Analyze Values of Faculty of Business

VALUES OF FACULTY OF BUSINESS
ANALYZE VALUES OF FACULTY OF BUSINESS
Veysel TEKTAS Nilay CALISKAN Gozde CETINKOL Nur TALAZ Zehra DOGAN
Dokuz Eylul University Faculty of Business
Abstract Many studies emphasized the importance of values in school life. It was emphasized that which values are important for students, teachers and future of country. The main purpose of this study is to identify and examine the social values of students of faculty of Business. Data were collected academics are 9, personals are 5 and students are 136 (1st 2nd 3rd and 4th grades) .Social Values Questionnaires that was used in the study developed by Selahattin TURAN and Dilek AKTAN. The results show some differences between schools members. They depend on their value judgment, opinions, status, age and gender. Generally, academics thoughts are more dominant than students about value of school. Students choices are usually similar and focus on hard to study in facultys lessons. And personals mention the work life values.
Value concept Value concept , is used in many differen areas like philosophy, psychology, sociology and management. Value concept is one of the main subject of axiology, psychology, sociology and educational sciences. Value is defined as; abstract measurement for determining the importance of something (TDK, 1988);a way of thinking, school-owned properties which are determine behaviors and responses to an event (MEB, 2002); set of values that acqired by an individual or society; deep-rooted attitudes and beliefs that shape individuals behaviour in differen cases (Ouzkan, 1981); the relationship with an object and a subject that interested in that object(Bykdvenci, 2002). Theories of Value There are many developed theory about values and pointed out the importance in life. Some of them are above. Graves Theory of Value : Graves (1970) takes individuals values and their life style as existential approach and reduce to a hierarchical arragement. According to him, human nature is an open system. Human nature developin as leaping from a fixed level to another and human psychology shaped a new form, thats why values shows differnces on different systems. Graves expalin every success in hierarchical system as an equilibrium state and defend that every individual who reach an equilibrium state, will proceed to another stage. Eight emergent levels of human existence are distinguished: automatic, tribalistic, egocentric, saintly, materialistic, sociocentric, cognitive, and experientialistic. These arise "as man solves certain hierarchically ordered existential problems crucial to him in his existence." To each state is associated a particular value system, respectively: reactive, traditionalistic, exploitive, sacrificial, materialistic, sociocratic, existential, and experiential.
Allport, Vernon and Lindzeys Theory of Value: Allport, Vernon ve Lindzey suggest an idea of there is six dimension of value system. These are: Aesthetic Value: Aesthetic features that loaded to object or event by individuals. Concepts like beauty, elegance, harmony and symmetry are the concepts that adopted by individuals who have high aesthetic value. Theoretical Value: Its a size of a value system that individuals created informations by rational techniques like observation, analysis. Religious Value:Belief system that purpose of individuals understanding the universe and bearing sacred and moral items. Political Value: the size of value that outweigh the feelings of gain power and using these power on someone else. Social value: For individuals who adopted this value. Love is the most important and life shaping concept. The individuals purpose is, reaching the real love and making close relationships. Economic Value: In material concept, it means that gain favor. Individuals main purpose is making wealth. These six dimension systems are different interpersonal. One of them can be important for an individual and to another individual another value can be the most important. Rokeachs Theory of Value: Rokeach in a recent attempt at clarification, suggests that values differ from attitudes in that they transcend specific situations and have to do with generalized modes of conduct (instrumental values) and end states of existence (terminal values). Rokeach termed the relation in insrtrumental values and terminal values as value system. Terminal values are values that are desirable. These values identied as purposes and aims. They are more abstract, universal, and less mobile than instrumental values.
Instrumental values are the way go to terminal values. These are more substantial and relative. There is no distict differences between terminal values and instrumental values. For example; honesty can be nstrumental for trust, trust can be instrumental for peace. Hofstedes theory of value: Behavior of individuals are influance by indiduals themselves and the situation. If an individuals mental systematics and the situation is known, individuals behaviors can be predictable too. Mental systematic is registered in the individuals brain cells. However, directly observig these codes is not possible. Noly individuals behaviours and words can observed. Words and actions are the last stage of this systamtic and provide to solve the systematic. Mental systematic, specific to individuals themselves and similar to other individuals. Hofstede explain this situation with universality, individuality and collective properties of systematic. Universality is the main property of systematic. This level is a system of people have genetically. Behaviours like laughing, crying included in this size. Collective level is the same for some people. According to Hofstede, values determine the individuals and societies characteristics and cultures. Education and Values School establihed values space of learning and living. As in all areas, in field of education administration values have very important. Values determinated human behaviors and choises. In human science examine of values take an important place. In common with individula and socities, every school have special values or create values in time. Individuals live values of their own and their environment. Indivuals create values of society and school. In addition, they change their values with values of their environment and school. Change in value over time to shown in the social groups an organizations and a society are not compitable. So that when determine the values, searcher dont use other countries tests. They try to find values of Turkish culture.
