• Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
251
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. International Indexed & Referred Research Journal, April, 2012. ISSN- 0975-3486, RNI-RAJBIL 2009/30097;VoL.III *ISSUE-31 Research Paper—Education A Study of Personal Values and Job Satisfaction of High School Teachers April, 2012 * Dr. R.R. Madankar * Assot. Prof. Dept. of Education, Karnatak University,DharwadIntroduction: the human behavior.Job satisfaction is the result of Survival of people in a progressive society is various attitudes of an employee towards hid job. Thesevalue based. Human and social values have sustained attitudes are related with specific factors such as sal-the humanity ever since advances in civilization gave ary, service conditions, advancement opportunities andrise to organized social structures. However, individual other benefits. Job satisfaction is influenced by twoand sectarian motives in the progressively rampant factors, one is the work he does and secondly his atti-complexities of the society have taken the precedence tudes towards the total work situation including theover the humanitarian concerns and a rapid erosion of company, his supervisor and his fellow workers. Jobhuman and social values has become the order of the satisfaction depends on the work situation which aimsday. Value education has become an answer to the at the fulfillment of certain values that the individualchallenge of strengthening moral and social fabric of possesses. It is the psychological, physiological andthe societies. The need to devise educational methods environmental circumstances that bring satisfactionand approaches which are dynamic, reflective and to an individual with his job.would help to restore values and transform social forces Job satisfaction related to teacher is that heinto creative and constructive channels has for long should be content with his role as a worker, in a staticbeen recognized. society, it is necessary to recognize that teachers are The High Education Commission (1952-53), ob- human beings who basically seek growth and fulfill-served that religious and moral education was essen- ment of their needs, values and aspirations. The teach-tial in character development. Sri Prakash Committee ers link with the society is based on the two basic(Commission on Religious and Moral Education, 1959) components of his work life: the nature of work he doesalso referred to moral and spiritual values. The Emo- and the conditions under which he does his work. Intional integration committee (1962) made 213 recom- other words the content and the context of his work lifemendations covering all stages of education to meet give rise to attitudinal relations which significantlythe requirements of strengthening national conscious- affect his work behavior. The work related attitudes byness among the people. Further National Policies on common consent are work involvement, intrinsicEducation of 1968 and 1986focused much on value motivation and work adjustment and they are directlyeducation. Ramamurti committee, 1990, advocated related to the work a teacher does and may be desig-imparting of values as an integral part of entire edu- nated job attitudes, commitment, identification andcation process. organizational involvement are attitudes more related The National Curriculum for Elementary and to organizational conditions which comprise the orga-High education - A Framework (1988) laid down the nizational climate.general framework of value education in the core cur- Objectives:riculum. Subsequently The National Framework for The following specific objectives were framed forSchool Education (2000) made value education an the present study:undercurrent of the education system. The values are 1. To study the difference between male and femaledriving force of a human behavior. In fact what man teachers in respect of their personal value.does, can be explained in terms of his value structure. 2. To study the difference between male and femaleValues help to determine ones norms, standards and teachers in respect of their job satisfaction.goals. They enable one to select the means to realise 3. To study the difference between graduate and postthe chosen goals and ends of action. Hence values teachers in respect of their personal value.regulate the human behavior. Values may be explicit 4. To study the difference between graduate and post-or implicit; they may be held by a group or an indi- graduate teachers in respect of their job satisfaction.vidual. In any case, they constitute a code or standard Hypotheses:which provides a yardstick to approve or disapprove In pursuance of the objectives 1-4 the following null hypotheses were setup. 1. There is no difference RESEARCH AN ALYSI S AND EVALU ATION 35
