, was located in a regional town that was not as culturally diverse. In addition, because School A is situated in a major city, the pool of prospective teachers is much higher than the pool in a regional area of Australia, allowing School A to attract a greater proportion of teachers who actively professed to be Christian than School B and for whom the school ethos was a more comfortable fit.

Participants

The sample included students from both schools. In both cases, surveys were administered to students across all year levels (grades 7 to 12) who provided informed consent. The sample, after the removal of disengaged responses, included a total of 1080 students of whom 672 enrolled in School A and 408 in School B. A breakdown of the students’ background information, including their gender, grade levels, and religious affiliation, is provided in Table  1 . The difference in cultural diversity. described above, was reflected in the percentage of participants who spoke a language other than English at home in School A (22%) compared to those in School B (11%). Further, there were more than three times as many participants who were born outside of Australia from School A (16%) as School B (5%).

Instruments

Data were collected using two previously developed surveys, one to assess students’ perceptions of a school climate unique to church-based schools, and another to assess two outcomes: moral identity and hope for the future. These instruments are described below.

Assessing the school climate of church-based schools

The Christian Education Health Check (CEHC), developed by McLure and Aldridge ( 2023 ), was used to assess the multifaceted aspirations of a Christian school climate. The CEHC is made up of 12 scales, developed to align with the Heart, Head, Hands and Feet framework (Edmund_Rice_Education_Australia, 2016 ) to describe a holistic transformative approach to learning (Taylor, 2007 ). In the CEHC, Heart represents an inclusive school culture and involves four scales (teacher support, reporting and seeking help, peer connectedness and affirming cultural diversity); Head represents excellent religious education and is assessed using six scales (Bible teaching, Bible teaching across subjects, inspirational teaching, encouraging engagement, world and social problems and freedom to question), Feet represents learning to apply Christian teachings to students’ lives and is assessed using one scale (living as a Christian) and Hands represents practical service to others and is assessed using one scale (practical service). Importantly, each scale represents a malleable feature, something over which schools could exercise a degree of control. Table 2 provides for each scale, the domain it measures, the number of items used to assess the scale, a brief description and a sample item. The items developed for each CECH scale required students to consider the frequency with which they occurred using a five-point frequency-response scale of almost always, often, sometimes, seldom and almost never.

For this study, one CEHC scale, reporting and seeking help, was not included. Given that this scale assesses procedural rather than relational, academic or supportive aspects of the school climate, it was considered unlikely to be related to either moral identity or hope for the future and therefore was not included in the study.

Assessing moral identity and hope for the future

Two scales were used to assess moral identity and hope for the future. Table 3 provides the number of items, a brief description and sample item for each scale.

The first scale, developed by Aldridge, Ala’i, et al. ( 2016 ), assesses the degree to which students reported they had adopted a moral identity using statements considered to be moral actions appropriate of secondary school students. Past studies have reported sound psychometric properties when used with secondary students in Australia (Aldridge, Ala’i, et al., 2016 ; Riekie et al., 2017 ) making it a suitable choice for this study. The scale is made up of six items that were responded to using the same five-point frequency-response format as the CEHC.

The second scale, hope for the future, was developed by McLure and Aldridge ( 2023 ) to measure the degree to which students had hope for the future. This scale has demonstrated sound psychometric properties in a past study carried out in Australian secondary schools (McLure & Aldridge, 2023 ). The scale was made up of five items that were responded to using the same five-point frequency-response format at the CEHC.

Data analysis

As described above, the theoretical model Fig.  1 proposed that each CEHC scale would be related to the measures of moral identity (hypotheses 1) and hope for the future (hypotheses 2). In addition, it was proposed that the degree to which students had developed a moral identity would be directly related to and mediate the influence of CEHC scales on hope for the future (hypothesis 3).

Skew and kurtosis tests were carried out to check normality assumptions for SEM (reported in Table  4 ), and these were found to have been satisfied (Kline, 2011 ). In addition, exploratory factor analysis Footnote 1 was carried out on both samples to test for structural integrity of the CEHC scales and the 12 scales were found to explain 66.02% of the total variance in student responses for School A (McLure & Aldridge, 2023 ) and 75.00% of the total variance in student responses from School B.