Values system of managements must be agreed with values of organization. So that an organization have values. Values that administration has, determine their attitude and behavior. Management must increased society with old values. Values, in organizations makes it difficult to excahnge factors. If the Exchange is necessary, it doesnt contrast with the values. If there are relationship between changing plans and values of organizations, their changing cost get to decrease. Because the changes, are likely to be adopted by the members of others. Before the change system, organizations and individuals must be examined system of values. When individuals grow up different teachers and administration, it cause different values and behaviors. When the organization fulfil,the most important thing is their values. In determining the purposes of the school, societys values should also be considered. Values of socities determinate aim, duty, power and responsibilities of school. Teachers must be accord with managements for values of school. Has strength values of the system where the teachers values affect solving- problem and balancing of conflicting roles. At the same time this system of values, is teh product of both personal and professional development of teacher. Major source of conflict caused by irreconciable. So that, one of the important factors in the prevention of conflicts in the decision process in the decision process in the organizations, values play an important role. Sometimes, values can be solved the problems. However managements must be strategies. Strategies prevent conflict. The school life shapes shared values are accepted by everyone at the school. The same values determinate and regulate of relationships outside of school. The conflict between social values with the values of the schools, students are effective on the integrity of persons.
Due to social life change so rapidly, values change so rapidly. Researcher eliminate positive and negative view. According to negative view, changed values affect reducing of values of country. In sociologic view adopted by all members of society as an ideal, normative continuity judgements are evaluated. In this approach, values are basic norms. Behaviors shape values of individual. Aim of this survey, opinions are of teachers and students, some to determine the level of social values is to take part in school life.In addition, existing take part in school life, social values and levels need to be teachers and students different according to sex tried to determine. TUSEC Tolerance:There are a lot of students who have different belief, nation and political opinion in faculty of business. There is no discrimination between students because of their differences. Acedemics ,personals and students respect to each students in faculty of Business.
Unit:There is unit in faculty of business in spite of differences that academics and students have. There are five different departments in school. Although there are different departments in Faculty of Business club, they work and produce projects together.
Each department has student representative .They are selected by students. Four representative select a faculty representative . It shows that there is unit between students .
faculty representative attemps board meeting and communicates wishes of student. Directors and faculty representative make decision about students and future of faculty of business .It indicates there is unit in faculty of business. Self Confidence:Students of faculty of business are self-confidence .With presentation and projects students increase theirs self-confidence. Education system of faculty business are prepared to increase students self confidence. Entrepreneurship :Faculty of business support to students to increase their entrepreneurship activities .Students can contact firms and produce project with DEUCLUB .Academics encourage students. Creativity :In Faculty of Business lessons consist of creativity activities . Academics do not prevent students creativity .Academics have high opinion of students ideas .Students can do many activities in DEUCLUB These values are important for students and their carriers. Because these values affect students social life and characters . We can say that the values reflect the characters of people that private and public sector want. Faculty of business educate students for future with the values. Method The universe of research composed people who are academics, personnel and students at Dokuz Eyll University Faculty of Business in Izmir in 2011-2012 academic year. The sample composed of 150 people who were chosen randomly from the universe. Business Administration Department; 45 students. Economics Department : 33 students
International Relation Department : 24 students Tourism Management Department : 24 students International Business and Trade Department : 10 students Academics : 9 and personnel: 5. ( Table 1 2 ) We used Social Values Scale in our research. This scale was used Turan S. and Aktan D.s Social Values Study ( 2003 2004 ). Their research includes social values which existing and ideal social values of school. The reliability of Social Values Scale is investigated aiming at consistency, stability and relations with expression. Reliabilitys co-efficient are dimension of belief; 0.83 , dimension of behavior ; 0.91. Data of research were collected using data collection form arrange by researcher with Social Value Scale. The data were obtained by self administrated as the written document. The data have transferred to the computer by using SPSS 16.00 for Windows. The number and percent values for socio demographic features, and mean and standard deviation values for Social Values Scale. The scale grade is on Likerts 1- to -5: Certainly Disagree (1), Disagree (2), Neutral (3) and Agree (4) are Certainly Agree (5). p < 0.05 is accepted statistically significant. Table 1 : Numbers of Students Business Adm.: 1.st grade; 5 women 7 men / 2.nd grade ; 5 women 4 men / 3.rd grade ; 5 women 6 men / 4.th grade ; 8 women 5 men Economics : 1.st degree ; 6 women 4 men / 2.nd degree ; 4 women 5 men / 3.rd degree ; 6 women 4 men / 4.th degree ; 1 women 4 men International Relation : 1.st degree ; 6 women 2 men / 2.nd degree ; 3 women 2 men / 3.rd degree ; 4 women 2 men / 4.th degree ; 3 women 2 men
10
Tourism Management : 1.st degree ; 5 women 3 men / 2.nd degree ; 1 women 4 men / 3.rd degree ; 3 women 4 men / 4.th degree ; 3 women 1 men International Business and Trade : 1.st degree ; 4 women 2 men / 2.nd degree ; 2 women 1 men / 3.rd degree ; 1 women. Table 2 : Numbers of participants Table 3: Mean of the participants age Findings and Discussion Behavior Dimension Behavior of the scale has got work life values and Institutional values. Academics, students and personnel were analyzed separately from each other and comment with gender variables. Table 4 : Students mean and standard deviation for each grade in behavior dimension of Institutional values and work life values. (N= 136) According to students opinions, work life values from behavior values Institutional values =3.30;
