35 38

RESEARCH ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 35

International Indexed & Referred Research Journal, April, 2012. ISSN- 0975-3486, RNI-RAJBIL 2009/30097;VoL.III *ISSUE-31

Research Paper—Education

April, 2012

Introduction:Survival of people in a progressive society is

value based. Human and social values have sustainedthe humanity ever since advances in civilization gaverise to organized social structures. However, individualand sectarian motives in the progressively rampantcomplexities of the society have taken the precedenceover the humanitarian concerns and a rapid erosion ofhuman and social values has become the order of theday. Value education has become an answer to thechallenge of strengthening moral and social fabric ofthe societies. The need to devise educational methodsand approaches which are dynamic, reflective andwould help to restore values and transform social forcesinto creative and constructive channels has for longbeen recognized. The High Education Commission (1952-53), ob-served that religious and moral education was essen-tial in character development. Sri Prakash Committee(Commission on Religious and Moral Education, 1959)also referred to moral and spiritual values. The Emo-tional integration committee (1962) made 213 recom-mendations covering all stages of education to meetthe requirements of strengthening national conscious-ness among the people. Further National Policies onEducation of 1968 and 1986focused much on valueeducation. Ramamurti committee, 1990, advocatedimparting of values as an integral part of entire edu-cation process.

The National Curriculum for Elementary andHigh education - A Framework (1988) laid down thegeneral framework of value education in the core cur-riculum. Subsequently The National Framework forSchool Education (2000) made value education anundercurrent of the education system. The values aredriving force of a human behavior. In fact what mandoes, can be explained in terms of his value structure.Values help to determine one's norms, standards andgoals. They enable one to select the means to realisethe chosen goals and ends of action. Hence valuesregulate the human behavior. Values may be explicitor implicit; they may be held by a group or an indi-vidual. In any case, they constitute a code or standardwhich provides a yardstick to approve or disapprove

A Study of Personal Values and Job Satisfactionof High School Teachers

* Dr. R.R. Madankar* Assot. Prof. Dept. of Education, Karnatak University,Dharwad

the human behavior.Job satisfaction is the result ofvarious attitudes of an employee towards hid job. Theseattitudes are related with specific factors such as sal-ary, service conditions, advancement opportunities andother benefits. Job satisfaction is influenced by twofactors, one is the work he does and secondly his atti-tudes towards the total work situation including thecompany, his supervisor and his fellow workers. Jobsatisfaction depends on the work situation which aimsat the fulfillment of certain values that the individualpossesses. It is the psychological, physiological andenvironmental circumstances that bring satisfactionto an individual with his job.

Job satisfaction related to teacher is that heshould be content with his role as a worker, in a staticsociety, it is necessary to recognize that teachers arehuman beings who basically seek growth and fulfill-ment of their needs, values and aspirations. The teach-ers' link with the society is based on the two basiccomponents of his work life: the nature of work he doesand the conditions under which he does his work. Inother words the content and the context of his work lifegive rise to attitudinal relations which significantlyaffect his work behavior. The work related attitudes bycommon consent are work involvement, intrinsicmotivation and work adjustment and they are directlyrelated to the work a teacher does and may be desig-nated job attitudes, commitment, identification andorganizational involvement are attitudes more relatedto organizational conditions which comprise the orga-nizational climate.Objectives:The following specific objectives were framed forthe present study:1. To study the difference between male and femaleteachers in respect of their personal value.2. To study the difference between male and femaleteachers in respect of their job satisfaction.3. To study the difference between graduate and postteachers in respect of their personal value.4. To study the difference between graduate and post-graduate teachers in respect of their job satisfaction.Hypotheses: In pursuance of the objectives 1-4 the followingnull hypotheses were setup. 1. There is no difference