  • 2. International Indexed & Referred Research Journal, April, 2012. ISSN- 0975-3486, RNI-RAJBIL 2009/30097;VoL.III *ISSUE-31 Table-1: Comparison of Male and Female Teachers with Respect to Different Personal Value Variable Gender n Mean SD t-value p-value Signi. Value pattern Male 78 131.9487 14.4716 -0.6109 >0.05 NS Female 122 133.2787 15.3554 Religious value Male 78 13.5000 2.8410 0.1898 >0.05 NS Female 122 13.4262 2.5742 Social Value Male 78 10.6282 3.4832 -2.1835 <0.05 S Female 122 11.7541 3.6028 Democratic value Male 78 12.2179 3.5112 -0.1758 >0.05 NS Female 122 12.3033 3.2395 Aesthetic value Male 78 12.5256 3.4443 -0.1689 >0.05 NS Female 122 12.6066 3.2130 Economic value Male 78 13.3205 3.5328 -0.5982 >0.05 NS Female 122 13.6066 3.1401 Knowledge value Male 78 13.3590 3.6786 0.3367 >0.05 NS Female 122 13.1803 3.6477 Hedonistic value Male 78 14.2949 3.1668 -0.6222 >0.05 NS Female 122 14.5984 3.4847 Power value Male 78 14.6026 3.0337 -0.5180 >0.05 NS Female 122 14.8279 2.9784 Family value Male 78 13.8205 3.3371 1.4546 >0.05 NS Female 122 13.1230 3.2893 Health value Male 78 13.6795 4.1010 -0.2816 >0.05 NS Female 122 13.8525 4.3211between male and female teachers in respect of their Tools : The following tools were used for the presentpersonal value. 2. There is no difference between male study.and female teachers in respect of their job satisfaction. 1.Personal value inventory: Personal Value Ques-3. There is no difference between graduate and post tionnaire (PVQ) developed by Dr.(Mrs) G.P.Sherry andteachers in respect of their personal value 4. There is (Late)Prof. R. P. Verma (2006)no difference between graduate and post-graduate 2.Job satisfaction scale: Job Satisfaction Scale de-teachers in respect of their job satisfaction. veloped and standardized by Meera Dixit (1985) wasScope of the Study: used.1. The present study was limited to Dharwad Taluka Statistical Analysis : In pursuance of the Objective-only. 2. The present study was covered two variables 1 to 4 of the study as to test the research hypotheses,namely, Personal Value and Job satisfaction only. 3. t-test was used. The above table indicates that theThe present study was restricted to male and female obtainedt value is greater than the table t value (1.97)teachers of High schools only. 4.The present study was at 0.05 level. It is therefore concluded that two groupsrestricted to graduate and post graduate teachers only. do not differ significantly in respect of value patterns.6. The present study was limited to differential analy- Hence, there is significant difference between malesis (t-test) and female teachers in respect of their value pattern isVariables of the study relation to all the variables of value pattern exceptI. Independent Variables: value pattern social value. Further there is significanta) Personal Value difference between male and female teacher in respectII. Intervening Variables: of their value pattern in relation to social value. How-b) Sex: (Male and Female) ever the mean score of female teacher is greater thanc) Qualification: (Graduate and post- graduate) the male teachers.III. Dependent Variable: See Table 2b) Job Satisfaction Design of the study The above table indicates that the obtained tMethod of the Study: The present study is descriptive value is greater than the tabled t value (1.97) at 0.05survey of High schools of Dharwad Taluka. This method level. It is therefore concluded that the two groupswas used on personal value and job satisfaction of differ significantly in respect of the job satisfaction.High school teachers. Hence, there is no significant difference between maleSample: For the present study a total number of 200 and female teachers in respect of job satisfaction sal-High school teachers were selected by using random ary, promotional avenues and service conditions, physi-sampling technique. cal facilities, institutional plans and policies, satisfac-36 RESEARCH AN ALYSI S AND EVALU ATION