=3.06 score. Question 16 in work life value took the highest level
point.(4,58) in 4.th grade . In other words, students think of violence not to be in the school. Than, question 20 in institutional values took the lowest point.(2.04) in 3.rd grade. It refers that individualism predate groups benefits. Every question has got Likert 1- 5 answers. Tablo 5 : Students mean and standard deviation for each department in behavior dimension of Institutional values and Work life values. (N= 136)
11
According to students opinions, Question 16 in work life value took the highest level point.(4,80) in International Business and Trade Department . In other words, students think of violence not to be in the school. Than, question 19 in institutional values took the lowest point.(2.04) in International Department.. It refers that individualism predate groups benefits. Table 6 : Gender Variable Differences in students There is no significant difference in students behavior values (work life and Institutional values) in terms of gender.( When p < 0.05 significant difference ). We used Independet T test. Table 7 : Academics mean and standard deviation Institutional values and work life values. (N= 9 ) According to academics opinions, work life values from behavior values Institutional values = 3.49; in behavior dimension of
=3.26 score. Question 16 in work life value took the highest level score.
(4,22). In other words, Academics think of violence not to be in the school. Than question 19 in work life value took the lowest level score ( 2,56 ) According to academics , students experience difficulty to love the school.
Table 8 :Gender Variable Differences in Academics There is no significant difference in academics behavior values (work life and Institutional values) in terms of gender. (When p < 0.05 significant difference) . We used Independet T test.
12
Table 9 : Personnel mean and standard deviation in behavior dimension of Institutional values and work life values . ( N= 5 ) According to personnels opinions, work life values from behavior values institutional values = 3.21 ;
=3.29 score. Question 24 in Institutional value took the highest level
point. (4.00). In other words, Personnel think of conforming the managements direction of the school in every situation. Than question 20 and 25 in institutional value took the lowest point.(2.20) It refers that personnel think of individualistic benefits more important than group benefits. And their other thought that academics cannot implement their beliefs if situation go against to their benefits. Table 10 : Gender Variable Differences in Personnel There is significant difference in personnel behavior values of Institutional value in terms of gender. (When p < 0.05 significant difference / p= 0,17) . But no significant difference in personnel of work life value in terms of gender.( We used Independent T test. ) Academics Students Personnel Significant Differences Table 11: The significant differences among statues. Depend on status to be some differences in the schools values. When we found its, we used Kruskal Walles Analysis for work life values and One-Way Annova for Institutional values. We can see that p < 0.05 ( p=0.03) so that means , Academic , personnel and students have got significant differences from each other. But its related Work life values in school life. Institutional Value didnt show discrepancy.
13
Table 12 : The significant differences among students department. Depend on students department to be some differences in the schools values. When we found its, we used Kruskal Walles Analysis for work life values and One-Way Annova for Institutional values. If we make analysis , we show that departments has got significant differences from each other in work life value ( p=0.02). But department hasnt significant differences in institutionalvalue ( p=0.64) Discussion and Result We cant think humanity without value judgements. The value judgements of people, represent peoples frame of minds. There are value judgements everywhere that people live in. Schools are living spaces that anthropocentrict. People create schools. So there are some values in schools like any other institutions. The discoveries of this research show us, approaches students academicians and personnels about schools values or values that they think that should be in school life. When we look at the answers of students for instutional values questions, we can see the 1.st grade students generally have positive standpoints for the institutional values questions. The 2.nd grade students answers are less positive than 1.st grade students. The 3.rd grade students answers changable but there is a little reducing positivity of answers than 1.st and 2.nd grade students. And 4.th grade students answers are excatly show differences from others because of their school life experiences. And when we look at the answers of students fork work life values questions, we can see again the effect of age and school experience on the answers. But it can be said that general of the students think that there is no violence in the school. And according to answers of students, they think individualism is more important than
14
organizational behavioar. We can generalize answers so; students are proned work life, because their work life values answers are more positive than institutional values. We can say that according to this result, they give importance the quality, success and confidence of workplace and work life. Now we will evaluate answers of students according to departmants. The students of Business Administration gave the most high level positive answers for proffer that there is no violence in school. And it means there are no complaint about violance in school. And the most negative answers are for following the instructions of administratior for Business Administration students, the values of Business Administration students are in the direction of administration so they are more careful about administrative things. The students of departmant of Economic think that there is no violance in school. And similarly students of Tourism Management, International Relations and International Business and Trade think that there is no violance and rigor in faculty. And according to answers of International Departmant students individualism is prefential than groups benefits. In general,according to students answers these can be said ; Students think that academicians have independent work environment in the school. And they think that there equity between students in Faculty Of Business because their answers are positive about equality proffer. In their opinion there are feeling of trust and friendship between personnels of school. And up to students emphaty of administrators is in a medium level. They are likemind about teachers and administrators try to carry out educiational aim. They are certanly sure that school is a trustable place. They feel in secure theirselfs in school. Students are agree about schools fundemental norms cant change . Most of them think consciousness of helpfulness is dominant in school society. For students,there is mutual understanding
