1 Research in Social Sciences and Technology VALUE PRIORITIES OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATE UNIVERSITY STUDENTS Mehmet Fatih Yigit, Ph.D fatihyigit6@gmail.com Abstract The aim of the study is to find out whether there is a statistically significant difference between value priorities of public and private university students in Turkey and whether their values differ. This is a quantitative study using ANOVA for the analysis of the data. The results suggest that private university students show greater tendency towards universalism, power, tradition, conformity, and hedonism compared to the public university students, while the public university students showed greater sensitivity to benevolence compared to the private university students. The test results also showed that the education level of mothers do not have a significant effect on value priorities of both public and private university students, while father’s education has significant effect on the perception of power. Keywords: Value Perceptions, Turkish Universities, Higher Education, Traditional Culture, Private Universities Introduction Values are defined as being the social representations of basic motivational goals that play important roles in guiding people and their lives (Rokeach 1973; Rohan 2000). The meaning of values and beliefs in a person’s life is so important that they demonstrate attractive actions and as a result motivate and direct behavior of that person (Feather 1995; Mauch and Tarman, 2016). Research on the role of values on one’s life has shown that the values a person holds predict his level of social contact with other people who are not the member of their communities (Sagiv and Schwartz 1995). There are studies conducted on specific values, such as religious values, cultural values and social values and their relationship with the experiences of university students (Yeh, mailto:fatihyigit6@gmail.com Yigit Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 2(1), 1-17 2 Carter and Pieterse 2004; McCollum 2005; Yigit, 2016; Yigit and Tarman, 2016). These studies tell us that the value students bring with them to university have significant effects on their behaviors. Values have been considered crucial in defining personal and social organizations (Durkheim 1985). Schwartz (1999) defines values as conceptions that direct individual persons or organizational leaders to evaluate other people. The way that people show their value priorities might change from society to society. In individualistic countries, the values related to self- direction and security might be represented more deeply, as in the United States, compared to the collectivist countries where values related to tradition and universalism are attached more importance, as in Turkey (Tarman, 2012; 2016; Yigit and Tarman, 2013). Schwartz (1992) have identified ten types of core values that are usually recognized in all around the world. They are 1) universalism, 2) self-direction, 3) power, 4) tradition, 5) security, 6) stimulation, 7) conformity, 8) achievement, 9) benevolence and 10) hedonism. There are many aspects to measure each value. However, some aspects are considered twice that measure different values. The aspects for the value self-direction include creativity, freedom, choosing own goals, independent and being curious. The value stimulation is measured by taking a varied life, daring and an exciting life aspects into account. Hedonism is measured by the aspects pleasure, enjoying life and self-indulgent while the aspects for achievement are ambitious, successful, capable, influential, intelligent, self-respect, and social recognition. For the value type power, the aspects are authority, wealth, social power, preserving my public image, and social recognition. Security includes social order, family security, national security, clean, reciprocation of favors, healthy and moderate sense of belonging. Conformity includes the aspects obedient, self-discipline, politeness, honoring parents and elders, loyal and responsible. The aspects under the tradition value are Yigit Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 2(1), 1-17 3 respect for tradition, humble, devout, accepting my portion in life, moderate and spiritual life. Benevolence includes helpful, honest, forgiving, responsible, loyal, true friendship, mature love, sense of belonging, meaning in life and a spiritual life. The aspects under last value type universalism are broadminded, social justice, equality, world at peace, world of beauty, unity with nature, wisdom, protecting the environment, inner harmony and a spiritual life (Table 1). Table 1: Single Values Representing Motivational Types of Values and Their Definitions Power Social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and resources. Social Power, Authority, Wealth, Preserving my Public Image, Social Recognition. Achievement Personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards. Successful, Capable, Ambitious, Influential, Intelligent, Self- Respect. Hedonism Pleasure and sensuous gratification for oneself. Pleasure, Enjoying Life. Stimulation Excitement, novelty, and challenge in life. Daring, a Varied Life, an Exciting Life. Self-Direction Independent thought and action-choosing, creating, exploring. Creativity, Freedom, Independent, Curious, Choosing own Goals, Self-Respect. Universalism Understanding, appreciation, tolerance and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature. Broadminded, Wisdom, Social Justice, Equality, a World at Peace, a World of Beauty, Unity with Nature, Protecting the Environment. Benevolence Preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one is in frequent personal contact. Helpful, Honest, Forgiving, Loyal, Responsible, True Friendship, Mature Love. Tradition