  • 3. International Indexed & Referred Research Journal, April, 2012. ISSN- 0975-3486, RNI-RAJBIL 2009/30097;VoL.III *ISSUE-31Table2 : Comparison of Male and Female Teachers with Respect to Different Job Satisfaction Variable Gender n Mean SD t-value p-value Signi. Job satisfaction Male 78 203.6026 13.0118 0.1967 >0.05 NS Female 122 203.2213 13.5893 Intrinsic Aspect of the Job Male 78 28.3590 4.0451 2.0183 <0.05 S Female 122 27.1230 4.3343 Salary, promotional Avenues & Male 78 30.7051 5.1374 0.3787 >0.05 NS Service Conditions Female 122 30.4262 5.0435 Physical facilities Male 78 32.0641 4.7464 -1.1871 >0.05 NS Female 122 32.9672 5.5431 Institutional plans and policies Male 78 24.4872 3.3950 1.5833 >0.05 NS Female 122 23.6721 3.6464 Satisfaction with authorities Male 78 23.5000 3.1032 -1.0471 >0.05 NS Female 122 23.9590 2.9720 Satisfaction with social status and Male 78 20.8077 3.2992 -0.7669 >0.05 NS family welfare Female 122 21.2377 4.1898 Rapport with students Male 78 23.3974 2.7977 0.1193 >0.05 NS Female 122 23.3443 3.2366 Relationship with co-workers. Male 78 20.1923 2.0069 -0.9851 >0.05 NS Female 122 20.5492 2.7667Table-3: Comparison of Graduate and Postgraduate Teachers with respect to different value patterns Variable EQ n Mean SD t-value p-value Signi. Value pattern Graduate 137 130.6204 12.3301 -3.0367 <0.05 S Postgraduate 63 137.4127 18.8685 Religious value Graduate 137 13.0292 2.6400 -3.4074 <0.05 S Postgraduate 63 14.3810 2.5300 Social Value Graduate 137 11.5036 3.3719 1.0964 >0.05 NS Postgraduate 63 10.9048 4.0230 Democratic value Graduate 137 11.7737 2.8901 -3.1687 <0.05 S Postgraduate 63 13.3492 3.9683 Aesthetic value Graduate 137 12.4307 2.8175 -0.9127 >0.05 NS Postgraduate 63 12.8889 4.1625 Economic value Graduate 137 13.1679 3.3245 -2.0891 <0.05 S Postgraduate 63 14.2063 3.1323 Knowledge value Graduate 137 12.9197 3.4917 -1.8986 >0.05 NS Postgraduate 63 13.9683 3.9102 Hedonistic value Graduate 137 14.2117 3.4180 -1.6732 >0.05 NS Postgraduate 63 15.0635 3.1769 Power value Graduate 137 14.5401 2.8978 -1.3951 >0.05 NS Postgraduate 63 15.1746 3.1752 Family value Graduate 137 13.3431 3.2954 -0.3258 >0.05 NS Postgraduate 63 13.5079 3.3882 Health value Graduate 137 13.3431 3.2954 -0.3258 >0.05 NS Postgraduate 63 13.5079 3.3882tion with authorities, satisfaction with social status there is significant difference between graduate andand family welfare, rapport with student and relation- post-graduate teachers in respect of their value patternship with co-workers. Further, the mean scores of fe- in relation to religious, democratic and economic.male teachers is greater than male teachers in respect Further there is no significant difference between gradu-to job satisfaction factors physical facilities, satisfac- ate and post-graduate teachers in respect of their valuetion with authorities, satisfaction with social status patter in relation to social, aesthetic, knowledge, he-and family welfare and relationship with co-workers. donistic, family prestige and health value. Further theFurther there is significant difference between male mean score of graduate teacher is greater than post-and female teachers in respect of their job satisfaction graduate teachers in relation to value pattern social.factors intrinsic aspect of the job Table 4 The above table indicates that the obtained tTable No 3 value is less than the tabled t value (1.97) at 0.05 level. The above table indicates that obtained t It is therefore concluded that the two groups do notvalue is greater than the tabled t value (1.97) at 0.05 differ significantly in respect of their job satisfaction.level. It is therefore concluded that two groups differ Hence, there is no significant difference between gradu-significantly in respect of the value pattern. Hence, ate and post graduate teachers in respect of their all the RESEARCH AN ALYSI S AND EVALU ATION 37
  • 4. International Indexed & Referred Research Journal, April, 2012. ISSN- 0975-3486, RNI-RAJBIL 2009/30097;VoL.III *ISSUE-31Table-4: Comparison of Graduate and Postgraduate Teachers with respect to Different Job Satisfaction Variable EQ n Mean SD t-value p-value Signi. Job satisfaction Graduate 137 203.4234 14.0899 0.0832 >0.05 NS Postgraduate 63 203.2540 11.6314 Intrinsic Aspect Graduate 137 27.6204 4.3236 0.0754 >0.05 NS of the Job Postgraduate 63 27.5714 4.1415 Salary, promotional Graduate 137 30.6058 5.1067 0.2908 >0.05 NS Avenues & Service Postgraduate 63 30.3810 5.0239 Conditions Physical facilities Graduate 137 32.4599 5.4246 -0.6150 >0.05 NS Postgraduate 63 32.9524 4.8839 Institutional plans Graduate 137 24.0949 3.4575 0.6128 >0.05 NS and policies Postgraduate 63 23.7619 3.8046 Satisfaction with Graduate 137 23.7518 3.0481 -0.1938 >0.05 NS