15
between people in school, because their answers are positive for this proffer. And they think that liking school cant be easy and quickly. In students opinion school values and family values sometimes sort together. There is no significant difference in students behaviour values in terms of gender. That can be undertood the values that are in school life and values should be in school life dont change because of gender. Both gender can understand same thing from same value. When we look et the answers of academicians for instutional values we can see that their answers are in general positively and sometimes neutral about instutional values. But their work life values are more dominant than instutional because their answers fork work life value proffer are more positive. In general their answers so; all academicians are likeminded about not using school resources for their benefits. And most of them think that people live some difficulties when requires saying no to other people. And academicians also think that there is no violance in school. In their opinion students can live some difficulties in process of adopting school. Most of them strongly agree there is compability to administrators instruction in school. And most of them also think there is equity between people in school. And the similarly there is no significant difference between values and gender of academicians. When we look at the personnels answers, we can see their values are more institutional focal. Their institutional values answer are more positive. They are strongly agree about equity in school. And most of them think there is compability to administrators instruction in school. And most of them think that the administration obtain every possibility for academicians duty. And they think personal think of individualistic benefits more important
16
than group benefits. And in their opinion, academicians can not apply their beliefs if situations go against to their benefits. It can be said that, answers of work life proffers can change according to students, academics and personnels. For example academics are more positive than others for work life values. And personnels are less positive than others fork work life values. The reasons of this result these academics work in school, their work place is school so their answers are more related with work life values. Personnels are also work in school but their answers are less positive than academics. When we look at the results of the institutional values, we can see that there is no significant diffrences between answers. They generally think same things for institutional values. In other words we can say that; academicians think school is a trustable environment, the people in school are humanitarian, the administrations and teachers dont use school sources for their benefits and so on. But students answers more different than academicians. Because of their age, experince, social environments their answers can show differences. And similarly answers of personnels can show change, because of their environment. And there are some significant differences between answers of students according to their departmants. This differences in again in work life values proffers. It can be said that; students of Int. Business and Trade are more positive about work life values, after them students of Economics are positive and other students have around same approach about work life value approachs. And similarly there is no significant differences between answers of institutional values offers. Value Judgement
17
Faculty of Business has already some value judgements they are; tolerance, unity, selfconfidence, enterpreneurship,creativity. These values represent our faculty values. According to results of answers we reached some values that some of them are same with componenets of TUSEC. Q7: In this school, everyone is equal to religious and political aspects. According to this proffer and answers of proffer t can be said there is value of equity in school. Q5: School is a safe environment. . According to this proffer and answers of proffer t can be said there is value of confidence in school. Q9: Sense of helpfulness is dominant in the society. According to this proffer and answers of proffer t can be said there is value of helpfulness in school. Q17: Disagreement between people are solved by mutual tolerance. According to this proffer and answers of proffer t can be said there is value of tolerance in school.
18
References Allport, G. W., Vernon, E., Boston: Houghton-Mifflin. Turan S., Aktan D.,(2008), Okul Hayatnda Var Olan ve Olmas Dnlen Sosyal Deerler, Trk Egitim Bilimleri Dergisi Bahar 2008, 6(2), 227-259 Graves C. W., (1970), Levels of existence: An open system theory of values, Journal of Humanistic Pscyhology Hofstede, G. (1980), Cultures consequence, Beverly Hills CA: Sage. KOCA A. . (2009), NVERSTE RENCLERNN DEERLER VE BREYSEL ZELLKLER LE KARYER TERCHLER ARASINDAK LK, ukurova niversitesi dergisi Rokeach, M. (1973), The Nature of Human Values, NewYork: The Free Press. Linzey, G. (1960), A Study of Values (3rd Edition),
19
Appendix Table 1 : Numbers of Students Departments Business Tourism International Int. Business Admns. Economics Management Relation and Trade Women 1.st 2.nd 3.rd 4.th Men 1.st 2.nd 3.rd 4.th 5 5 5 8 7 4 6 5 6 4 6 1 4 5 4 3 5 1 3 3 3 4 4 1 6 3 4 3 2 2 2 2 4 2 1 -2 1 ---
Business Adm.: 1.st grade; 5 women 7 men / 2.nd grade ; 5 women 4 men / 3.rd grade ; 5 women 6 men / 4.th grade ; 8 women 5 men Economics : 1.st degree ; 6 women 4 men / 2.nd degree ; 4 women 5 men / 3.rd degree ; 6 women 4 men / 4.th degree ; 1 women 4 men International Relation : 1.st degree ; 6 women 2 men / 2.nd degree ; 3 women 2 men / 3.rd degree ; 4 women 2 men / 4.th degree ; 3 women 2 men Tourism Management : 1.st degree ; 5 women 3 men / 2.nd degree ; 1 women 4 men / 3.rd degree ; 3 women 4 men / 4.th degree ; 3 women 1 men International Business and Trade : 1.st degree ; 4 women 2 men / 2.nd degree ; 2 women 1 men / 3.rd degree ; 1 women.