A four-step structural equation modelling process (model specification, model fitting, model evaluation, and model modification) (Schumacker & Lomax, 2015 ; Stevens, 2009 ) was used to test the hypotheses in the theoretical model using LISREL 10.20 software (Jöreskog & Sörbom, 2018 ). Analyses were conducted separately for data from each school. Initial structural models were obtained using the robust maximum likelihood estimation method. Then, path coefficients that were not significant at the 0.05 level were eliminated, one at a time, from the theoretical model until all remaining paths were significant. To compare the models, one outcome from each scale was fixed at 1.00 and the resulting fit statistics for the initial and final models compared. Standardised direct effects of the CEHC scales on each of the outcome variables were measured and for the mediating influence of moral identity were calculated for the final model.

Finally, to examine the mediation effect of students’ prosocial moral identity on their hope for the future, direct effects of the CEHC scales on moral identity and the direct effect of the moral identity scale on hope for the future were combined for each school to calculate indirect and total effects of each CEHC scale.

Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) for Schools A and B for each CEHC and outcomes scale are reported in Table  4 . These results show that the mean scores for all scales were lower for School B when compared to School A, indicating that students at School B perceived these scales to occur less frequently than those at School A. On average, students at School A perceived 12 of the 13 scales to occur more frequently than ‘sometimes’ (the exception being inspirational teaching), while students at School B perceived seven of the 13 scales to occur less frequently than sometimes (< 3). For the remaining scales, students at School B perceived them to occur more frequently than ‘sometimes’: peer connectedness, affirming cultural diversity, Bible teaching, living as a Christian, moral identity and hope for the future.

SEM results for school A

First, the theoretical model (portrayed in Fig.  1 ) was tested with data collected from School A. The fit statistics for the initial model (Model 1) are reported in Table  5 . The removal of non-significant pathways from Model 1 resulted in the exclusion of five CEHC scales: teacher support, Bible teaching, Bible teaching across subjects, encouraging engagement, and freedom to question. Evaluation of the final structural model, Model 2A (portrayed in Fig.  2 ), suggested a satisfactory fit with the data in terms of χ 2 /df, SRMR and RMSEA values, although CFI and TLI values were slightly lower than recommended.

SEM Model 2A (School A) showing standardised path coefficients between endogenous variables

Coefficient of determination values for Model 2A suggest that 52% of the variance in moral identity is accounted for by peer connectedness, affirming cultural diversity and living as a Christian. Further, 43% of the variance in hope for the future is accounted for by peer connectedness, inspirational teaching, thinking about the world and social problems, participating in practical service and student moral identity.

Examination of the standardised direct, indirect and total effects on moral identity and hope for the future for Model 2A (reported in Table  6 and portrayed in Fig.  2 ) enabled us to examine the three hypotheses portrayed in Fig.  1 .

First, we predicted that the school climate would influence students’ prosocial moral identity. The results suggest that in School A three CEHC scales had significant ( p  < 0.05) direct positive effects on prosocial moral identity: peer connectedness ( β  = 0.09), affirming cultural diversity ( β  = 0.14) and living as a Christian ( β  = 0.59).

Second, we predicted that the school climate would influence students’ hope for the future. The results show that four CEHC scales were positively and significantly related to hope for the future: peer connectedness ( β  = 0.28), inspirational teaching ( β  = 0.12), world and social problems ( β  = 0.17) and practical service ( β  = 0.15).

Finally, we predicted that moral identity would influence hope for the future and mediate the influence of the school climate on hope for the future. The results show that moral identity had a significant direct effect on the development of students’ hope for the future ( β  = 0.18). Furthermore, there were three statistically significant indirect effects on hope for the future: peer connectedness (Total β  = 0.02), affirming cultural diversity (Total β  = 0.03) and living as a Christian (Total β  = 0.11). The possibility that hope for the future may play a mediating role on moral identity was also tested was found to be non-significant.

