CC BY-NC-ND
0Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
% ScienceDirect Procedia
Social and Behavioral Sciences
Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2 (2010) 4943-4948
WCES-2010
An investigation of teacher candidates' value preferences
Ercan Yilmaza *, Selahattin Av§aroglua, Metin Denizb
a Selcuk University, Education Faculty, Konya, 42090, Turkey bAnkara University, Faculty of Educational Sciences, Ankara, 06590, Turkey
Received November 9, 2009; revised December 10, 2009; accepted January 21, 2010
Abstract
The aim of this study was to determine whether teacher candidates' values differ significantly with respect to gender, school type and branch type or not. The sample of this study consists of 286 teacher candidates, attending various departments in education faculty at Nigde University, Turkey. Relational Survey Method was administered in this study. Schwartz Value Survey (SVS) and Demographic Information Form were conducted to the participants. Results indicated that value preferences of teacher candidates differ significantly with respect to some independent variables. © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Teacher canditates; value; schwartz value survey; school type; branch type
1. Introduction
In society, there are certain values consist of interaction among people (Kagit9iba§i, 1988; Freedman, Sears & Carlsmith, 1989; Kosemihal, 1993; Guven9, 1993). These common values have a great importance in constitution and development of societies. Therefore, studies and researches containing these values become a more interesting case for educators whose attention to this case is increasing day by day (Ozsoy, 2007). Human being is a living creature constituting values and significances and living within the bounds of these values and significances. So people comment themselves and everything else according to these values and significances. These significances and values may become a problem according to an individual's point of view. Living in a historical and cultural world presents the social aspect of these values. It shouldn't be ignored that values don't consist of only people's activities and experiences; it also has a social dimension. People act not only in accordance with the historical conditions but also as a member of a certain society (Gunay, 2005).
It is making difficult to define this concept that it is used in various discipline (Dilma9 ve Ek§i, 2007) and although it has a common acceptance level, there are situations quarreling with each other in society. Value is asserted as generalized ethical principals or believes reflecting feeling, idea, goal and interest which is accepted as accurate and necessary by most the people constituting group and society. Value can be thought as beliefs of an individual concerning what is right or wrong. It is ethical judgments constituted to make the life more respected (Robbins, 1993; Ozbay, 2004). It can be defined as a process which is accepted as principles directing people's life and a social representative of the goals motivating people to live (Rohan, 2000) and exhibits supporting social
* Ercan Yilmaz. Tel.: 00-90-332-323 82 20; fax: 00-90-332-323 82 25 E-mail address: ercanyilmaz70@gmail.com
ELSEVIER
1877-0428 © 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd. doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.800
learning characteristics (An, 2005) and affective characteristics (Bacanli, 1999). That is to say, value is a kind of belief consists of standards and criteria which are constituted to define fine and right. As for Schwartz (1994) who has a great importance in researches of value, Value is principles of the individuals leading to their lives and important goals.
Value is also a part of culture belongs to an organization. Because culture of an organization is defined as the values shared and abided by individuals and group. Values of individuals effect the organization where they work. Individuals differ from the others according to the importance or priority of their values and individual's priorities of value are substantially affected by the dominant values of the culture they live in. Personal values are approved as outcomes of the culture. So values and beliefs have a determinative role for human behavior and personal performance in personal level and they have also a determinative role for determining performance of the organizations in organizational levels (Ergun, 2003). In addition, values are approved as one of the most important key to understand the behaviors of employee in organization. The values of the people have a relation to their attitude. People assess the cases around them under the influence of their beliefs and attitudes then they reach a decision (Eren, 2000; Rokeach, 1973; Ozden, 2005). While the values have a more global point of view according to the attitudes, attitudes especially concentrate on human or objects. Attitude is a mental preparedness situation which usually consists of the personal experiences and directs the behaviors of the individual against the concerned situations. In other words, attitude is a body of information, beliefs and views containing behavioral tendency. Individuals can change their values during the interaction process. When the values are actual and behavioral, they are called as ethical values. Ethical values consist of a decision on weather something is good or bad (Gungor, 1998). Ethical decision is a mental operation on deciding weather a case or a situation is right or wrong and how should be behaved to an individual's himself and the others (Qileli, 1990; Ozbay, 2004). In that case, ethic can't be approved as an absolute value but a value became a general decision.
