Scholarly article on topic 'Students’ Families and Family Values'

Students’ Families and Family Values Academic research paper on "Economics and business"

CC BY-NC-ND
0
0
Share paper
OECD Field of science
Keywords
{Values / "value education" / "Schwartz's Portrait Values Questionnaire" / "primary school students" / parents}

Abstract of research paper on Economics and business, author of scientific article — Kenan Demir, Aysel Kok

Abstract This study examined values important for parents of primary school students. Data was collected using Schwartz's Portrait Values Questionnaire, which included Power, Achievement, Hedonism, Stimulation, Self-direction, Universalism, Benevolence, Tradition, Conformity and Security values. Schwartz's Portrait Values Questionnaire, which consisted of 40 articles, was translated into Turkish by Demirutku.The instrument was administered to the parents of primary school students. The participant schools were selected according to the socio-economic conditions. The sample of this study included 238 mothers, 151 fathers and 13 other relatives (e.g. grandmother, grandfather, uncle, aunt).Responses given by the parents were examined, and means and standard deviations were calculated accordingly. The data, then, was compared with parametric tests (e.g. t -test and Anova). The data obtained was compared to each other in terms of kinship, age, occupation, education level, and students’ grade level. As a result, the study concluded that families embraced similar values, and these values did not change significantly in terms of age, occupation, education level, and students’ grade level.

Academic research paper on topic "Students’ Families and Family Values"

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

SciVerse ScienceDirect PfOCSCl ¡0

Social and Behavioral Sciences

Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 47 (2012) 501 - 506 —

CY-ICER 2012

Students' Families and Family Values

Kenan Demir * Aysel Kok**

*Mehmet Akif Ersoy University, Faculty of Education, Department of Educational Sciences, Burdur, Turkey **Haskoy Primary Education School, Classroom Teacher, Bursa, Turkey

Abstract

This study examined values important for parents of primary school students. Data was collected using Schwartz's Portrait Values Questionnaire, which included Power, Achievement, Hedonism, Stimulation, Self-direction, Universalism, Benevolence, Tradition, Conformity and Security values. Schwartz's Portrait Values Questionnaire, which consisted of 40 articles, was translated into Turkish by Demirutku.The instrument was administered to the parents of primary school students. The participant schools were selected according to the socio-economic conditions. The sample of this study included 238 mothers, 151 fathers and 13 other relatives (e.g. grandmother, grandfather, uncle, aunt).Responses given by the parents were examined, and means and standard deviations were calculated accordingly. The data, then, was compared with parametric tests (e.g. t-test and Anova). The data obtained was compared to each other in terms of kinship, age, occupation, education level, and students' grade level. As a result, the study concluded that families embraced similar values, and these values did not change significantly in terms of age, occupation, education level, and students' grade level.

Keywords: Values, value education, Schwartz's Portrait Values Questionnaire, primary school students, parents

1. Introduction

Values are the most important criteria that give meaning to socio-cultural elements of the society. Anything useful for an individual and a group, anything demandable for an individual and a group or anything liked by an individual or a group is a value (Fichter, 1990 in Ozensel, 2003). Individuals learn to distinguish between "the good and the bad" and between "the right and the wrong" through social rules, customs and traditions; and thus learn to have a baseline in parallel with their own moralities (Beill, 2003: 14). This baseline constitutes a set of beliefs and notions. Tezcan (1974:14) stated that values were criteria giving significance and meaning to the whole culture and society. What establishes a society, which is formed by gathering human beings, is a set of collective values. Despite there are different definitions and approaches regarding the value concept in social sciences area, value is defined as a permanent consideration and standard that is internalised by the individual through his interaction with the environment in the process of socialisation (Ba§bakanlik, 2010, Ozsoy, 2007). Schwartz (1992), on the other hand, defines value as a state of affairs having a unifying impact on the society or on individuals. Schwartz examines values at two main levels: individual and cultural. Individual values take into consideration mainly their importance in guiding or directing people's lives. Cultural values focus on producing information as to abstract ideas shared by the society in general and based on social criteria. Schwartz's individual value types are power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, self-direction, universalism, benevolence, tradition, conformity, and security, and their properties are given below (Yazici, 2011; Sigri, Tabak & Ercan, 2009; Akt; Kagit9iba§i & Ku§dil, 2000; Schwartz 1992). The aim of this study is to examine the values of the parents of primary school students, and to compare

*0 90 0533 650 77 20 kenandemir@mehmetakif.edu.tr

ELSEVIER

1877-0428 © 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Huseyin Uzunboylu doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.688

those values based on such coefficients as being a parent, age, occupation and level of education. Within this scope, the following problems are tried to be answered:

1.1. Problem Statement

Is there a significant difference between values to which parents of primary school students attach importance?