20
Table 2 : Numbers of participants Academics Women Men 4 5 1.st 2.nd 3.rd 4.th Personnel Students Students Students Students 1 4 26 18 15 16 19 16 15 11
21
Table 3: Mean of the participants age Descriptive Statistics N Age 150 Minimum Maximum 18,00 Mean Std. Deviation 3,35405
45,00 22,0733
22
Table 4 : Students mean and standard deviation for each grade in behavior dimension of Institutional values and work life values. (N= 136) Table 4.1 : Institutional values Behavioral Dimension Institutional X 3,06 Values SD 0,50 Question Grade 1.st grade 2.nd grade students 3.rd grade students 4.th grade students X X X X Q1 Q2 Q4 Q6 Q7 Q10 Q11 Q18 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q24 Q25 3,50 3,30 3,27 2,61 4,02 2,89 3,61 2,91 3,07 3,07 3,00 3,32 3,05 3,26 2,97 3,65 2,84 3,84 2,68 3,16 2,74 2,84 2,87 3,03 3,16 2,97 2,71 2,83 3,09 2,83 3,80 3,31 3,37 2,37 2,83 2,89 3,00 3,11 3,00 2,58 2,73 3,46 2,46 3,69 2,85 3,65 2,38 2,04 2,92 2,58 3,27 2,69
SD 1,05 1,00 1,00 0,97 1,05 1,04 0,78 1,10 1,02 1,00 0,94 1,07 0,86 SD 1,00 0,75 0,75 0,93 0,90 1,14 1,00 0,82 0,97 0,85 0,98 0,73 0,91 SD 1,25 1,18 1,04 0,95 1,13 3,62 0,97 1,11 1,12 0,93 1,26 1,08 1,11 SD 1,30 1,04 0,76 0,90 1,12 1,32 1,02 1,39 1,18 1,06 1,03 1,25 1,05
Table 4.2 : Work life values Behavioral Dimension Work X 3,30 LifeValues SD 0,56 Question Grade 1.st grade 2.nd grade students 3.rd grade students 4.th grade students X X Q3 Q5 Q8 Q9 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q19 Q23 Q26 3,50 3,64 3,66 3,45 3,45 3,61 3,50 3,27 4,50 3,52 2,66 3,23 3,66 3,29 3,58 3,52 3,39 2,94 3,26 2,81 3,26 4,29 3,52 2,65 3,13 3,32
SD 1,07 1,08 0,91 0,93 0,95 0,78 1,02 0,95 0,93 0,79 1,22 0,99 0,68 SD 0,78 1,03 0,93 0,92 0,81 0,86 1,01 1,03 1,04 1,03 0,91 0,76 0,79 X X 2,83 3,66 3,17 3,31 2,89 2,94 3,43 3,17 3,97 3,23 2,49 3,17 2,97 3,12 3,69 3,35 2,92 3,00 2,81 3,08 3,19 4,58 2,88 2,38 3,15 2,92
SD 1,12 1,11 1,07 1,05 1,21 1,16 1,01 1,07 1,29 1,19 1,15 1,07 1,04 SD 1,21 1,05 0,94 1,29 1,36 1,33 1,09 0,85 0,76 1,07 1,30 1,08 1,13
23
Table 5 : Students mean and standard deviation for each department in behavior dimension of Institutional values and Work life values. (N= 136) Table 5.1 : Institutional Values Questions Department N Business Adm. X SD N Economics X SD N Tourism X Managment SD N Intr. Relation X SD Int. Business and Trade N X SD N Total X SD Q1 45,00 3,16 1,24 33,00 2,91 1,18 24,00 3,38 1,06 24,00 2,58 1,18 10,00 3,60 1,07 Q2 45,00 3,02 1,06 33,00 2,88 0,89 24,00 3,00 1,10 24,00 2,79 0,98 10,00 3,70 1,06 Q4 45,00 3,42 0,94 33,00 3,30 0,88 24,00 3,08 0,93 24,00 3,21 0,93 10,00 4,10 0,74 Q6 45,00 2,69 0,95 33,00 2,76 0,94 24,00 2,54 1,06 24,00 2,54 0,98 10,00 3,20 0,42 Q7 45,00 3,49 1,14 33,00 4,12 0,96 24,00 4,13 0,85 24,00 3,67 1,05 10,00 4,50 0,71 Q10 45,00 2,71 1,01 33,00 3,09 0,95 24,00 2,92 1,47 24,00 3,08 4,38 10,00 3,20 1,14 Q11 45,00 3,69 0,76 33,00 3,42 0,87 24,00 3,29 1,16 24,00 3,04 1,00 10,00 3,90 0,88 Q18 45,00 2,80 1,06 33,00 2,73 1,18 24,00 2,42 1,06 24,00 2,13 0,90 10,00 3,30 1,42 Q20 45,00 2,69 1,10 33,00 2,94 1,09 24,00 2,63 1,28 24,00 2,58 1,06 10,00 3,20 1,03 Q21 45,00 2,78 1,02 33,00 2,97 0,77 24,00 3,04 1,12 24,00 3,13 1,03 10,00 3,00 0,47 Q22 45,00 2,69 1,06 33,00 2,97 0,92 24,00 3,25 1,07 24,00 3,08 1,25 10,00 2,70 0,82 Q24 45,00 3,22 1,00 33,00 2,94 1,14 24,00 3,33 1,01 24,00 3,38 1,13 10,00 3,50 0,53