SEM results for school B

The theoretical model, previously tested with data collected in School A, was re-tested with the data obtained in School B. The fit statistics for the initial model (Model 1) are reported in Table  7 . Removal of non-significant pathways from Model 1 resulted in the exclusion of five scales: teacher support, affirming cultural diversity, encouraging engagement, world and social problems, and freedom to question. Evaluation of the final structural model which fit the data for School B (reported in Table  7 ), Model 2B, suggested a satisfactory fit in terms of χ 2 /df and SRMR values, although the CFI and TLI values of 0.86 and 0.85 were a little lower than recommended, allowing us to test each of the hypotheses described in Fig.  1 .

The coefficient of determination values for the endogenous latent variables was examined to determine whether the final models could explain the variance in the dependent variables. For Model 2B, the values imply that 50% of the variance in moral identity is accounted for by peer connectedness and living as a Christian. Further, 46% of the variance in hope for the future is accounted for by Bible teaching and Bible teaching across subjects, inspirational teaching, participating in practical service and student moral identity. These results suggest that the joint explanatory power of the hypothesised antecedents was well above the accepted cut-off of 0.10 (Falk & Miller, 1992).

In addition, the standardised direct, indirect, and total effects on moral identity and hope for the future for the final models were calculated to provide an indication of the mediating role of moral identity on a student’s hope for the future (reported in Table  8 ).

The results for the first hypothesis, which predicted the school climate would influence moral identity (shown in Fig.  3 and reported in Table  7 ), suggest that for School B two CEHC scales had significant ( p  < 0.05) direct positive effects on the development of moral identity: peer connectedness ( β  = 0.26) and living as a Christian ( β  = 0.57). Second, the results indicate that relationships were significant and positive for three scales: Bible teaching ( β  = 0.17), inspirational teaching ( β  = 0.15) and practical service ( β  = 0.38). It is notable that the relationship between Bible teaching across subjects and hope for the future was negative ( β  = -0.22). Finally, the findings show that moral identity had a significant direct effect on the development of hope for the future ( β  = 0.39) as well as a mediating effect on the relationship between living as a Christian and hope for the future ( β  = 0.22).

SEM Model 2B (School B) showing standardised path coefficients between endogenous variables

Despite a long history of learning environment research, neither the unique school climate of church-based schools nor the effects this environment has on student moral identity and hope for the future have been measured through a learning environments lens. By comparing two schools, each located in different contexts with unique teacher and student cohorts, this study adds to our understanding of the influence of school climate features on students’ prosocial moral identity and hope for the future. Our results identified influential factors common to both schools as well as others that were influential only in one school but not the other. This section discusses the findings and provides tentative explanations for the observations.

Improving prosocial moral identity

Adolescence is the time when moral identity is formed, as during this period, beliefs about what is morally correct and their personal identity merge (Hardy et al., 2014 ), Therefore, understanding school climate factors that support moral identity development could be significant for schools wishing to influence students’ moral behaviour (Hertz & Krettenauer, 2016 ).

Our results suggest that for both schools, two scales, living as a Christian and peer connectedness, had a significant influence on moral identity. For the first scale, living as a Christian, the positive relationship with moral identity suggests that normalising moral behaviours by purposefully teaching Biblical principles and what they look like in practice, such as loving their neighbours and helping those in need, could promote prosocial moral identity. This finding supports past research, suggesting that teaching related to living as a Christian may provide a rationale for moral behaviours that are aligned with the school’s Christian ethos, making it easier for students to merge their beliefs about what is morally correct with their personal identities (Hardy et al., 2014 ). This finding also supports research reporting that religious education in schools fosters a collective identity that promotes identity development including moral identity (Rich & Schachter, 2012 ).