1.1.1. Secondary Problems

1. Is there a significant difference between the parents' values in relation to being a mother or a father?

2. Is there a significant difference between the parents' values in relation to their occupation?

2. Method

This is a descriptive study that defines those values attached importance by families. The study also reveals whether these values are significantly differentiate according to being a mother/father, age, level of education, occupation and number of children.

2.1. Sample

Population of this study is Bursa, and parents of primary education students at 1st to 8th grade in primary education schools located in the city centre. Purposeful sampling method was used for the purposes of study, and the sample was comprised of volunteer parents from 10 primary education schools. Research instruments were forwarded to the parents through students, of which 473 responses were received and computerised accordingly. Responses of 71 parents, which were not responded in compliance with the scale (e.g. most of the questions were left blank or same choice was marked for all questions), were excluded. The study was conducted based on the responses given by 238 mothers, 151 fathers, and 13 other relatives (e.g. grandmother, grandfather, aunt, uncle) making a total of 402 individuals.

2.2. Data Collection Tools

In this study, data was obtained using Schwartz's Portrait Values Questionnaire. This questionnaire was translated into Turkish language by Demirutku. Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficient of the instrument is 0.91 for this study.

2.3. Data Analysis

Parents' responses to the instrument were compared in terms of kinship, age, occupation, level of education and number of children. Nonetheless, this study only includes comparisons in terms of kinship, occupation and level of education, 't-test' and 'Anova' is used to compare data obtained from the questionnaire.

3. Findings

Findings from the study were given below in right sequence with the sub-findings.

3.1. Findings related to 1st Sub-Problem

t-test was used to examine whether there is a difference between the values that mothers and fathers attach importance. The findings are given in Table 1.

Table ¡.Comparison of the values of mothers and fathers (t-test)

Values Parents N Mean Std. Dev. t df Sig.

Mother 238 6,42 3,75

Power -,486 387 ,627

Father 151 6,61 3,79

Mother 238 13,64 3,40

Achievement 1,008 387 ,314

Father 151 13,26 3,84

Mother 238 7,82 3,27

Hedonism ,390 387 ,697

Father 151 7,68 3,63

Stimulation Mother 238 7,36 3,15 -1,128 387 ,260

Father 151 7,75 3,41

Mother 238 14,26 3,01

Self-direction - ,647 387 ,518

Father 151 14,05 3,25

Table 1.(continued) Comparison of the values of mothers and fathers (t-test)

Values Parents N Mean Std. Dev. t df Sig.

Mother 238 25,47 4,02

Universalism ,479 387 ,632

Father 151 25,24 5,10

Mother 238 15,12 2,80

Benevolence ,235 387 ,815

Father 151 15,04 3,23

Mother 238 14,90 2,91

Tradition 1,603 387 ,110

Father 151 14,38 3,43

Mother 238 15,07 3,23

Conformity Father ,632 387 ,528

151 14,84 3,79

Mother 238 19,91 3,40

Security ,529 387 ,597

Father 151 19,71 4,16

Table 1 shows that fathers mostly attach importance to stimulation whereas mothers attach importance to other values; however, there is no significant difference between average values attached importance by mothers and fathers. Altunay and Yalfinkaya (2011) obtained similar results in their own study, and revealed that women attach more importance to hedonism and tradition compared to menBa^iftgi, Giile?, Akdogan and K09 (2011) pointed out that male teacher candidates attach more importance to all values other than benevolence.

3.2. Findings related to Td Sub-Problem

Occupations of the parents were classified in five groups: housewife, farmer, worker, freelancer, and civil servant. Table 2 below compares parents' values in terms of these groups.

Table 2. Comparison of Values as of Occupations (ANOVA)

Occupations N Mean Std. Source of Sum of df Mean F Sig.