RESEARCH ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION36


between male and female teachers in respect of theirpersonal value. 2. There is no difference between maleand female teachers in respect of their job satisfaction.3. There is no difference between graduate and postteachers in respect of their personal value 4. There isno difference between graduate and post-graduateteachers in respect of their job satisfaction.Scope of the Study:1. The present study was limited to Dharwad Talukaonly. 2. The present study was covered two variablesnamely, Personal Value and Job satisfaction only. 3.The present study was restricted to male and femaleteachers of High schools only. 4.The present study wasrestricted to graduate and post graduate teachers only.6. The present study was limited to differential analy-sis (t-test)Variables of the studyI. Independent Variables:a) Personal ValueII. Intervening Variables:b) Sex: (Male and Female)c) Qualification: (Graduate and postgraduate)III. Dependent Variable:b) Job Satisfaction Design of the studyMethod of the Study: The present study is descriptivesurvey of High schools of Dharwad Taluka. This methodwas used on personal value and job satisfaction ofHigh school teachers.Sample: For the present study a total number of 200High school teachers were selected by using randomsampling technique.

Tools : The following tools were used for the presentstudy.1.Personal value inventory: Personal Value Ques-tionnaire (PVQ) developed by Dr.(Mrs) G.P.Sherry and(Late)Prof. R. P. Verma (2006)2.Job satisfaction scale: Job Satisfaction Scale de-veloped and standardized by Meera Dixit (1985) wasused.Statistical Analysis : In pursuance of the Objective-1 to 4 of the study as to test the research hypotheses,t-test was used. The above table indicates that theobtained't' value is greater than the table 't' value (1.97)at 0.05 level. It is therefore concluded that two groupsdo not differ significantly in respect of value patterns.Hence, there is significant difference between maleand female teachers in respect of their value pattern isrelation to all the variables of value pattern exceptvalue pattern social value. Further there is significantdifference between male and female teacher in respectof their value pattern in relation to social value. How-ever the mean score of female teacher is greater thanthe male teachers.See Table 2

The above table indicates that the obtained 't'value is greater than the tabled 't' value (1.97) at 0.05level. It is therefore concluded that the two groupsdiffer significantly in respect of the job satisfaction.Hence, there is no significant difference between maleand female teachers in respect of job satisfaction sal-ary, promotional avenues and service conditions, physi-cal facilities, institutional plans and policies, satisfac-

Table-1: Comparison of Male and Female Teachers with Respect to Different Personal ValueVariable 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 15.3554Religious value Male 78 13.5000 2.8410 0.1898 >0.05 NS

Female 122 13.4262 2.5742Social Value Male 78 10.6282 3.4832 -2.1835 <0.05 S

Female 122 11.7541 3.6028Democratic value Male 78 12.2179 3.5112 -0.1758 >0.05 NS

Female 122 12.3033 3.2395Aesthetic value Male 78 12.5256 3.4443 -0.1689 >0.05 NS

Female 122 12.6066 3.2130Economic value Male 78 13.3205 3.5328 -0.5982 >0.05 NS

Female 122 13.6066 3.1401Knowledge value Male 78 13.3590 3.6786 0.3367 >0.05 NS

Female 122 13.1803 3.6477Hedonistic value Male 78 14.2949 3.1668 -0.6222 >0.05 NS

Female 122 14.5984 3.4847Power value Male 78 14.6026 3.0337 -0.5180 >0.05 NS

Female 122 14.8279 2.9784Family value Male 78 13.8205 3.3371 1.4546 >0.05 NS

Female 122 13.1230 3.2893Health value Male 78 13.6795 4.1010 -0.2816 >0.05 NS

Female 122 13.8525 4.3211

RESEARCH ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION 37


tion with authorities, satisfaction with social statusand family welfare, rapport with student and relation-ship with co-workers. Further, the mean scores of fe-male teachers is greater than male teachers in respectto job satisfaction factors physical facilities, satisfac-tion with authorities, satisfaction with social statusand family welfare and relationship with co-workers.Further there is significant difference between maleand female teachers in respect of their job satisfactionfactors intrinsic aspect of the jobTable No 3

The above table indicates that obtained 't'value is greater than the tabled 't' value (1.97) at 0.05level. It is therefore concluded that two groups differsignificantly in respect of the value pattern. Hence,

Table2 : Comparison of Male and Female Teachers with Respect to Different Job SatisfactionVariable 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 13.5893Intrinsic Aspect of the Job Male 78 28.3590 4.0451 2.0183 <0.05 S