School life has significant effects on process of developing the value. Schwarts (1994) who emphasized the importance of education and acculturation tools has studies on this subject and also emphasized the importance of education process. An individual's school composes a considerable part of his social experiences. Besides school is a living and learning space which is constructed on values (Turan & Aktan, 2008). An inner and behavioral accommodation can be developed by gaining the value attribution of society by means of the point of view in emphatic level gained in this field (Rogers, 1951; Dokmen, 1988; Ozguven, 1999) and personality development (Ozden, 1997; Ancak, 1999; Av§aroglu ve Ure, 2007). When considered from this point of view, the attitudes developed by teacher candidates attending to the education faculties and their preference and decisional point of views are important. Because, when these teacher candidates became a teacher, they contribute to the students' social, academic and personality development by means of domestication.
It is necessary to indicate that students are good at monitoring and they can develop some behaviors by imitating their teachers. Therefore it can be thought that teachers' value preferences can reflect to the students. At the same time, there are lots of research findings that teachers' behaviors affect the students' (Brophy ve Good, 1986; Dickinson, 1990). Teachers have an important role in process of gaining values to their students by virtue of their position and roles they undertake (Suh ve Traiger, 1999). In the process of education and training, value attainment has an important place in terms of social and character development. So body of rich beliefs in individual's value attainment and perception has an important role in composing healthy personal development. The purpose of this research is to understand an describe the teacher candidates' value decisions in education and training process and in accordance with this purpose following sub-purposes are developed; Do the teacher candidates' value preferences differ according to gender? Do the teacher candidates' value preferences differ according to school type they graduated? Do the teacher candidates' value preferences differ according to branch type they are educated?
2. Method
Relational survey method was administered in this study. In this survey model there are two basic variables, one is dependent and the other is independent. Independent variable of the research model consists of teacher candidates' gender, school type they graduated and branch type (equal weight, quantitative, verbal) they are educated at the department of university. Dependent variable of the research consists of the teacher candidates' value preferences. In this research, teacher candidates' value preferences are examined whether they differ according to variables that are gender, school type they graduated and branch type. The sample of this study consists of 286 teacher candidates, attending various departments in education faculty at Nigde University.
2.1. Materials
Schwartz Values Survey (SVS): The Schwartz Value Survey (SVS), contains 57 Items which represent 10 value types on a individual level. The task is to rate how important each value is for the respondent as a guiding principle in life. Values which are either opposed to the respondents principles or which are regarded "of supreme importance", rated with -1 respectively 7 on the scale. The Turkish version of the scale was adapted by Bacanli (1999) and Ku§dil and Kagitgiba§i (2000). The internal consistency of the scale was 0.51 and 0.77, respectively.
3. Results
Table 1: T- test for Value Preferences of Teacher Canditates with regard to Gender
Value Preference Dimensions Gender n X ss t p
Power Male 67 19,70 4,74 0,826 0, 411
Female 219 19,17 4,00
Achievement Male Female 67 219 30,11 30,02 4,33 4,36 0,159 0, 874
Hedonism Male Female 67 219 15,35 15,94 3,85 3,67 -1,102 0, 273
Stimulation Male Female 67 219 15,32 14,89 3,70 3,61 0,852 0, 396
Self Direction Male Female 67 219 31,22 31,31 4,10 4,47 -0,148 0, 883
Universalism Male Female 67 219 55,43 56,21 6,20 8,40 -0,820 0, 413
Benevolence Male Female 67 218 55,52 55,37 5,54 8,56 0,164 0, 870
Tradition Male Female 67 219 33,70 32,99 3,89 5,77 1,147 0, 253
Conformity Male Female 67 219 23,73 24,64 3,31 4,03 -1,880 0, 062
Security Male Female 67 219 44,16 43,99 4,36 6,410 0,252 0, 801
* p<.05
According to the t test, there is a meaningful difference in the whole dimensions in terms of gender.