Values Dev. variance Squares Square

1. Housew. 210 6,11 3,80 Between G. 201,036 4 50,259 3,706 ,006*

2. Farmer 70 7,28 3,59 Within G. 5383,683 397 13,561

> 3. Worker 50 5,72 3,77 Total 5584,719 401 (1-5)

! 4. Self-em. 42 6,73 3,64 and

5. Public-emp. 30 8,27 2,90 (3-5)

Total 402 6,49 3,73

1. Housew. 210 13,35 3,72 Between G. 54,478 4 13,619 1,044 ,384

tn e 2. Farmer 70 13,77 3,80 Within G. 5177,591 397 13,042

E e 3. Worker 50 12,88 3,47 Total 5232,069 401

v e 4.Self-em. 42 13,13 3,34

5. Public-emp. 30 14,37 2,89

< Total 402 13,42 3,61

1. Housew. 210 7,49 3,40 Between G. 99,627 4 24,907 2,191 ,069

E 2. Farmer 70 7,98 3,71 Within G. 4513,360 397 11,369

s sni 3. Worker 50 7,10 3,59 Total 4612,987 401

0 d 4. Self-em. 42 8,32 3,00

e B 5. Public-emp. 30 9,01 2,28

Total 402 7,73 3,39

1. Housew. 210 7,03 3,19 Between G. 145,270 4 36,318 3,539 ,007*

= o 2. Farmer 70 8,01 3,39 Within G. 4073,975 397 10,262

IS 3. Worker 50 7,24 3,30 Total 4219,245 401 (1-5)

13 4. Self-em. 42 8,16 3,39

X 5. Public-emp. 30 8,91 2,28

Total 402 7,48 3,24

Table 2. (continued)Comparison of Values as of Occupations (ANOVA)

Occupations N Mean Std. Source of Sum of df Mean F Sig.

Values Dev. variance Squares Square

1. Housew. 210 14,23 3,09 Between G. 27,178 4 6,795 ,695 ,596

= 2. Farmer 70 14,24 3,34 Within G. 3880,499 397 9,775

o St- 3. Worker 50 13,78 3,29 Total 3907,677 401

œ g 4. Self-em. 42 13,51 3,10

TS 5. Public-emp. 30 14,41 2,53

Total 402 14,12 3,12

1. Housew. 210 25,32 4,31 Between G. 100,447 4 25,112 1,156 ,330

E 2. Farmer 70 25,89 5,11 Within G. 8621,236 397 21,716

— as 3. Worker 50 24,26 6,47 Total 8721,683 401

£ e 4. Self-em. 42 24,73 3,67

$ 5. Public-emp. 30 24,61 3,35

& Total 402 25,28 4,66

1. Housew. 210 15,09 2,79 Between G. 57,912 4 14,478 1,570 ,181

n 2. Farmer 70 15,57 3,07 Within G. 3660,606 397 9,221

el ol 3. Worker 50 14,72 3,80 Total 3718,518 401

> e 4. Self-em. 42 14,30 3,35

n e 5. Public-emp. 30 14,44 2,76

CQ Total 402 14,57 3,05

1. Housew. 210 14,76 3,21 Between G. 116,071 4 29,018 2,809 ,025*

no 2. Farmer 70 15,12 2,99 Within G. 4100,896 397 10,330

itio 3. Worker 50 13,46 4,04 Total 4216,967 401 (2-3)

a 4. Self-em. 42 13,82 3,02

H 5. Public-emp. 30 14,87 2,38

Total 402 14,57 3,24

^ 1. Housew. 210 14,99 3,40 Between G. 20,341 4 5,085 ,408 ,803

2. Farmer 70 15,01 3,72 Within G. 4951,982 397 12,474

Ü 3. Worker 50 14,76 3,96 Total 4972,323 401

■S z 4. Self-em. 42 14,28 3,91

o Z < 5. Public-emp. 30 14,71 2,53

w Total 402 14,88 3,52

1. Housew. 210 19,76 3,75 Between G. 48,348 4 12,087 ,785 ,535

2. Farmer 70 20,05 4,53 Within G. 6112,320 397 15,396

■e 3. Worker 50 19,14 4,29 Total 6160,668 401

u u e 4. Self-em. 42 19,01 3,71

rjl 5. Public-emp. 30 19,24 3,14

Total 402 19,62 3,92

It was revealed that the difference between Hedonism, Achievement, Self-direction, Universalism, Benevolence, Conformity, Security values in terms of parents' occupations was not significant at 0.05 level. Nevertheless, there is a significant difference between the importance they attach to Power, Stimulation and Tradition values.It was determined that civil servant parents attached more importance to Power, compared to housewives and workers. Additionally, it was pointed out that parents working in civil service attached more importance to the Stimulation value (being braver, preferring a more flexible and adventurous life) compared to housewives. It was determined that the farmers were more likely to attach importance to Tradition value, which is mainly related to respect and devotion to cultural, social or religious norms and beliefs, when compared to the workers.

