Content uploaded by Kenan Demir
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Kenan Demir
Content may be subject to copyright.
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 47 ( 2012 ) 501 – 506
1877-0428 © 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and/or peer review under responsibility of Prof. Dr. Hüseyin Uzunboylu
doi: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.688
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
**Hasköy 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.
Keyword s: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 Özensel, 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 (Başbakanlık, 2010, Özsoy, 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 (Yazıcı, 2011; Sığrı, Tabak & Ercan, 2009; Akt; Kağıtçıbaşı & Kuşdil, 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
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
502 Kenan Demir and Aysel Kok / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 47 ( 2012 ) 501 – 506
2
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
lues 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
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
-a 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 1.Comparison of the values of mothers and fathers (t-test)
Values
Parents
N
Mean
Std. Dev.
t
df
Sig.
Power
Mother
238
6,42
3,75
-,486
387
,627
Father
151
6,61
3,79
Achiev ement
Mother
238
13,64
3,40
1,008
387
,314
Father
151
13,26
3,84
Hedonism
Mother
238
7,82
3,27
,390
387
,697
Father
151
7,68
3,63
Stimulation
Mother
238
7,36
3,15
-1,128
387
,260
503
Kenan Demir and Aysel Kok / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 47 ( 2012 ) 501 – 506
3
Father
151
7,75
3,41
Self-direction
Mother
238
14,26
3,01
,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.
Universalism
Mother
238
25,47
4,02
,479
387
,632
Father
151
25,24
5,10
Benevol ence
Mother
238
15,12
2,80
,235
387
,815
Father
151
15,04
3,23
Tradition
Mother
238
14,90
2,91
1,603
387
,110
Father
151
14,38
3,43
Conformity
Mother
238
15,07
3,23
,632
387
,528
Father
151
14,84
3,79
Security
Mother
238
19,91
3,40
,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. sults in their own study, and revealed that women attach
more importance to hedonism and tradition compared to men.
that male teacher candidates attach more importance to all values other than benevolence.
3.2. Findings related to 2nd Sub-Problem
Occupations of the parents were classified in five groups: housewife, farmer, worker, freelancer, and civil
Table 2. Comparison of Values as of Occupations (ANOVA)
Values
Occupations
N
Mean
Std.
Dev.
Source of
variance
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
Power
1. Housew.
2. Farmer
3. Worker
4. Self-em.
5. Public-emp.
Total
210
70
50
42
30
402
6,11
7,28
5,72
6,73
8,27
6,49
3,80
3,59
3,77
3,64
2,90
3,73
Between G.
Within G.
Total
201,036
5383,683
5584,719
4
397
401
50,259
13,561
3,706
,006*
(1-5)
and
(3-5)
Achievement
1. Housew.
2. Farmer
3. Worker
4.Self-em.
5. Public-emp.
Total
210
70
50
42
30
402
13,35
13,77
12,88
13,13
14,37
13,42
3,72
3,80
3,47
3,34
2,89
3,61
Between G.
Within G.
Total
54,478
5177,591
5232,069
4
397
401
13,619
13,042
1,044
,384
Hedonism
1. Housew.
2. Farmer
3. Worker
4. Self-em.
5. Public-emp.
Total
210
70
50
42
30
402
7,49
7,98
7,10
8,32
9,01
7,73
3,40
3,71
3,59
3,00
2,28
3,39
Between G.
Within G.
Total
99,627
4513,360
4612,987
4
397
401
24,907
11,369
2,191
,069
504 Kenan Demir and Aysel Kok / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 47 ( 2012 ) 501 – 506
4
Stimulatio n
1. Housew.
2. Farmer
3. Worker
4. Self-em.
5. Public-emp.
Total
210
70
50
42
30
402
7,03
8,01
7,24
8,16
8,91
7,48
3,19
3,39
3,30
3,39
2,28
3,24
Between G.
Within G.
Total
145,270
4073,975
4219,245
4
397
401
36,318
10,262
3,539
,007*
(1-5)
Table 2. (continued)Comparison of Values as of Occupations (ANOVA)
Values
Occupations
N
Mean
Std.
Dev.
Source of
variance
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square
F
Sig.
Self-
direction
1. Housew.
2. Farmer
3. Worker
4. Self-em.
5. Public-emp.
Total
210
70
50
42
30
402
14,23
14,24
13,78
13,51
14,41
14,12
3,09
3,34
3,29
3,10
2,53
3,12
Between G.
Within G.
Total
27,178
3880,499
3907,677
4
397
401
6,795
9,775
,695
,596
Universalism
1. Housew.
2. Farmer
3. Worker
4. Self-em.
5. Public-emp.
Total
210
70
50
42
30
402
25,32
25,89
24,26
24,73
24,61
25,28
4,31
5,11
6,47
3,67
3,35
4,66
Between G.
Within G.
Total
100,447
8621,236
8721,683
4
397
401
25,112
21,716
1,156
,330
Benevolence
1. Housew.
2. Farmer
3. Worker
4. Self-em.
5. Public-emp.
Total
210
70
50
42
30
402
15,09
15,57
14,72
14,30
14,44
14,57
2,79
3,07
3,80
3,35
2,76
3,05
Between G.
Within G.
Total
57,912
3660,606
3718,518
4
397
401
14,478
9,221
1,570
,181
Tradition
1. Housew.
2. Farmer
3. Worker
4. Self-em.
5. Public-emp.
Total
210
70
50
42
30
402
14,76
15,12
13,46
13,82
14,87
14,57
3,21
2,99
4,04
3,02
2,38
3,24
Between G.
Within G.
Total
116,071
4100,896
4216,967
4
397
401
29,018
10,330
2,809
,025*
(2-3)
Comformity
1. Housew.
2. Farmer
3. Worker
4. Self-em.
5. Public-emp.
Total
210
70
50
42
30
402
14,99
15,01
14,76
14,28
14,71
14,88
3,40
3,72
3,96
3,91
2,53
3,52
Between G.
Within G.
Total
20,341
4951,982
4972,323
4
397
401
5,085
12,474
,408
,803
Security
1. Housew.
2. Farmer
3. Worker
4. Self-em.
5. Public-emp.
Total
210
70
50
42
30
402
19,76
20,05
19,14
19,01
19,24
19,62
3,75
4,53
4,29
3,71
3,14
3,92
Between G.
Within G.
Total
48,348
6112,320
6160,668
4
397
401
12,087
15,396
,785
,535
It was revealed that the difference between Hedonism, Achievement, Self-direction, Universalism, Benevolence,
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.
505
Kenan Demir and Aysel Kok / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 47 ( 2012 ) 501 – 506
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
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
-28
incelenmesi. 2nd
International Conference on New Trends in Education and Their Implications. 27-29 April, 2011 Antalya-Turkey
Demirutku, K. (2004). Turkish adaptation of the portrait values questionnaire. Ankara: Unpublished Manuscript, Middle East Technical
University.
, 15(45).
(59 76).
217-239.
, 14, 30 34.
(07/12/2011).
Ankara: Ankara
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.
506 Kenan Demir and Aysel Kok / Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 47 ( 2012 ) 501 – 506
Cilt 7, No. 17, 109-
128.
stereot ipil er