136,00 136,00 136,00 136,00 136,00 136,00 136,00 136,00 136,00 136,00 136,00 136,00 1 3,07 1,19 2,99 1,02 3,35 0,93 2,69 0,95 3,86 1,05 2,94 2,08 3,46 0,94 2,63 1,12 2,76 1,12 2,95 0,95 2,93 1,06 3,22 1,04
24
Table 5.2 : Work life Values Questions Department N Business Adm. X SD N Economics X SD N Tourism X Managment SD N Intr. Relation Int. Business and Trade Total X SD N X SD N X SD Q3 45,00 3,18 1,13 33,00 3,12 1,08 24,00 3,21 0,83 24,00 2,96 1,08 10,00 4,20 0,92 3,21 1,08 Q5 45,00 3,60 1,03 33,00 3,64 1,14 24,00 3,54 1,06 24,00 3,71 0,95 10,00 3,90 1,29 3,64 1,06 Q8 45,00 3,40 1,05 33,00 3,39 0,86 24,00 3,63 0,82 24,00 3,17 1,09 10,00 4,00 0,82 3,44 0,97 Q9 45,00 3,49 1,12 33,00 3,15 0,83 24,00 3,21 1,22 24,00 3,13 0,99 10,00 3,60 0,97 3,30 1,04 Q12 45,00 3,07 1,14 33,00 3,06 0,93 24,00 3,04 1,20 24,00 2,88 1,08 10,00 4,10 0,88 3,10 1,10 Q13 45,00 3,29 1,04 33,00 3,18 1,07 24,00 3,46 1,02 24,00 2,67 1,13 10,00 3,60 0,70 3,21 1,06 Q14 45,00 3,38 0,96 33,00 3,30 0,95 24,00 3,08 1,21 24,00 2,88 1,19 10,00 3,70 0,95 3,24 1,06 Q15 45,00 3,36 1,03 33,00 3,21 0,96 24,00 2,83 1,05 24,00 3,13 0,80 10,00 3,90 0,57 3,23 0,97 Q16 45,00 4,40 0,89 33,00 4,06 1,37 24,00 4,42 1,02 24,00 4,29 1,00 10,00 4,80 0,42 4,33 1,05 Q17 45,00 3,24 1,05 33,00 3,42 1,00 24,00 3,50 0,83 24,00 2,96 1,16 10,00 3,80 1,03 3,32 1,03 Q19 45,00 2,71 1,22 33,00 2,67 1,02 24,00 2,54 1,18 24,00 2,04 0,95 10,00 2,80 1,40 2,56 1,15 Q23 45,00 3,11 1,05 33,00 3,24 0,66 24,00 3,29 0,95 24,00 2,79 1,10 10,00 3,90 0,88 3,18 0,97
136,00 136,00 136,00 136,00 136,00 136,00 136,00 136,00 136,00 136,00 136,00 136,00
25
Table 6 : Gender Variable Differences in students Group Statistics gender Stud. Work life values Stud. Institutional values women Men women Men N Mean Std. Deviation 7,76 0,57 61 42,62 75 40,36 61 39,08 6,68 6,68 1,13 6,35 0,25 0,56 t p
75 43,34
26
Table 7 : Academics mean and standard deviation in behavior dimension of Institutional values and work life values. (N= 9 ) Table 7.1 : Institutional Values Behavioral Dimension Institutional X 3,26 Values SD 0,41 Question Statue Academics X Q1 Q2 Q4 Q6 Q7 Q10 Q11 Q18 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q24 Q25 3,67 3,44 3,67 2,78 3,67 3,11 3,22 3,00 2,78 3,11 3,11 3,89 3,00
SD 0,87 1,01 1,22 1,09 0,87 0,78 0,67 0,71 1,20 0,60 1,05 0,60 0,71
Table 7.2 : Work life Values Behavioral Dimension Work life Values X 3,49 Question Statue Academics X Q3 Q5 Q8 Q9 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q19 Q23 Q26 3,78 3,78 3,22 3,22 3,44 3,78 4,00 3,11 4,22 3,33 2,56 3,33 3,67 SD 0,58