Respect, commitment and acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional culture or religion provide the self. Humble, Accepting my Portion in Life, Devout, Respect for Tradition, Moderate. Conformity Restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or norms. Politeness, Obedient, Self- Discipline, Honoring Parents and Elders Security Safety, harmony and stability of society, of relationships, and of self. Family Security, National Security, Social Order, Clean, Reciprocation of Favors, Sense of Belonging, Healthy. Resource: (Schwartz 1996) Yigit Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 2(1), 1-17 4 There are numerous studies conducted in the areas of cultural and individual values. Among the research conducted in this area, Turkey is considered as a collectivist country with a score of 37 out of 100 in the dimension of individualism. In this sense, Turkey is described as a country where people belong to in-groups, like families or organizations and look after each other for the sake of loyalty (Hofstede 2012). There are some research conducted in Turkey in the areas of value priorities of families, teachers and students (Kılınç and others, 2016; Tahiroglu and Aktepe 2014; Tarman and Acun, 2010), value perceptions of a specific public university students (Zavalsiz 2014) and value tendencies of elementary school students (Yigittir and Ocal 2010). However, there are limited studies conducted in the area of value priorities of public and private university students taking their parents’ educational and economic status into account. In this sense, this study will have grounded an important role in determining the differences, if there is any, among the perceptions of university students in terms of the values they prioritize. The purpose of this study is to look at the value priority differences of public and private university students in Turkey. The research aims at finding whether public and private university students’ values differ by taking their parents’ education and economic levels into consideration. The researchers try to answer the following questions: 1. Is there a statistically significant difference between public and private university students’ value priorities? 2. Is there a statistically significant difference among university students’ value priorities based on their parents’ education and economic level? Yigit Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 2(1), 1-17 5 Method This is a quantitative study conducting a comparative analysis between private and public university students’ value priorities. The causal comparative design is adopted for this study. The aim of the causal comparative design is to learn the effect of the independent variable on the dependent variable. The reason behind choosing this research design method is that the independent variable cannot be manipulated by the researcher. The independent variable in this study were economic status and school types. The economic status of the students was measured by asking a question about their parents’ current economic position to be classified as high, middle and low and the school type was already marked by the researcher on the survey since he knew they type of the school beforehand. Father’s and mother’s education level were asked separately on the top of the survey form to be classified as primary school, secondary school, high school and university level. The dependent variables were all the motivational types of values subject to this study, which are; universalism, power, tradition, conformity, hedonism, self-direction, security, stimulation, achievement and benevolence. Data Collection The researcher works in a private university located in Istanbul, Turkey. Finding all sources of information in all private and public universities in Turkey was a challenge for the researcher. The researcher would be most successful in accessing pertinent participants at the universities in Istanbul. The data from both private and public universities subject to this research comes from those universities that the researcher accessed in Istanbul. After getting permission from the administration, the researcher visited classrooms randomly during the lectures and asked the instructor for permission to conduct the survey with the students between October-December 2014. After getting the permission from the lecturer, the students were asked to participate in the study Yigit Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 2(1), 1-17 6 if they wanted to do so. The ones who accepted to participate in the study were given the survey questions to answer. Each questionnaire took between 5-7 minutes to complete. The total sample of 341 respondents were delivered the Schwartz Value Survey (1992) adapted into Turkish language by Kusdil and Kagitcibasi (2000) and collected by the researchers. The reliability coefficients for the adapted survey ranges from .51 to .77. In terms of each value type, the reliability coefficient for universalism is .77, for benevolence is .76, for hedonism is .54, for power is .75, for achievement is .66, for stimulation is .70, for self-direction is .69, for tradition is .63, for conformity is .51 and for security is .59 (Kusdil and Kagitcibasi 2000). Participants The data for this study were collected from a population of students of a public and a private university in Istanbul, Turkey. In terms of student success, students of both universities are considered successful by taking the ranking of both universities into account. In our sample, the females are over-represented compared to the males. Participants were 242 females and 99 males aged 17 to 38 (male: M = 20, SD= 2; female: M= 19, SD= 2). The average age of the participants was 19.13 years (SD= 1.680). The reason of this over-representation