authorities Postgraduate 63 23.8413 2.9957 Satisfaction with Graduate 137 20.9343 3.7421 -0.7315 >0.05 NS social status and Postgraduate 63 21.3651 4.1321 family welfare Rapport with Graduate 137 23.5693 3.1102 1.3933 >0.05 NS students Postgraduate 63 22.9206 2.9419 Relationship with Graduate 137 20.6277 2.6652 1.8280 >0.05 NS co-workers. Postgraduate 63 19.9365 2.0310factors of job satisfaction. Further, the mean scores of social aesthetic, and economic value patterns. Fur-graduate teacher is greater than post graduate teachers ther, the two groups do nod differ significantly in re-in respect of their job satisfaction factors of intrinsic spect of social, aesthetic, economic, knowledge, hedo-aspect of the job, salary, promotional avenues and ser- nistic, power and health value pattern. 4. Graduatevice conditions, institutional plans and policies, rap- and post graduate teachers do not differ significantlyport with students and relationship with co-workers. in respect of all variables of job satisfaction.Major findings of the table 1-4 1. Male and female Discussion and conclusions: On the basis of the find-teacher do not differ significantly in respect of their all ings of the present study the following conclusionsthe variables of value pattern except social value. could be drawn: Teachers working in different highFurther, the two groups differ significantly in respect schools including male and female teachers were foundof social value pattern. 2. Male and female teachers do that in respect of personal value and job satisfactionnot differ significantly in respect of their job satisfac- male and female, graduate and post=graduate teach-tion factors salary, promotional avenues and service ers do not differ significantly. Where as there is sig-conditions, physical facilities, institutional plans and nificant difference between graduate and post-gradu-policies, satisfaction with authorities, satisfaction with ate in respect of their personal values. Further, somesocial status and family welfare, rapport with student of the similar studies have supported for the presentand relationship with co-workers. Further the two study such as; Singh, Triveni. (1988), Goswame, T.N.groups differ significantly in respect of job satisfaction (1988), Reddy, Subramanyam M. (1990), Naik, G.C.factors intrinsic aspect of the job. 3. Graduate and (1990), Ray, Sipra (1992). And in respect of personalpost-graduate teachers differ significantly in respect value; Kalia (2001), Patel (2003) and Khandekarof their religious, democratic and economic. Further (2004).the two groups do not differ significantly in respect ofR E F E R E N C E1. Agarwal, Rekha Rani (1986). Differential Values Questionnaire Differential values of high school, University Students and Teachers.(D. V.Q.) Lucknow, Ankur Psychological Agency. 2. Allport, G. W. Journal of Psychological Research, Vol.16, pp.12-17. 9. Ellis Bonnaet al.(1931). Study of Values, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Cimpany. Logue, (1979). Discriminant analysis of teachers values as Predicators3. Anderson Alwin L. (1966). Comparison of study of value scores of response to an in-service training Act 20. Dissertation abstractfor selected High and college teachers. Journal of Educational international, Vol.39. 10. Gudi, P.S., (1976). A Critical Study of theResearch.,Vol.60., 4. Anjaneyalu,B.S.R.(1974). A Study of Job Values of High School Teachers in Dharwad. Dist. (South),Satisfaction in High School Teachers and Its impact on the education Unpublished M. Ed Dissertation, Karnatak University Dharwad.of pupils with special reference to the state of Andhra Pradesh. 5. 11. Livingia,K.V.(1974). A Study of Job Satisfaction among SchoolBansal, Saroj (1986). Cultural Values Inventory. Agra, National Teachers in Second Survey of Research in Education.12. Singh,Psychological Corporation. 6. Buch.M.B.(Ed) Mathur, P. (1971). ‘ N.L(1974). “Measurement of Teacher Values and their RelationshipDifferential Value Patterns of the Professional Students’. M.Ed.issert, with Teacher Attitudes and Job Satisfaction”. In Second Survey ofA.U. 7. Colbert Austin Micheel,(1971). A study of value of educators Research in Education. 13. Whitenore Louis Clyde, (1968). Ain Oregon’s correlational institutions. Dissertation Abstract Comparative Study of Values of Teachers Student teacher candidates.International, Vol.32. 8. Dixit Ramesh E, Deodutt Sharma, (1971). Dissertation Abstract International38 RESEARCH AN ALYSI S AND EVALU ATION