Female 122 27.1230 4.3343Salary, promotional Avenues & Male 78 30.7051 5.1374 0.3787 >0.05 NSService Conditions Female 122 30.4262 5.0435Physical facilities Male 78 32.0641 4.7464 -1.1871 >0.05 NS

Female 122 32.9672 5.5431Institutional plans and policies Male 78 24.4872 3.3950 1.5833 >0.05 NS

Female 122 23.6721 3.6464Satisfaction with authorities Male 78 23.5000 3.1032 -1.0471 >0.05 NS

Female 122 23.9590 2.9720Satisfaction with social status and Male 78 20.8077 3.2992 -0.7669 >0.05 NSfamily welfare Female 122 21.2377 4.1898Rapport with students Male 78 23.3974 2.7977 0.1193 >0.05 NS

Female 122 23.3443 3.2366Relationship with co-workers. Male 78 20.1923 2.0069 -0.9851 >0.05 NS

Female 122 20.5492 2.7667

there is significant difference between graduate andpost-graduate teachers in respect of their value patternin relation to religious, democratic and economic.Further there is no significant difference between gradu-ate and post-graduate teachers in respect of their valuepatter in relation to social, aesthetic, knowledge, he-donistic, family prestige and health value. Further themean score of graduate teacher is greater than post-graduate teachers in relation to value pattern social.Table 4 The above table indicates that the obtained 't'value is less than the tabled 't' value (1.97) at 0.05 level.It is therefore concluded that the two groups do notdiffer significantly in respect of their job satisfaction.Hence, there is no significant difference between gradu-ate and post graduate teachers in respect of their all the

Table-3: Comparison of Graduate and Postgraduate Teachers with respect to different value patternsVariable 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 18.8685Religious value Graduate 137 13.0292 2.6400 -3.4074 <0.05 S

Postgraduate 63 14.3810 2.5300Social Value Graduate 137 11.5036 3.3719 1.0964 >0.05 NS

Postgraduate 63 10.9048 4.0230Democratic value Graduate 137 11.7737 2.8901 -3.1687 <0.05 S

Postgraduate 63 13.3492 3.9683Aesthetic value Graduate 137 12.4307 2.8175 -0.9127 >0.05 NS

Postgraduate 63 12.8889 4.1625Economic value Graduate 137 13.1679 3.3245 -2.0891 <0.05 S

Postgraduate 63 14.2063 3.1323Knowledge value Graduate 137 12.9197 3.4917 -1.8986 >0.05 NS

Postgraduate 63 13.9683 3.9102Hedonistic value Graduate 137 14.2117 3.4180 -1.6732 >0.05 NS

Postgraduate 63 15.0635 3.1769Power value Graduate 137 14.5401 2.8978 -1.3951 >0.05 NS

Postgraduate 63 15.1746 3.1752Family value Graduate 137 13.3431 3.2954 -0.3258 >0.05 NS

Postgraduate 63 13.5079 3.3882Health value Graduate 137 13.3431 3.2954 -0.3258 >0.05 NS

Postgraduate 63 13.5079 3.3882

RESEARCH ANALYSIS AND EVALUATION38


R E F E R E N C E1. Agarwal, Rekha Rani (1986). Differential Values Questionnaire(D. V.Q.) Lucknow, Ankur Psychological Agency. 2. Allport, G. W.et al.(1931). Study of Values, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Cimpany.3. Anderson Alwin L. (1966). Comparison of study of value scoresfor selected High and college teachers. Journal of EducationalResearch.,Vol.60., 4. Anjaneyalu,B.S.R.(1974). A Study of JobSatisfaction in High School Teachers and Its impact on the educationof pupils with special reference to the state of Andhra Pradesh. 5.Bansal, Saroj (1986). Cultural Values Inventory. Agra, NationalPsychological Corporation. 6. Buch.M.B.(Ed) Mathur, P. (1971). ‘Differential Value Patterns of the Professional Students’. M.Ed.issert,A.U. 7. Colbert Austin Micheel,(1971). A study of value of educatorsin Oregon’s correlational institutions. Dissertation AbstractInternational, Vol.32. 8. Dixit Ramesh E, Deodutt Sharma, (1971).