is observed to be the Education departments since females constitute about 66 percent of the population in faculties of education (OSYM 2013). This might be considered as one of the limitations of the study and further studies might be conducted taking this limitation into account. The samples from private and public universities are almost equally divided. The 49.3 percent of the samples come from the private university whereas 50.7 percent comes from the public university. Although the sample size cannot be considered as representative for public and private universities in Turkey, it can be regarded as a heterogeneous sample since the backgrounds of the Yigit Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 2(1), 1-17 7 students participated in this study represent a substantial variation of Turkish students’ cultural and economic backgrounds. Data Analysis The collected data were analyzed using SPSS 20 statistical analysis software. The data were first analyzed to find out whether the distribution was normally distributed. The test results showed that the data are normally distributed with a skewness of -0.296 (SE= 0.134) and kurtosis of -0.439 (SE= 0.267). The level of significance adapted as the reliability level was 0.05. After the normality test, one-way variance of analysis for random samplings (One-way Anova) was adopted in order to analyze the data. Results A one-way between subjects ANOVA was conducted to compare the differences in private and public university students’ value priorities (Table 2). There was a significant effect of the school type on the motivational type of value universalism that included single values broadminded, wisdom, social justice, equality, a world at peace, a world of beauty, unity with nature, and protecting the environment at the p<.05 level [F (1, 329) = 8.750, p = 0.003]. Among the motivational types of values analyzed was also self-direction that included single values creativity, freedom, independent, curious, choosing own goals, and self-respect. The test result showed that there was not a significant effect of the school type on this value at the p<.05 level [F (1, 329) = 2.535, p = 0.112]. Power was the third motivational type of value that included the single values social power, authority, wealth, preserving my public image, and social recognition. The ANOVA test showed that school type had a significant effect on power at the p<.05 level [F (1, 329) = 7.316, p = 0.007]. The test results also showed that type of school had a Yigit Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 2(1), 1-17 8 significant effect on Tradition that included the single values humble, accepting my portion in life, devout, respect for tradition and moderate at the p<.05 level [F (1, 329) = 10.658, p = 0.001]. The test results did not show a significant effect of school type on the motivational type of value security at the p<.05 level [F (1, 329) =.697, p = 0.404] that included the single values; family security, national security, social order, clean, reciprocation of favors, sense of belonging, and healthy. The test result also showed that they type of school did not have a significant effect on the motivational type of value stimulation at the p<.05 level [F (1, 329) = 0.077, p = 0.782]. The single values representing stimulation were daring, a varied life, and an exciting life. Another motivational type of value was conformity that included the single value items politeness, obedient, self-discipline, honoring parents and elders. The test result showed a significant effect of school type on this value at the p<.05 level [F (1, 329) = 13.987, p = 0.000]. For the motivational type of value achievement that included the single value items successful, capable, ambitious, influential, intelligent, and self-respect, the test result did not show a significant effect of school type at the p<.05 level [F (1, 329) = 0.506, p = 0.477]. The test results for the last two motivational type of values, benevolence [F (1, 329) = 85.667, p = 0.000] and hedonism [F (1, 329) = 4.255, p = 0.040] showed a significant effect of school type on the perceptions of those values at the p<.05 level. The single value items under benevolence were helpful, honest, forgiving, loyal, responsible, true friendship, and mature love. On the other hand, the single values under hedonism were pleasure, and enjoying life. Yigit Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 2(1), 1-17 9 Table 2: One-Way Analysis of Variance of Value Priorities by School Type Source SS df MS F p Universalism Between Groups 126.615 1 126.615 8.750 .003 Within Groups 4760.992 329 14.471 Total 4887.607 330 Self- Direction Between Groups 86.242 1 86.242 2.535 .112 Within Groups 11194.145 329 34.025 Total 11280.387 330 Power Between Groups 91.267 1 91.267 7.316 .007 Within Groups 4104.141 329 12.475 Total 4195.408 330 Tradition Between Groups 148.491 1 148.491 10.658 .001 Within Groups 4583.860 329 13.933 Total 4732.350 330 Security Between Groups 5.165 1 5.165 .697 .404 Within Groups 2437.252 329 7.408 Total 2442.417 330 Stimulation Between Groups .422 1 .422 .077 .782 Within Groups 1809.143 329 5.499 Total 1809.565 330 Conformity Between Groups 149.342 1 149.342 13.987 .000 Within Groups 3512.761 329 10.677 Total 3662.103 330 Achievement Between Groups 3.769 1 3.769 .506 .477 Within Groups 2449.899 329 7.447 Total 2453.668 330 Benevolence Between Groups 1609.458 1 1609.458 85.667 .000 Within Groups 6181.056 329 18.787 Total 7790.514 330 Hedonism Between Groups 29.029 1 29.029 4.255 .040 Within Groups 2244.409 329 6.822 Total 2273.438 330 Yigit Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 2(1), 1-17 10 The researcher looked at the whether there was a statistically significant difference among university students’ value priorities