4. Conclusions

It was determined that there was no significant difference between values, importance to which was attached by parents with children attending to primary education school, in terms of their kinship (e.g. being a father or a mother). Parents' occupation, specifically their being housewives, farmers, workers, freelancers or civil servants, caused a significant difference in Power, Stimulation and Tradition values. Parents in the civil service attached more importance to Power, compared to those parents who were housewives or workers. Similarly, the parents in the civil service gave more importance to Stimulation value when compared to the housewives. The parents working as farmers embraced the Tradition value more than worker parents. It was revealed that the education level of parents (e.g. graduate of primary education, secondary education or higher education) led to a significant difference merely in terms of Hedonism and Stimulation values. It was determined that high school (secondary education) graduates attached more importance to Hedonism and Stimulation than the primary education graduates.

5. Suggestions

At the end of the study, values important for parents of primary education students were compared in terms of kinship, occupation and level of education. This study may be repeated in larger samples and with different variables. Again, based on this study, it is possible to create a map of social, religious, universal, individual, ethical, etc. values of Turkey. It is also possible to conduct more comprehensive studies on how these values are taught and will be taught.

References

Altunay, E. ve Yal^inkaya, M. (2011). Ögretmen Adaylanmn Bilgi Toplumunda Degerlere lli§kin Görü$lerinin Bazi Degi§kenler Afisindan lncelenmesi..KMram ve Uygulamada Egitim Yönetimi 2011, Cilt 17, Sayi 1, ss: 5-28

Ba;bakanlik (2010). Tiirkiye'de aile degerleri ara§tirmasi. TC Ba;bakanlik Aile ve Sosyal Ara§tumalar Müdiirlügü. (Ed. Mustafe Turgut)

Bajfiftfi, F., Güle?, N., Akdogan, T. Ve Ko$, Z. (2011). Ögretmen adaylanmn deger terciMeri ile epistemolojik inanflanmn incelenmesi. 2nd International Conference on New Trends in Education and Their Implications. 27-29 April, 2011 Antalya-Turkey

Beill, B. (2003). lyi Qocuk, Zor Qocuk "Dogru Davraniglar Qocuklara Nasü Kazandirilir? " (Qev. Cuma Yorulmaz). Ankara: Arkada§ Yayinevi.

Demirutku, K. (2004). Turkish adaptation of the portrait values questionnaire. Ankara: Unpublished Manuscript, Middle East Technical University.

Kagit?iba§i, Q. ve Ku§dil, M. E. (2000). Türk Ögretmenlerinin Deger Yönelimleri ve Schwartz Deger Kurami. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 15(45). (59—76).

Özensel, E. (2003). Sosyolojik bir olgu olarak deger. Degerler Egitim Dergisi.l(3), 217-239.

Özsoy, S. (2007). Degerlere dayali bir ortam yaratmak ejittir daha iyi bir dünya yaratmak. ilk Ögretmen Dergisi, 14, 30-34.

San, E. (2005). Ögretmen adaylanmn deger tercihleri: Giresun Egitim Fakiiltesi örnegi. http://www.dem.org.tr/ded/10/DED10mak5.pdf

(07/12/2011).

Sign, Ü., Tabak, A. ve Ercan, Ü. (2009). Kültiirel degerlerin yönetsel kapsamda analizi: bankacilik sektörü örnegi. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 2009,1(1).

Schwartz, S. H., & Boehnke, K. (2004). Evaluating the structure of human values with confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 230-255.

Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and empirical test in 20 countries. InM. Zanna (Ed.) Advances in experimental social psychogy (Vol.25, pp.1-65): New York Academic Press.

Tezcan, M. (1974). Turklerle ilgili stereotipiler (kalip yargilar) ve Turk degerleri iizerine bir deneme. Ankara: Ankara Universitesi Egitim Fakultesi Yayinlan.

Yazici, K. (2011) Degerler Egitimi'ne Genel Bir Baki§. http://www.sosyalbilgiler.gazi.edu.tr/articles/article20.pdf (adresinden 02/12/2011 tarihinde alindi.).

Yilmaz, E. (2009). Ogretmenlerin Deger Tercihlerinin Bazi Degijkenler Agismdan incelenmesi. Degerler Egitimi Dergisi. Cilt 7, No. 17, 109128.