SD 0,97 0,97 0,83 1,09 0,73 0,67 1,00 0,93 1,30 0,87 1,01 0,71 0,71
27
Table 8 :Gender Variable Differences in Academics Group Statistics t Gender Academic / work life Women values Men Academic / Women Institutional values N 4 5 4 Mean 48,50 43,00 44,75 Std. Deviation 8,10 1,08 7,17 4,71 1,15 0,28 0,31 p
28
Table 9 : Personnel mean and standard deviation in behavior dimension of Institutional values and work life values . ( N= 5 ) Table 9.1 : Institutional values Behavioral Dimension Institutional X 3,29 values SD 0,38 Question Statue Personnel X Q1 Q2 Q4 Q6 Q7 Q10 Q11 Q18 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q24 Q25 3,60 3,00 3,20 3,80 4,80 3,00 3,60 3,40 2,20 2,60 3,40 4,00 2,20
SD 0,55 1,00 0,84 0,45 0,45 1,87 0,55 1,14 1,30 1,14 1,14 1,41 0,84
Table 9.2 : Work life Values Behavioral Dimension Work life X 3,21 Values SD 0,49 Question Statue Personnel X Q3 Q5 Q8 Q9 Q12 Q13 Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q19 Q23 Q26 3,40 3,60 3,20 3,40 3,00 2,60 3,20 3,00 3,60 3,00 2,40 3,80 3,60
SD 0,89 1,14 1,48 0,89 0,71 1,14 1,10 1,41 1,67 0,71 1,52 0,84 1,14
29
Table 10 : Gender Variable Differences in Personnel
Group Statistics Gender Personnel Work life Women value Men Women Personnel Institutional Value Men N 1 4 1 4 Mean 50,00 39,75 51,00 40,75 Std. Deviation .__ 1,78 5,12 .__ 3,88 2,36 *0,03 0,17 t p
Table 11: The significant differences among statues. X2 Academic Work life value Personnel Student Academic Institutional value Personnel Student 45,447,66 41,806,37 43,027,28 F 42,445,45 42,805,01 39,786,54 2.09 0,07 p 11,99 *0,03 p
Table 12 : The significant differences among students department. XSS Business Admn. Economics Work life value Tourism Managment Int. Relation Int. Business and Trade 43,517,55 42,666,43 43,296,60 39,377,06 50,106,10 F P 16,75 *0,02 X2 p
30
XSS Business Admn. Economics Institutional value Tourism Managment Int. Relation Int. Business and Trade 39,335,95 40,155,65 39,757,54 37,957,48 45,105,02
X2
2,27
0,64
31
Survey 1 Sayn Katlmc; Research Methods dersi iin bir aratrma yapmaktayz. Aratrmamzn amac letme Fakltesi rencilerinin deerleridir. Bu anket, rencilerin deerlerinin neler olduunu belirlememizde bize yardmc olacaktr. Btn bilgiler sakl kalacaktr. Adnz yazmanza gerek yoktur. Anket 10-15 dakika srer. lginiz ve zamannz ayrdnz iin teekkr ederiz. Eer sorunuz olursa ltfen bizimle irtibata gein.
Gzde ETNKOL cetinkolgozde@gmail.com Nilay ALIKAN Zehra DOAN Veysel TEKTA Nur TALAZ nilaycaliskan@hotmail.com zehra_dogan@windowslive.com veysii_12@hotmail.com nur_talaz@hotmail.com
32
Dokuz Eyll niversitesi letme Fakultesi
ANKET
. 1- Cinsiyet : 2- Ya: 3- Doum Yeri : 4- Stat : Kadn ___________ ___________ Akademisyen Personel renci 1. Snf 2. Snf 3. Snf 4. Snf 5- Blm : Erkek
33
letme Fakultesi Deer Yarglar
BLG: Aadaki sorular, Dokuz Eyll niversitesi letme Fakultesinde var olan sosyal deer yarglarn saptamak iin hazrlanmtr. Ltfen kendi dncelerinize gre, olmas gereken duruma en uygun seenei isaretleyiniz.