For the second scale, peer connectedness, the strong positive relationship is consistent with past research (e.g. Aldridge, Ala’i, et al., 2016 ; Riekie et al., 2017 ) and suggests that a school-level focus on improving peer connectedness could have positive effects on students’ prosocial moral identity. It is recommended therefore that schools consider building students’ skills and capability to effectively interact and engage with and befriend others.

There was one scale, affirming cultural diversity, that was statistically significant only for School A. Although this positive relationship with moral identity is consistent with past research (e.g. Aldridge, Ala’i, et al., 2016 ; Riekie et al., 2017 ), it was surprising that it was non-significant for School B. This difference could be attributed to differences in the degree to which there was cultural diversity within the school and the wider community. If this was the case, the relationship between affirming cultural diversity and moral identity is less likely to be significant when there is limited diversity within the school environment, as reported in School B. The positive and significant finding for School A, in which students experience greater cultural and linguistic diversity than School B, suggests that students’ backgrounds should be acknowledged, recognised and affirmed. It is recommended that future studies involve a fine-grained analysis of students’ experiences to further explain this finding.

Improving students’ hope for the future

The second hypothesis predicted the school climate would influence students’ hope for the future. Our findings suggest that, in both schools, two CEHC scales were significantly correlated with hope for the future: inspirational teaching and practical service. Further, for both schools, two scales were significant for one but not the other.

The first relationship common to both schools was the influence of inspirational teaching on hope for the future. This finding suggests that when Christian experiences and religious teachings are inspiring and meaningful, existential and critical hope about the future are promoted. The implication of this finding suggests that hopefulness could be promoted through a belief in a deity that cares about suffering and helps followers to take action to help others (“I learn how Jesus’ teachings can help to address social problems”). Although, to our knowledge, the relationship between the quality of religious education teaching and hope for the future have not been examined in past research, the findings were consistent with past research that found religious commitment (Hood et al., 2009 ), religious values (Ciarrochi & Heaven, 2012 ), spiritual wellbeing (Carson et al., 1988 ), and spiritual attachment (Ciarrocchi et al., 2008 ) were significant predictors of hope.

The second relationship common to both schools was the influence of practical service on hope for the future. This strong, positive relationship is consistent with other research that suggests providing students with frequent opportunities to engage in service learning will promote hope for the future (Miceli & Castelfranchi, 2010 ; Snyder et al., 1991 ). The findings suggest that hope for the future is promoted when students engage with practical acts of service (through service learning) as these provide opportunities for students to engage in social change and understand their capacity in addressing problems in their community and the wider world. According to (Miceli & Castelfranchi, 2010 ; Snyder et al., 1991 ), these opportunities help students recognise the possibility to be agents of change as they understand the challenges they face in addressing problems, develop plans for change and pathways for action, and enacting these strategies through service-learning projects. Our findings suggest that schools wishing to promote hope for the future should provide opportunities for service learning that explicitly teaches students how they can make a difference in the world.

For each school, two CEHC scales significantly predicted hope for the future that was different for the other school. For School A, world and social problems and peer connectedness were significantly related to hope for the future, but not for School B. Findings for the first scale, world and social problems, suggest the importance of considering problems within and beyond the community and how they are addressed to enhance hope for the future. This finding supports past research that found hope for the future was promoted when students understand the complexities of problems faced in the world and when given opportunities to develop pathways to address these problems. (c.f. Satterfield, 2000 ). It is possible that the difference between this relationship for the two schools is related to the practical service provided. Whereas School A promotes an ethic of service on their websites and in school documents (e.g. policies), the importance of practical service was less evident in School B’s documentation (including the school’s website). Despite this difference, it is unclear why this relationship was non-significant for School B, and it is recommended that this issue be examined through closer engagement with the school communities in future research.

The second CEHC scale that predicted hope for the future for School A was peer connectedness. This positive relationship is consistent with past research that has examined the importance of social connections in developing of hope (King et al., 2020 ). This positive relationship makes sense given that supportive peer relationships help build positive self-image and self-esteem. This finding also supports other research that has reported the positive influence of peer connectedness on outcomes related to hope, such as resilience (Riekie et al., 2017 ), and mental health and wellbeing (Aldridge & McChesney, 2018 ). It is unclear why this relationship was not significant for school B. However, the mean responses for School B (see Table  4 ) indicate that these students experience fewer positive peer experiences than their counterparts in School A. Although this might suggest that a threshold has not been reached in School A for positive peer connectedness to make a difference in hope for the future, further research is required to understand whether this is the case.