Table 2: Variance Analysis and Tukey test Results for Value Preferences of Teacher Canditates with regard to School Type
Value Preference Dimensions School Type n X ss F p
1. High School 114 18,85 4,61
Power 2. Anatolian High School. 78 18,67 3,72 4,501 0,012*
3. Occupational High School 94 20,34 3,82
1. High School 114 29,91 4,93
Achievement 2. Anatolian High School. 78 30,10 3,86 0,092 0,912
3. Occupational High School 94 30,15 4,00
1. High School 114 15,61 4,13
Hedonism 2. Anatolian High School. 3. Occupational High School 78 94 15,55 16,25 3,42 3,40 1,020 0,362
1. High School 114 15,04 3,54
2. Anatolian High School. 78 13,58 3,65 10,856 0,000*
Stimulation 3. Occupational High School 94 16,09 3,35
1. High School 114 31,19 5,00
Self Direction 2. Anatolian High School. 3. Occupational High School 78 94 31,33 31,37 3,58 4,23 0,048 0,953
Universalism 1. High School 114 55,92 8,46 0,057 0,944
2. Anatolian High School. 78 55,89 7,83
1-2 2-3
3. Occupational High School 94 56,25 7,42
1. High School 114 54,75 8,40
Benevolence 2. Anatolian High School. 3. Occupational High School 78 93 54,93 56,61 7,97 7,27 1,599 0,204 -
2. Anatolian High School. 114 32,75 5,63
Tradition 3. Occupational High School 78 33,00 5,62 0,991 0,372 -
2. Anatolian High School. 94 33,78 4,88
2. Anatolian High School. 114 24,45 4,06
Conformity 3. Occupational High School 78 24,39 4,03 0,005 0,995 -
2. Anatolian High School. 94 24,43 3,58
2. Anatolian High School. 114 43,38 6,67
Security 3. Occupational High School 78 44,32 5,33 1,141 0,321 -
2. Anatolian High School. 94 44,57 5,58
*p<.05
As shown in Table 2 according to school type variable, there is a meaningful difference in teacher candidates' value preferences in terms of power and stimulation dimensions. A tukey test is used to describe the source of difference. In terms of the power dimension, teacher candidates graduated from occupational high schools have a higher average score of value preferences than both high schools and Anatolian high schools graduates. Regarding to stimulation dimension, teacher candidates graduated from Anatolian high schools have a lower average than both high schools and occupational high schools graduates. There isn't a meaningful difference in the average score of the teacher candidates in terms of the other humanistic dimensions of the survey.
Table 3: Variance Analysis and Tukey test Results for Value Preferences of Teacher Canditates with regard to Branch Type
Value Preference
Dimensions Branch Type n X ss F p
Power 1. Equal Weight 149 18,6040 4,27883
2. Quantitative 47 19,3830 4,34167 5,336 0,005
3. Verbal 90 20,4000 3,72299
Achievement 1. Equal Weight 149 29,9060 4,88426
2. Quantitative 47 30,4043 2,91667 0,239 0,787
3. Verbal 90 30,0889 4,05758
1. Equal Weight 149 15,6846 3,87662
Hedonism 2. Quantitative 47 16,8511 2,53650 2,329 0,099
3. Verbal 90 15,4667 3,91253
1. Equal Weight 149 14,2752 3,83945
Stimulation 2. Quantitative 47 15,9149 2,94020 6,352 0,002
3. Verbal 90 15,7000 3,39017
1. Equal Weight 149 31,1745 4,87372
Self Direction 2. Quantitative 47 32,4468 2,36651 2,098 0,125
3. Verbal 90 30,8778 4,28435
1. Equal Weight 149 55,8993 8,79477
Universalism 2. Quantitative l 47 57,1489 5,94533 0,585 0,558
3. Verbal 90 55,6556 7,35636
1. Equal Weight 149 54,8255 8,79091
Benevolence 2. Quantitative 46 57,0217 4,90573 1,368 0,256
3. Verbal 90 55,5556 7,67472
1. Equal Weight 149 32,9195 5,79436
Traditional 2. Quantitative 47 34,1489 4,62967 0,958 0,385
3. Verbal 90 33,0444 5,07010
1. Equal Weight 149 24,5906 4,21710
Conformity 2. Quantitative 47 24,3830 3,12461 0,285 0,752
3. Verbal 90 24,2000 3,72420
1. Equal Weight 149 43,6174 6,77495
Security 2. Quantitative 47 44,9787 2,92284 0,990 0,373
3. Verbal 90 44,2222 5,76658
1-2 1-3
* p<.05
As shown in Table 3 according to branch type, there is a meaningful difference in teacher candidates' value preferences in terms of power and stimulation dimensions. A tukey test is used to describe the source of difference. In terms of the power dimension, teacher candidates attending to sort of equal weight branch type have a lower average score than the teacher candidates attending to sort of quantitative branch type. Regarding to stimulating dimension, teacher candidates attending to sort of equal weight branch type have a lower average score than the teacher candidates attending to both quantitative and verbal branch types. There isn't a meaningful difference in the average score of the teacher candidates in terms of the branch type (P>0.05).