1 Kesinlikle Katlmyorum, 2 Katlmyorum, 3 Ksmen Katlyorum,4 Katlyorum 5 Kesinlikle Katlyorum
Kesinlikle Katlmyorum
Katlmyorum
Ksmen Katlyorum
Katlyorum
1 2 3
Bu okulda, alkan insanlar emeklerinin karln alr. Bu okulda, baarl retmenler maddi ya da manevi olarak dllendirilir. Bu okulda, ynetici ve retmenler eitsel amac gerekletirmeye alr.
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
retmenler okulda bamsz alma ortamna sahiptir. Okul gvenilir bir ortamdr. Okul ynetimi retmenlerin sosyal yaamlaryla da ilgilenir. Bu okulda, hi kimseye siyasi, dini ayrm yaplmaz. Bu okulda, koullar deise de temel dorular deimez. Toplumda yardmseverlik anlay egemendir. renciler okulda doru bildiklerini yapma hakkna sahiptir. Okul personeli arasnda dostluk ve gven
Kesinlikle Katlyorum
34
hkimdir. 12 13 14 15 16 17
18
Bu okulda retmenler programa ilikin deiiklikleri kolay benimser. Bu okulda, ynetici ve retmenler sorumluluk almaktan kamaz Ynetici ve retmenler okulun kaynaklarn kendi karlar iin kullanmaz. Okulda retmenlerin grevleriyle ilgili hatalar hogryle karlanr. Okulda rencilere iddet uygulanmaz. nsanlar arasndaki atmalar karlkl anlayla zlr. Okulda ynetici insanlar dinlerken kendini onlarn yerine koyar. renciler, okulu sevmekte glk ekmezler. Okulda ortaklasa davran ve grup kar bireycilikten nce gelir. Okulda atma nlenemediinde bastrlr. nsanlar bakalarna hayr demekte glk eker. retmenlerin grevleriyle ilgili ynetim her trl yardm salar. Okulda yneticinin talimatlarna her koulda uyulur. Okulda retmenler karlarna ters dse de inandklarn uygularlar. Okuldaki deerler aile ve toplumun deerleriyle uyuur.
19 20
21 22
23 24
25
26
35
Survey 2 Dear Participant; We are making a research for Research Methods lesson . The purpose of our study is values of Faculty of Businesss students. This survey will help us to understand better what are the values of students of Faculty of Business. In order to ensure that all information will remain confidential. You dont have to wright your name. Individual answers wont be presented and documented, only group results.
The survey will take 10-15 minutes to complete.

Thanks for your time and consideration. If you have any question, please contact us.
Gzde ETNKOL cetinkolgozde@gmail.com Nilay ALIKAN Zehra DOAN Veysel TEKTA Nur TALAZ nilaycalskan@hotmail.com zehra_dogan@windowslive.com veysii_12@hotmail.com nur_talaz@hotmail.com
36
Dokuz Eylul University Faculty of Business
SURVEY
. 1- Gender : 2- Age : Female ___________ ___________ Academist Personnel Student Freshman Male
3- Birthplace : 4- Status :
Sophomore Junior Senior
5- Department :
Vales of Faculty of Business Faculty
The questions above prepared to determine social values of Faculty of Business. Please sign the most suitable segment according to your own thoughts.
1 Strongly Disagree, 2 Disagree, 3 Naturel ,4 Agree 5 Strongly Agree
Strongly Disagree
Disagree
Strongly Agree
Neutral
Agree
37
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18
In this faculty, hardworking people get what they deserve. In this faculty, successful teachers are rewarded by financial or spiritually. In this faculty, managers and teachers teachers try to accomplish the educational purposes. Teachers have an independent working environment at the faculty. Faculty is a safe environment. Faculty management also care with teachers social life. In this faculty, everyone is equal to religious and political aspects. In this faculty, even if the conditions have changed, main lines have never changed. Sense of helpfuness is dominant in the society. Students have the right to do what they believe in. Friendship and trust are dominant between the faculty staff. In this faculty, teachers easily adopt the changes about the schedule In this faculty managers and teachers do not avoid from taking responsibilty. Manager and teachers never misuse the souces of the school. The mistakes which teachers have done about their job are tolerable. Students are never engaged in violence in this school. Disagreement between people are solved by mutual tolerance. The manager put himself in their shoes while listening people.
38
19 20
The students never have hard times to love faculty. Acting collectively and the profit of the group always come before individualism in the school. When the disagreement can not be prevented, it is suppressed in the faculty. People have difficulty in saying 'no' to the others. The faculty managers do whatever they can for the teachers job. The instructions of the management are carried out in all circumtances in the faculty. The teachers apply what they believe even if it is against to their own profits in the faculty. Values in the school are in correspond with values of the familiy and the society
21 22 23 24
25
26

Analyze Values of Faculty of Business

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Analyze Values of Faculty of Business

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

VALUES OF FACULTY OF BUSINESS