For School B, two scales, Bible teaching and Bible teaching across subjects, predicted students’ hope for the future but not for School A. For the first scale, Bible teaching (the extent to which key Biblical principles are taught in a meaningful way), the positive relationship corroborates existing research which report that higher levels of religious commitment were related to higher levels of hope (Ciarrochi & Heaven, 2012 ; DiPierro et al., 2018 ; King et al., 2020 ). Despite the statistically significant correlation with hope for the future, students’ mean responses for this scale suggest that Bible teaching occurred less frequently in School B when compared to School A. It was unclear, therefore, why the correlation was significant for this school but not the other. Further research is needed to examine the content taught during Bible-focused lessons and how this influences students’ hope for the future.

For second scale, Bible teaching across subjects (the extent to which Bible teaching was taught in regular classes such as mathematics, English and Science), the relationship with hope for the future was negative and significant for School B (and non-significant for School A). Although the negative relationship was surprising given the relationship with Bible teaching was positive, an explanation could be attributed to the school’s context. Given that this School B is situated in a regional town with a limited pool of teachers, the school’s ability to find teachers with a commitment to Christian faith is more restricted than for School A. If this was the case, even though teachers of other subjects may feel obliged to adhere to the Christian school ethos, they may lack the commitment or, indeed, the capability to address or teach faith issues within their classes. In turn, students could sense a lack of authenticity if discussions about faith and spirituality are introduced by teachers who lack commitment to the Christian faith, particularly if their body language suggests a lack of agreement with the school’s ethos. Further research is needed to understand how teachers who are not genuinely committed to the Christian ethos of the school communicate the ethos and the effect this has on students’ hope for the future.

Consistent with previous research (Aldridge, McLure & Blackstock, in press), these differences in relationships for the two schools indicate the context within which the school is situated influences the experiences of students. In particular, our findings are consistent with research (Nadi & Ghahremani, 2014 ) that suggest these experiences reflect different dominant norms and values which, in turn, influences students’ development of hope for the future in different ways.

Prosocial moral identity as a mediating factor

Our third hypothesis predicted that prosocial moral identity would predict hope for the future and mediate the relationship between school climate and hope for the future. The findings show that, in both schools, the more positive the students’ moral identity, the greater their hope for the future. This finding makes sense as moral identity strengthens a persons’ willingness to act in a prosocial and ethical manner and avoid antisocial behaviour (Hertz & Krettenauer, 2016 ). Therefore, choosing to act ethically and improve social outcomes may strengthen a person’s belief in their agency to positively influence future outcomes (Snyder et al., 1991 ).

We also examined whether the school climate influenced hope for the future indirectly through moral identity. The results indicate the school climate had both direct and indirect effects. In particular, two scales (peer connectedness and living as a Christian) influenced hope for the future both directly and indirectly through moral identity. For both schools, living as a Christian had an indirect effect (mediated by moral identity) but not a direct effect on hope for the future, suggesting that when schools focus on improving this construct, there is a positive effect on moral identity, which in turn improves hope for the future. For the other scale, peer connectedness, both direct and indirect effects were reported for School A, whereas only an indirect effect was reported for School B. Although the reasons for this difference is not clear, the findings suggest that a focus on developing positive relationships between students will improve their hope for the future.

Limitations

The limitations of this study are noteworthy. First, the cross-sectional nature of our study, which used questionnaire data collected from students in two schools, lacked causal explanations. While structural equation modelling has revealed some interesting correlations, which are consistent with prior research, suggest ways in which aspects of the church-based school climate influence moral identity and hope for the future, the lack of causal explanation suggests that a closer examination of what is actually happening in the classroom is required in order to understand these apparent relationships at a deeper level.

