Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2 (2010) 4943–4948

WCES-2010

An investigation of teacher candidates’ value preferences

Ercan YÕlmaza *, Selahattin Avúaro÷lua, Metin Denizb
a
Selcuk University, Education Faculty, Konya, 42090, Turkey
b
Ankara 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 Ni÷de 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 (Ka÷ÕtçÕbaúÕ, 1988; Freedman, Sears &
Carlsmith, 1989; Kösemihal, 1993; Güvenç, 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 (Özsoy, 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 (Günay, 2005).
It is making difficult to define this concept that it is used in various discipline (Dilmaç ve Ekúi, 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; Özbay, 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 YÕlmaz. Tel.: 00-90-332-323 82 20; fax: 00-90-332-323 82 25

E-mail address: ercanyilmaz70@gmail.com

1877-0428 © 2010 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2010.03.800
4944 Ercan Yılmaz et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2 (2010) 4943–4948

learning characteristics (ArÕ, 2005) and affective characteristics (BacanlÕ, 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 (Ergün, 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; Özden, 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 (Güngör,
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 (Çileli, 1990; Özbay, 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; Dökmen, 1988; Özgüven, 1999) and personality development
(Özden, 1997; ArÕcak, 1999; Avúaro÷lu ve Üre, 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 Ni÷de University.
 Ercan Yılmaz et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2 (2010) 4943–4948 4945

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 BacanlÕ
(1999) and Kuúdil and Ka÷ÕtçÕbaúÕ (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
Male 67 19,70 4,74
Power 0,826 0, 411
Female 219 19,17 4,00
Male 67 30,11 4,33
Achievement 0,159 0, 874
Female 219 30,02 4,36
Male 67 15,35 3,85
Hedonism -1,102 0, 273
Female 219 15,94 3,67
Male 67 15,32 3,70
Stimulation 0,852 0, 396
Female 219 14,89 3,61
Male 67 31,22 4,10
Self Direction -0,148 0, 883
Female 219 31,31 4,47
Male 67 55,43 6,20
Universalism -0,820 0, 413
Female 219 56,21 8,40
Male 67 55,52 5,54
Benevolence 0,164 0, 870
Female 218 55,37 8,56
Male 67 33,70 3,89
Tradition 1,147 0, 253
Female 219 32,99 5,77
Male 67 23,73 3,31
Conformity -1,880 0, 062
Female 219 24,64 4,03
Male 67 44,16 4,36
Security 0,252 0, 801
Female 219 43,99 6,410
* 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 Tukey

1. High School 114 18,85 4,61

1-3
Power 2. Anatolian High School. 78 18,67 3,72
4,501 0,012* 2-3
3. Occupational High
94 20,34 3,82
School
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
94 30,15 4,00
School
1. High School 114 15,61 4,13
2. Anatolian High School. 78 15,55 3,42
Hedonism 1,020 0,362 -
3. Occupational High
94 16,25 3,40
School
1. High School 114 15,04 3,54
2. Anatolian High School. 78 13,58 3,65 1-2
10,856 0,000*
Stimulation 3. Occupational High 2-3
94 16,09 3,35
School
1. High School 114 31,19 5,00
2. Anatolian High School. 78 31,33 3,58
Self Direction 0,048 0,953 -
3. Occupational High
94 31,37 4,23
School
Universalism 1. High School 114 55,92 8,46 0,057 0,944 -
2. Anatolian High School. 78 55,89 7,83
4946 Ercan Yılmaz et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2 (2010) 4943–4948