factors of job satisfaction. Further, the mean scores ofgraduate teacher is greater than post graduate teachersin respect of their job satisfaction factors of intrinsicaspect of the job, salary, promotional avenues and ser-vice conditions, institutional plans and policies, rap-port with students and relationship with co-workers.Major findings of the table 1-4 1. Male and femaleteacher do not differ significantly in respect of their allthe variables of value pattern except social value.Further, the two groups differ significantly in respectof social value pattern. 2. Male and female teachers donot differ significantly in respect of their job satisfac-tion factors salary, promotional avenues and serviceconditions, physical facilities, institutional plans andpolicies, satisfaction with authorities, satisfaction withsocial status and family welfare, rapport with studentand relationship with co-workers. Further the twogroups differ significantly in respect of job satisfactionfactors intrinsic aspect of the job. 3. Graduate andpost-graduate teachers differ significantly in respectof their religious, democratic and economic. Furtherthe two groups do not differ significantly in respect of

social aesthetic, and economic value patterns. Fur-ther, the two groups do nod differ significantly in re-spect of social, aesthetic, economic, knowledge, hedo-nistic, power and health value pattern. 4. Graduateand post graduate teachers do not differ significantlyin respect of all variables of job satisfaction.Discussion and conclusions: On the basis of the find-ings of the present study the following conclusionscould be drawn: Teachers working in different highschools including male and female teachers were foundthat in respect of personal value and job satisfactionmale and female, graduate and post=graduate teach-ers do not differ significantly. Where as there is sig-nificant difference between graduate and post-gradu-ate in respect of their personal values. Further, someof the similar studies have supported for the presentstudy such as; Singh, Triveni. (1988), Goswame, T.N.(1988), Reddy, Subramanyam M. (1990), Naik, G.C.(1990), Ray, Sipra (1992). And in respect of personalvalue; Kalia (2001), Patel (2003) and Khandekar(2004).

Table-4: Comparison of Graduate and Postgraduate Teachers with respect to Different Job SatisfactionVariable 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 11.6314Intrinsic Aspect Graduate 137 27.6204 4.3236 0.0754 >0.05 NSof the Job Postgraduate 63 27.5714 4.1415Salary, promotional Graduate 137 30.6058 5.1067 0.2908 >0.05 NSAvenues & Service Postgraduate 63 30.3810 5.0239Conditions Physical facilities Graduate 137 32.4599 5.4246 -0.6150 >0.05 NS

Postgraduate 63 32.9524 4.8839Institutional plans Graduate 137 24.0949 3.4575 0.6128 >0.05 NSand policies Postgraduate 63 23.7619 3.8046Satisfaction with Graduate 137 23.7518 3.0481 -0.1938 >0.05 NSauthorities Postgraduate 63 23.8413 2.9957Satisfaction with Graduate 137 20.9343 3.7421 -0.7315 >0.05 NSsocial status and Postgraduate 63 21.3651 4.1321family welfareRapport with Graduate 137 23.5693 3.1102 1.3933 >0.05 NSstudents Postgraduate 63 22.9206 2.9419Relationship with Graduate 137 20.6277 2.6652 1.8280 >0.05 NSco-workers. Postgraduate 63 19.9365 2.0310

Differential values of high school, University Students and Teachers.Journal of Psychological Research, Vol.16, pp.12-17. 9. Ellis BonnaLogue, (1979). Discriminant analysis of teachers values as Predicatorsof response to an in-service training Act 20. Dissertation abstractinternational, Vol.39. 10. Gudi, P.S., (1976). A Critical Study of theValues of High School Teachers in Dharwad. Dist. (South),Unpublished M. Ed Dissertation, Karnatak University Dharwad.11. Livingia,K.V.(1974). A Study of Job Satisfaction among SchoolTeachers in Second Survey of Research in Education.12. Singh,N.L(1974). “Measurement of Teacher Values and their Relationshipwith Teacher Attitudes and Job Satisfaction”. In Second Survey ofResearch in Education. 13. Whitenore Louis Clyde, (1968). AComparative Study of Values of Teachers Student teacher candidates.Dissertation Abstract International