Second, caution should be exercised when considering the generalisation of these results to other settings. This study was carried out in Australia in two church-based schools. It is unclear whether the patterns between the school climate and students’ moral identity and hope for the future found in this study will be maintained across other populations and settings.

Our results, however, underline the importance of further research to better understand the relationships between the unique school climates of church-based schools and how these can be leveraged to enhance students’ identity development and hope for the future.

Our study provides a detailed investigation of how school climate constructs, many of which are unique to church-based schools, are related to moral identity and hope for the future. The findings are significant in that they help understand how the school climate could be leveraged to help develop students’ moral identity and hope for the future. The results of structural equation modelling revealed important similarities between the two schools involved in the study. The findings suggest that to improve moral identity, schools should provide explicit teaching about how to live as a Christian and find ways to promote peer connectedness. To promote hope for the future, the findings suggest schools should provide Bible teaching that is engaging and made meaningful to students’ lives (inspirational teaching) as well as opportunities to engage in practical service or service learning. For both schools, students’ moral identity was related to their hope for the future. However, the differences between the results for each school suggest the importance of the school’s context and the need to model the relationships for individual schools to illuminate how student feedback can guide decisions to improve school climate factors in ways that increase their hope for the future and moral identity. Given the strong inverse relationship between hope for the future and depression, this could provide a means of addressing some of the concerns raised about the increase in adolescent depression rates over the past decades (Lu, 2020 ; Phillips & Yu, 2021 ).

Results available upon request.

Aldridge, J. M., & Ala’i, K., & Fraser, B. J. (2016). Relationships between school climate and adolescent students’ self-reports of ethnic and moral identity. Learning Environments Research, 19 (1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-015-9199-9

Article   Google Scholar  

Aldridge, J. M., & McChesney, K. (2018). The relationships between school climate and adolescent mental health and wellbeing: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Educational Research, 88 , 121–145. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2018.01.012

Aldridge, J. M., Fraser, B. J., Fozdar, F., Ala’i, K., Dantas, J., & Afari, E. (2016). Students’ perceptions of school climate as determinants of wellbeing, resilience and identity. Improving Schools, 19 , 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1365480215612616

Aldridge, J. M., McChesney, K., & Afari, E. (2018). The relationships between school climate, bullying and delinquent behaviours. Learning Environment Research, 21 , 153–172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-017-9249-6

Australian_Bureau_of_Statistics. (2023). Schools . https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/education/schools/latest-release : Australian Government Retrieved from https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/education/schools/latest-release

Barnes, T. (2018). Factsheet: Faith schools . Religion Media Centre. https://religionmediacentre.org.uk/factsheets/faith-schools-in-the-uk/

Carson, V., Soeken, K. L., & Grimm, P. M. (1988). Hope and its relationshop to spiritual well-being. Journal of Psychology and Theology, 16 (2), 159–167.

Carson, A., Cooling, T., & Francis, L. J. (2017) Lessons in spiritual development: learning from leading christian-ethos secondary schools. Church House Publishing

Ciarrocchi, J. W., Dy-Liacco, G. S., & Deneke, E. (2008). Gods or rituals? Relational faith, spiritual discontent, and religious practices as predictors of hope and optimism. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 3 (2), 120–136.

Ciarrochi, J., & Heaven, P. C. L. (2012). Religious values and the development of trait hope and self-esteem in adolescents. Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion, 51 , 676–678.

Cohen, J., Mccabe, E. M., Michelli, N. M., & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111 (1), 180–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146810911100108

Cohen, J. (2013). Creating a Positive School Climate: A Foundation for Resilience. In S. Goldstein & R. B. Brooks (Eds.), Handbook of Resilience in Children (pp. 411–423). Springer US. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3661-4_24

DiPierro, M., Fite, P. J., & Johnson-Motoyama, M. (2018). The role of religion and spirituality in the association between hope and anxiety in a sample of Latino youth. Child & Youth Care Forum, 47 , 101–114.