3. Occupational High
94 56,25 7,42
School
1. High School 114 54,75 8,40
2. Anatolian High School. 78 54,93 7,97
Benevolence 1,599 0,204 -
3. Occupational High
93 56,61 7,27
School
2. Anatolian High School. 114 32,75 5,63
3. Occupational High
Tradition 78 33,00 5,62 0,991 0,372 -
School
2. Anatolian High School. 94 33,78 4,88
2. Anatolian High School. 114 24,45 4,06
3. Occupational High
Conformity 78 24,39 4,03 0,005 0,995 -
School
2. Anatolian High School. 94 24,43 3,58
2. Anatolian High School. 114 43,38 6,67
3. Occupational High
Security 78 44,32 5,33 1,141 0,321 -
School
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 Tukey
1. Equal Weight 149 18,6040 4,27883
Power 1-2
2. Quantitative 47 19,3830 4,34167 5,336 0,005
3. Verbal 90 20,4000 3,72299
1. Equal Weight 149 29,9060 4,88426
Achievement
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
1-2
2. Quantitative 47 15,9149 2,94020 6,352 0,002
Stimulation 1-3
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
* p<.05
 Ercan Yılmaz et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2 (2010) 4943–4948 4947

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 (SarÕ, 2005 Çileli ve Tezer, 1998; AydÕn, 2003; Dilmaç, Bozgeyikli ve
ÇÕkÕlÕ, 2008; Mehmedo÷lu, 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
ArÕ, R. (2005). Geliúim ve Ö÷renme Psikolojisi. Ankara: Nobel YayÕn ve Da÷ÕtÕm.
ArÕcak, O.T. (1999). Grupla Psikolojik DanÕúma Yoluyla Benlik SaygÕsÕ ve Mesleki Benlik SaygÕsÕnÕn Geliútirilmesi. (YayÕmlanmamÕú Doktora
Tezi). østanbul: Marmara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü.
Atay, S. (2003). Türk Yönetici AdaylarÕnÕn Siyasal ve Dini Tercihleri ile Yaúam De÷erleri ArasÕndaki øliúki. De÷erler E÷itimi Dergisi, 1, (3), 87–
120
4948 Ercan Yılmaz et al. / Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2 (2010) 4943–4948