based on their parents’ economic level (Table 3). The test results did not show a statistically significant difference at the p<.05 level for the motivational types of values universalism [F (2, 328) = 1.284, p = 0.278], self-direction [F (2, 238) = 2.340, p = 0.098], power [F (2, 328) = 0.111, p = 0.895], tradition [F (2, 328) = 0.865, p = 0.422], security [F (2, 328) = 0.014, p = 0.986], stimulation [F (2, 328) = 0.938, p = 0.393], achievement [F (2, 328) = 0.310, p = 0.733], and benevolence [F (2, 328) = 0.508, p = 0.602]. On the other hand, the test results showed a significance effect of parents’ economic level on the perceptions of hedonism [F (2, 328) = 5.032, p = 0.007], and conformity [F (2, 328) = 3.187, p = 0.043]. Because we have found a statistically significant result in this example, the researcher needed to compute the Tukey post hoc test compare each of our conditions to every other condition. Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test for conformity indicated that the mean score for the high income (M = 38.78, SD =2.846) condition was significantly different than the low income (M = 36.06, SD = 4.494) condition. Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test for hedonism indicated that the mean score for medium income (M = 17.04, SD = 2.627) condition was significantly different than the high income (M = 18.52, SD = 2.254) condition. The researcher also looked at to find out whether the education level of mother has an effect on the value priorities of the university students. The test results showed that mother education did not have a statistically significant effect at the p<.05 level on universalism [F (3, 325) = 0.872, p = 0.456], self-direction [F (3, 325) = 0.569, p = 0.636], power [F (3, 325) = 2.342, p = 0.073], tradition [F (3, 325) = 0.454, p = 0.715], security [F (3, 325) = 1.395, p = 0.244], stimulation [F (3, 325) = 0.422, p = 0.737], conformity [F (3, 325) = 0.882, p = 0.451], achievement [F (3, 325) = 0.896, p = 0.444], benevolence [F (3, 325) = 1.606, p = 0.188] and hedonism [F (3, 325) = 0.761, p = 0.517]. Yigit Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 2(1), 1-17 11 Table 3: One-Way Analysis of Variance of Value Priorities by Parents’ Economic Level Source SS df MS F p Universalism Between Groups 37.968 2 18.984 1.284 .278 Within Groups 4849.639 328 14.785 Total 4887.607 330 Self- Direction Between Groups 158.666 2 79.333 2.340 .098 Within Groups 11121.720 328 33.908 Total 11280.387 330 Power Between Groups 2.850 2 1.425 .111 .895 Within Groups 4192.558 328 12.782 Total 4195.408 330 Tradition Between Groups 24.831 2 12.415 .865 .422 Within Groups 4707.520 328 14.352 Total 4732.350 330 Security Between Groups .205 2 .103 .014 .986 Within Groups 2442.212 328 7.446 Total 2442.417 330 Stimulation Between Groups 10.290 2 5.145 .938 .393 Within Groups 1799.275 328 5.486 Total 1809.565 330 Conformity Between Groups 69.817 2 34.909 3.187 .043 Within Groups 3592.285 328 10.952 Total 3662.103 330 Achievement Between Groups 4.636 2 2.318 .310 .733 Within Groups 2449.032 328 7.467 Total 2453.668 330 Benevolence Between Groups 24.053 2 12.027 .508 .602 Within Groups 7766.460 328 23.678 Total 7790.514 330 Hedonism Between Groups 67.676 2 33.838 5.032 .007 Within Groups 2205.762 328 6.725 Total 2273.438 330 Yigit Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 2(1), 1-17 12 On the other hand, the test results showed a statistically significant effect of father’s education level on power at the p<.05 level [F (3, 326) = 4.426, p = 0.017] whereas did not have a statistically significant effect on universalism [F (3, 326) = 0.511, p = 0.675], self-direction [F (3, 326) = 2.386, p = 0.069], tradition [F (3, 326) = 1.091, p = 0.353], security [F (3, 326) = 2.462, p = 0.063], stimulation [F (3, 326) = 0.877, p = 0.453], conformity [F (3, 326) = 1.075, p = 0.360], achievement [F (3, 326) = 0.674, p = 0.569], benevolence [F (3, 326) = 1.635, p = 0.181] and hedonism [F (3, 326) = 0.459, p = 0.711]. Post hoc comparisons using the Tukey HSD test for power indicated that the mean score for secondary school level (M = 43.44, SD = 3.985) condition was significantly different than university level (M = 42.39, SD = 3.510) condition. Discussion and Conclusion The first research question was to find out whether there is a statistically significant difference between public and private university students’ value priorities. The results suggest that while there are statistically significant differences for most of the motivational types of values, there are also some values that did not show a significant difference. The students of the private university showed greater sensitivity to the motivational type of values universalism, power, tradition, conformity, and hedonism compared to the public university students. On the other hand, the public university students showed greater sensitivity only to the motivational type of value benevolence compared to the private university students. A recent study claims that students with the value of universalism may be experiencing a sense of isolation from the bigger society (Karabati and Cemalcilar 2010). The result of our study do not examine whether public and private university students experience a sense of isolation due to their value priorities. This might be a good research area for future studies. Yigit Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 2(1), 1-17 13 An earlier study conducted in Turkey showed that adults attributed more importance to benevolence compared to university students (Aygun and Imamoglu 2002). In this regard, the priority towards this type of motivational value shows similarity between public university students and adults in Turkey. For the values self-direction, security, stimulation, and achievement, the