4. Discussion
The findings of this study determined that there is not a meaningful level of difference about the teacher candidate preferences. In other words, the students preferences educated in the faculty of education don't differ according to their gender. This situation can be explained with this similarity of teacher candidates' value decisions and their preferences because youth take similar attribution from grown-ups and their environments in their development process. Consequently, it can be explained with this attribution and teaching effect, statistically, there is no difference. In some researches it is emphasized that there are some differences in humanistic value perception and value preferences according to gender (Sari, 2005 Qileli ve Tezer, 1998; Aydin, 2003; Dilmag, Bozgeyikli ve Qikili, 2008; Mehmedoglu, 2006; Dönmez ve Cömert, 2007).
While there is a meaningful difference for two sub dimension of value preferences survey (power and stimulation) in terms of the teacher candidates' school typevariable, there is no difference between school type and value preferences. When power is defined as to be strong, authoritarian, rich, preserve the appearance in society; there can be difference in individuals' value preferences (Özden, 2005; Atay, 2003). When considered from this point of view teacher candidates graduated from occupational high schools dominantly prefer to be strength in comparison with the teacher candidates both graduated form high schools and Anatolian high schools. One other finding is that there is no difference for school type and value preferences stimulation dimensions. This difference is in the direction of teacher candidates graduated from Anatolian high school prefer less in sub dimension of stimulation in comparison with the teacher both graduated from high school and occupational high schools. In the context of stimulation dimension, if it is noticed Anatolian high school graduates have the preferences of being brave to live variable life, to have an exciting life, it can be explained that Anatolian high school graduates are in more academic function. In other words, instead of preferring variable and exciting life, they prefer a stationary, academic and secure life. The occupational school graduates choose the dimension of power and stimulation more than the others. At the same time, that there is no meaningful differences in sub-dimensions of humanistic value preferences except strength and stimulation, shows that the students have similar teaching and attribution about humanistic values.
In this study it is also determined that there is no meaningful difference in the teacher candidates' branch type ( Equal Weight, Quantitative, Verbal) and except for power and stimulation sub-dimensions. At the same time although it has no difference statically, teacher candidates who study in the field of quantitative dominant preferences attract attention in the sub-dimension of stimulation, self-control, universalism, benevolence, traditional and security. Another important factor in the research is candidate teachers' value preferences most dominant three dimensions are universalism, benevolence and security. According to this situation, Turkish candidate teachers are responsive to benevolence and security and care about universal values. The other finding of the research is being determined that average point of teacher candidates who study in equal weight are lower than quantitative. In the stimulation dimension, it is determined that average point of teacher candidates who study in equal weight is lower than both quantitative and verbal. In the light of these findings, it can be said that teacher candidates who study in equal weight prefer less power and stimulation preferences.
References
Ari, R. (2005). Gelifim ve Ögrenme Psikolojisi. Ankara: Nobel Yayin ve Dagitim.
Aricak, O.T. (1999). Grupla Psikolojik Dam§ma Yoluyla Benlik Saygisi ve Mesleki Benlik Saygismm Geli§tirilmesi. (Yayimlanmami§ Doktora
Tezi). Istanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. Atay, S. (2003). Türk Yönetici Adaylarinin Siyasal ve Dini Tercihleri ile Ya§am Degerleri Arasindaki lli§ki. Degerler Egitimi Dergisi, 1, (3), 87120
Av^aroglu, S., Üre, Ö. (2007). Üniversite Ögrencilerinin Karar Vermede Özsaygi, Karar verme ve Stresle Ba^ajikma Stillerinin Benlik Saygisi ve
Bazi Degi^kenler Ajisindan Incelenmesi.. Selfuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 18, 85-100.
Aydin, M. (2003). Genjligin Deger Algisi: Konya Örnegi. Degerler Egitimi Dergisi, 1, (3), 121-144.
Bacanli, H. (1999). Deger Tercihleri. V. Ulusal Psikolojik Dam§ma ve Rehberlik Kongresi. Ankara: Gazi Üniversitesi.
Bacanli, H. (1999). Duyu^sal Davramq Egitimi. Ankara: Nobel Yayin Dagitim.
Brophy, H. W., & Good, T. L. (1986). Third handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: McNally.
Qileli, M. (1990). Genflik Degerleri Üzerine Bir Araytirma. Ankara: Ara Yayincilik.
Qileli, M., Tezer, E. (1998). Life and Value Orientations of Turkish University Students. Adolescence, 33, (129), 219-224.
Dilmaj, B., Bozgeyikli, H. ve Qikili, Y. (2008). Ögretmen adaylarinin deger algilarinin farkli degi^kenler ajisindan incelenmesi. Degerler Egitimi Dergisi, 6,(16), 65-92.