Dixson, D. D., Worrell, F. C., & Mello, Z. (2017). Profiles of hope: How clusters of hope relate to school variables. Learning and Individual Differences, 59 , 55–64.

Donnelly, C. (2000). In pursuit of school ethos. British Journal of Educational Studies, 48 , 134–154.

Edmund_Rice_Education_Australia. (2016). With head, heart, hands and feet: A framework for educating for justice and peace . https://www.spx.nsw.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/_ckpg/files/erea_framework_2016.pdf

Erikson, E. H. (1994). Insight and responsibility . WW Norton & Company.

Freire, P. (1992). Pedagogy of hope . The Continuum Publishing Company.

Gilham, J., & Reivich, K. (2004). Cultivating optimism in childhood and adolescence. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 591 , 146–163.

Grain, K. M., & Land, D. E. (2017). The social justice turn: Cultivating'critical hope'in an age of despair. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning , 23 (1).

Grund, J., & Brock, A. (2019). Why we should empty Pandora’s box to create a sustainable future: Hope, sustainability and its implications for education. Sustainability, 11 (3), 893.

Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis: A global perspective (7th ed.). Prentice-Hall.

Hardy, S. A., Walker, L. J., Olsen, J. A., Woodbury, R. D., & Hickman, J. R. (2014). Moral identity as moral ideal self: links to adolescent outcomes. Developmental Psychology, 50 (1), 45.

Hart, D., Atkins, R., & Ford, D. (1998). Urban America as a context for the development of moral identity in adolescence. Journal of Social Issues, 54 , 513–530.

Hertz, S. G., & Krettenauer, T. (2016). Does moral identity effectively predict moral behavior?: A meta-analysis. Review of General Psychology, 20 (2), 129–140.

Hood, R. W., Hill, P. C., & Spilka, B. (2009). The psychology of religion: An empirical approach (4th ed.). Guilford Press.

Hoyle, R. H. (2012). Handbook of structural equation modeling . Guildford Press.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6 , 1–55.

Idan, O., & Margalit, M. (2013). Hope theory in education systems. Psychology of hope , 139–160.

Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2018). LISREL10: User's reference guide . Scientific Software Inc.

King, P. E., Vaughn, J. M., Yoo, Y., Tirrell, J. M., Dowling, E. M., Lerner, R. M., & Sim, A. T. (2020). Exploring religiousness and hope: Examining the roles of spiriuality and social connections among Salvadoran youth. Religions, 11 (2), 75.

Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). Guildford Press.

Lagacé-Séguin, D. G., & d’Entremont, M.-R.L. (2010). A scientific exploration of positive psychology in adolescence: The role of hope as a buffer against the influences of psychosocial negativities. International Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 16 (1), 69–95.

Leite, A., Medeiros, A., Rolim, C., Pinheiro, K., Beilfuss, M., Leão, M., & Hartmann Junior, A. (2019). Hope theory and its relation to depression: a systematic review. Annals of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience , 2 (2).

Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topological psychology . McGraw.

Libbey, H. P. (2004). Measuring student relationships to school: Attachment, bonding, connectedness, and engagement. The Journal of School Health, 74 (7), 274.

Lu, W. (2020). Treatment for adolescent depression: National patterns, temporal trends, and factors related to service use across settings. Journal of Adolescent Health, 67 (3), 401–408.

Marques, S. C., Lopez, S. J., & Pais-Ribeiro, J. (2011). “Building hope for the future”: A program to foster strengths in middle-school students. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12 , 139–152.

McLure, F. I., & Aldridge, J. M. (2023). The Christian education health check: A survey for understanding church school climate. International Journal of Christianity & Education, 27 (2), 185–208.

Miceli, M., & Castelfranchi, C. (2010). Hope the power of wish and possibility. Theory & Psychology, 20 (2), 251–276.

Nadi, M. A., & Ghahremani, N. (2014). The relationship beteen dimensions of religiousity/spirituality with mental health and hope for the future between staff of public hospitals in Shiraz. Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 3 (1), 20.