Avúaro÷lu, S., Üre, Ö. (2007). Üniversite Ö÷rencilerinin Karar Vermede ÖzsaygÕ, Karar verme ve Stresle BaúaçÕkma Stillerinin Benlik SaygÕsÕ ve
BazÕ De÷iúkenler AçÕsÕndan øncelenmesi.. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 18, 85–100.
AydÕn, M. (2003). Gençli÷in De÷er AlgÕsÕ: Konya Örne÷i. De÷erler E÷itimi Dergisi, 1, (3), 121–144.
BacanlÕ, H. (1999). De÷er Tercihleri. V. Ulusal Psikolojik DanÕúma ve Rehberlik Kongresi. Ankara: Gazi Üniversitesi.
BacanlÕ, H. (1999). Duyuúsal DavranÕú E÷itimi. Ankara: Nobel YayÕn Da÷ÕtÕm.
Brophy, H. W., & Good, T. L. (1986). Third handbook of research on teaching. Chicago: McNally.
Çileli, M. (1990). Gençlik De÷erleri Üzerine Bir AraútÕrma. Ankara: Ara YayÕncÕlÕk.
Çileli, M., Tezer, E. (1998). Life and Value Orientations of Turkish University Students. Adolescence, 33, (129), 219–224.
Dilmaç, B., Bozgeyikli, H. ve ÇÕkÕlÕ, Y. (2008). Ö÷retmen adaylarÕnÕn de÷er algÕlarÕnÕn farklÕ de÷iúkenler açÕsÕndan incelenmesi. De÷erler
E÷itimi Dergisi, 6,(16), 65–92.
Dökmen, Ü. (1988). Empatinin Yeni Bir Modele DayanÕlarak Ölçülmesi ve Psikodrama ile Geliútirilmesi. Ankara Üniversitesi E÷itim Bilimleri
Fakültesi Dergisi, 21, (1–2), 159–190.
Dönmez, B., Cömert, M. (2007). ølkö÷retim Okulu Ö÷retmenlerinin De÷er Sistemleri. De÷erler E÷itimi Dergisi, 5 (14), 29–58.
Ekúi, H. (2003). Temel ønsani De÷erlerin KazandÕrÕlmasÕnda Bir YaklaúÕm: Karakter E÷itimi ProgramlarÕ. De÷erler E÷itimi Dergisi, 1 (1) 79–96.
Eren, E. (2000).Örgütsel DavranÕú ve Yönetim Psikolojisi. østanbul: Beta YayÕncÕlÕk.
Fichter, J. (1990). Sosyoloji Nedir? (Çev: N. Çelebi). Konya: Selçuk Üniversitesi Fen-Edebiyat Fakültesi YayÕnlarÕ.
Freedman, J.L; Sears, D.O; Carlsmith, J.M. (1989). Sosyal Psikoloji. (Çev: Ali Dönmez). østanbul: Ara YayÕncÕlÕk, I. BasÕm.
Günay, M. (2005). Dünya Kime Aittir. østanbul: Solfej Sanat YayÕnlarÕ.
Güngör, E. (1998). De÷erler Psikolojisi Üzerine AraútÕrmalar. østanbul: Ötüken YayÕnevi.
Güvenç, B. (1993). ønsan ve Kültür. østanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 4. BasÕm.
Howard, R.W; Berkowitz, M.W; Schaeffer, E.F. (2004). Politics of Character Education. Educational Policy, 18, (1), 188–215.
Ka÷ÕtçÕbaúÕ, Ç. (1988). ønsan ve ønsanlar: Sosyal Psikolojiye Giriú. østanbul: Evrim BasÕm-yayÕm ve Da÷ÕtÕm, 8. BasÕm.
KÕzÕlçelik S. ve Erjem, Y. (1992). AçÕklamalÕ Sosyoloji Terimler Sözlü÷ü. Konya: Günay Ofset.
Kösemihal, N.ù. (1982). Sosyoloji Tarihi. østanbul: Remzi Kitabevi, 4. BasÕm.
Kuúdil, M.E; Ka÷ÕtçÕbaúÕ, Ç. (2000). Türk Ö÷retmenlerin De÷er Yönelimleri ve Schwartz De÷er KuramÕ. Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, 15, (45), 59–76.
Mehmedo÷lu, U. (2006). Gençlik, de÷erler ve din. Küreselleúme, ahlak ve de÷erler. (Ed. U. Mehmedo÷lu & Mehmedo÷lu). østanbul: Litera
YayÕncÕlÕk.
Özbay, Y. (2004). Geliúim ve Ö÷renme Psikolojisi: Kuram-AraútÕrma-Uygulama. Ankara: Ö÷reti YayÕnevi.
Özden, Y. (1997). Ö÷renme ve Ö÷retme. Ankara: Pegem-A YayÕncÕlÕk.
Özden, Y. (2005). E÷itimde Yeni De÷erler E÷itimde Dönüúüm. Ankara: Pegem-A YayÕncÕlÕk.
Özgüven, ø.E. (1999). Ça÷daú E÷itimde Psikolojik DanÕúma ve Rehberlik. Ankara: Psikolojik DanÕúma ve Rehberlik E÷itim Merkezi (PEDREM)
YayÕnÕ.
Robbins, A. (1993). SÕnÕrsÕz Güç, (Çev: Mehmet De÷irmenci), østanbul, ønkÕlap Kitapevi YayÕnÕ
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.
Sabuncuo÷lu, Z. ve Tüz, M. (2003). Örgütsel psikoloji. (4. BaskÕ). Bursa: Furkan Ofset.
SarÕ, E. (2005). Ö÷retmen AdaylarÕnÕn De÷er Tercihleri: Giresun E÷itim Fakültesi Örne÷i. De÷erler E÷itimi 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., TraÕger, J. (1999). Teaching Values Through Elementary Social Studies and Literature Curricula. Education. Education, 119, (4), 723–
727.
Turan, S., Aktan, D. (2008). Okul HayatÕnda Var Olan ve OlmasÕ Düúünülen Sosyal De÷erler. Türk E÷itim 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.