Dökmen, Ü. (1988). Empatinin Yeni Bir Modele Dayanilarak Öljülmesi ve Psikodrama ile Geli^tirilmesi. Ankara Üniversitesi Egitim Bilimleri
Fakültesi Dergisi, 21, (1-2), 159-190. Dönmez, B., Cömert, M. (2007). Ilkögretim Okulu Ögretmenlerinin Deger Sistemleri. Degerler Egitimi Dergisi, 5 (14), 29-58. Ek§i, H. (2003). Temel Insani Degerlerin Kazandirilmasinda Bir Yakla^im: Karakter Egitimi Programlari. Degerler Egitimi Dergisi, 1 (1) 79-96. Eren, E. (2000).Örgütsel Davrani.^ ve Yönetim Psikolojisi. Istanbul: Beta Yayincilik.
Fichter, J. (1990). Sosyoloji Nedir? (Qev: N. Qelebi). Konya: Seljuk Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayinlari.
Freedman, J.L; Sears, D.O; Carlsmith, J.M. (1989). SosyalPsikoloji. (Qev: Ali Dönmez). Istanbul: Ara Yayincilik, I. Basim.
Günay, M. (2005). Dünya Kime Aittir. Istanbul: Solfej Sanat Yayinlari.
Güngör, E. (1998). Degerler Psikolojisi Üzerine Araytirmalar. Istanbul: Ötüken Yayinevi.
Güvenj, B. (1993). Insan veKültür. Istanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 4. Basim.
Howard, R.W; Berkowitz, M.W; Schaeffer, E.F. (2004). Politics of Character Education. Educational Policy, 18, (1), 188-215. Kagitjiba§i, Q. (1988). Insan ve insanlar: Sosyal Psikolojiye Giri§. Istanbul: Evrim Basim-yayim ve Dagitim, 8. Basim. Kiziljelik S. ve Erjem, Y. (1992). Afiklamali Sosyoloji Terimler Sözlügü. Konya: Günay Ofset. Kösemihal, N.§. (1982). Sosyoloji Tarihi. Istanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 4. Basim.
Ku§dil, M.E; Kagitjiba^i, Q. (2000). Türk Ögretmenlerin Deger Yönelimleri ve Schwartz Deger Kurami. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 15, (45), 59-76. Mehmedoglu, U. (2006). Genflik, degerler ve din. Küreselle§me, ahlak ve degerler. (Ed. U. Mehmedoglu & Mehmedoglu). Istanbul: Litera Yayincilik.
Özbay, Y. (2004). Gelifim ve ÖgrenmePsikolojisi: Kuram-Ara§tirma-Uygulama. Ankara: Ögreti Yayinevi.
Özden, Y. (1997). Ögrenme ve Ögretme. Ankara: Pegem-A Yayincilik.
Özden, Y. (2005). Egitimde Yeni Degerler Egitimde Dönüyüm. Ankara: Pegem-A Yayincilik.
Özgüven, I.E. (1999). Qagda$ Egitimde PsikolojikDani^ma ve Rehberlik. Ankara: Psikolojik Dani^ma ve Rehberlik Egitim Merkezi (PEDREM) Yayini.
Robbins, A. (1993). Sinirsiz Güf, (Qev: Mehmet Degirmenci), Istanbul, Inkilap Kitapevi Yayini Rogers, C.R. (1951). Client-Centered Therapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Rohan, M. J. (2000). A Rose by Any Name? The Values Construct. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(3), 255-277 Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Pres. Sabuncuoglu, Z. ve Tüz, M. (2003). Örgütsel psikoloji. (4. Baski). Bursa: Furkan Ofset.
Sari, E. (2005). Ögretmen Adaylarinin Deger Tercihleri: Giresun Egitim Fakültesi Örnegi. Degerler Egitimi Dergisi, 3, (10), 73-88. Schwartz, H. (1994). Are There Universal Aspects in the Structure and Contents of Human Values. Journal of Social Issues, 50, (4), 19-45. Suh, B.K., Traiger, J. (1999). Teaching Values Through Elementary Social Studies and Literature Curricula. Education. Education, 119, (4), 723727.
Turan, S., Aktan, D. (2008). Okul Hayatinda Var Olan ve Olmasi Dü^ünülen Sosyal Degerler. Türk Egitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 6, (2), 227-259 Verplanken, B., Holland, R.W. (2002). Motivated Decision Making: Effects of Activation and Self-Centrality of Values on Choices and Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 434- 447.