Nordensvaard, J. (2014). Dystopia and dysutopia: Hope and hopelessness in German pupil’s future narratives. Journal of Educational Change, 15 , 443–465.

Ojala, M. (2012). Regulating worry, promoting hope: How do children, adolescents, and young adults cope with climate change? International Journal of Environmental and Science Education, 74 (4), 537–561.

Google Scholar  

Ojala, M. (2017). Hope and anticipation in education for a sustainable future. Futures, 94 , 76–84.

Ojala, M. (2007). Confronting macrosocial worries. Worry about environmental problems and proactive coping among a group of young vounteers. Futures , 39 (6), 729–745.

Park, N., Peterson, C. M., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2004). Strengths of character and well-being. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology , 23 , 603–619. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.23.5.603.50748

Phillips, S. P., & Yu, J. (2021). Is anxiety/depression increasing among 5–25 year-olds? A cross-sectional prevalence study in Ontario, Canada, 1997–2017. Journal of Affective Disorders, 282 , 141–146.

Pike, M. A. (2011). The value of Christian-ethos schooling for secular students. Journal of Research on Christian Education, 20 , 138–154.

Reynolds, S. J., & Ceranic, T. L. (2007). The effects of moral judgment and moral identity on moral behavior: An empirical examination of the moral individual. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92 (6), 1610.

Rich, Y., & Schachter, E. P. (2012). High school identity climate and student identity development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 37 (3), 218–228.

Riekie, H., Aldridge, J. M., & Afari, E. (2017). The role of the school climate in high school students’ mental health and identity formation: A South Australian study. British Educational Research Journal, 43 (1), 95–123. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3254

Satterfield, J. M. (2000). Optimism, culture and history: The roles of explanatory styles, integrative complexity, and pessimistic ruminations. In J. E. Gillham (Ed.), The science of optimism and hope (pp. 349–378). Templeton Foundation Press.

Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2015). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Routledge.

Shade, P. (2006). Educating hopes. Studies in Philosophy and Education, 25 (3), 191–225.

Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L. M., & Sigmon, S. T. (1991). The will and the ways: Development and validation of an individual-differences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60 , 570–585.

Stevens, J. P. (2009). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (5th ed.). Routledge.

Szumski, G., Smogorzewska, J., & Grygiel, P. (2020). Attitudes of students toward people with disabilities, moral identity and inclusive education—A two-level analysis. Research in Developmental Disabilities , 102 , 103685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2020.103685

Taylor, E. W. (2007). An update of transformative learning theory: A critical review of the empirical research (1999–2005). International Journal of Lifelong Education, 26 (2), 173–191. https://doi.org/10.1080/02601370701219475

Threadgold, S. (2012). “I reckon my life will be easy, but my kids will be buggered”: Ambivalence in young people’s positive perceptions of individual futures and their visions of environmental collapse. Journal of Youth Studies, 5 , 17–32.

Watson, M. (2008). Developmental discipline and moral education. Handbook of moral and character education , 175–203.

Webb, D. (2007). Modes of hope. History of the Human Sciences, 20 (3), 65–83.

Worrell, F. C., & Hale, R. L. (2001). The relationship of hope in the future and perceived school climate to school completion. School Psychology Quarterly, 16 (4), 370.

Download references

Open Access funding enabled and organized by CAUL and its Member Institutions.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Education, Curtin University, Perth, Australia

Jill M. Aldridge

Faculty of Arts and Society, Charles Darwin University, Ellangowan, Australia

Felicity McLure

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jill M. Aldridge .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors did not receive support funding from any organisation for the submitted work and there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Aldridge, J.M., McLure, F. Investigating the influence of the school climate of church-based schools on students’ moral identity development and hope for the future. Learning Environ Res (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-024-09515-y

Download citation

Received : 11 April 2024

Accepted : 14 August 2024

Published : 01 September 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-024-09515-y

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Christian education Health Check (CEHC)
• Religious education
• School environment
• School-level environment
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research