results did not show a significant effect of school type on their priorities both for public and private university students. Since Turkey is regarded as a collectivist country (Hofstede 2001), it is normal that students of both public and private universities do not show difference in terms of priority of self-direction. This is because in such societies, members usually prefer being the part of a system and directed by it instead of acting autonomously. Our second research question was to find out the difference among university students’ value priorities based on their parents’ education and economic level. The results indicate that as the parents’ economic level increase, the students’ priority for the motivational type of value conformity and hedonism also increase. On the other hand, the test results suggest that there is no relationship between parents’ economic level and the priority of universalism, self-direction, power, tradition, security, stimulation, achievement and benevolence. The results also indicate that mother’s education level do not have an effect on the priority of the motivational types of values of the university students while the education level of father’s have only significant effect on power. In other words, as the education level of father’s decreases, the university students’ priority towards social power, authority, wealth, preserving public image, and social recognition decrease. The image of private university students in Turkey is that they tend to be more sensitive to economic and cultural freedom compared to the public university students. They are known to be the members of wealthy families who have different value priorities compared to families of public university students. In terms of thinking globally, they are considered to be more open to the Yigit Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 2(1), 1-17 14 universalism and different cultures around the world. Also, private university students in Turkey are usually regarded as the members of the society who do not follow the traditional and cultural doctrines of the classis Turkish families. The results of this study confirm that private university students are more inclined towards universalism compared to the public university students. However, contrary to the general belief in Turkish society, private university students participated in this study are not far away from their own cultural and traditional values. Compared to the public university students, private university students showed greater sensitivity to traditional values. On the other hand, the result that public university students showed greater sensitivity only for the motivational value type benevolence shows that the general image of private university students in Turkey will change soon since they are more sensitive to cultural and traditional values while also adopting universal ones. The result of this study could be different if conducted one or two decades ago. The economic situation of families in Turkey was not as good as it is nowadays in general. The number of private universities was very few and their annual costs was very high that only certain families could send their children to those institutions. The social and economic disparities between the families who sent their children to private universities and public universities were so visible in Turkey that it was not difficult to distinguish between them. However, recent reforms in Turkey helped lower and middle class families to come up with those high-class families in almost all areas, including education. The number of private universities increased drastically since 2005 and a competition started among those institutions. As a result, families who hold traditional and cultural values of the society started to send their children to those institutions. Thus, we can consider the results of this study as the consequence of those developments in Turkish society. Yigit Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 2(1), 1-17 15 Due to time and economic reasons, this study was conducted in only one metropolitan area in Turkey with the participation of two universities. This might be considered the main limitation of the current study. A more comprehensive research that will include different cities and universities in Turkey would give us more well-rounded results. Hence, a similar study with the participation of diverse universities in Turkey can be considered by researchers. References Aygun, Z.K., and E.O. Imamoglu. (2002). Value Domains of Turkish Adults and University Students. The Journal of Social Psychology 142(3): 333-351. Durkheim, E. (1985). The Rules of Sociological Method and Selected Texts on Sociology and its Method. W. D. Halls New York, Free Press. Feather, N.T. (1995). Values, valences, and choice: The influences of values on the perceived attractiveness and choice of alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68(6): 1135. Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s Consequences: Comparing Values, Behaviors, Institutions, and Organizations Aross Cultures. Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications. Hofstede, G. (2012). The Hofstede centre: Strategy, culture and change. Country comparison. Accessed 15 June 2015. from http://geert-hofstede.com/countries.html. Karabati, S., and Z. Cemalcilar. (2010). Values, Materialism, and Well-Being: A Study With Turkish University Students. Journal of Economic Psychology 31(4): 624-633. Kılınç, E.,Kılınç, S., Kaya, M.M., Başer, E.H., Türküresin, H.E.,Kesten, A. (2016). Teachers’ attitudes toward the use of technology in social studies teaching, Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 1 (1), 59-76. Kusdil, M.E. and C. Kagitcibasi. (2000). Turk Ogretmenlerin Degerler Yonelimi ve Schwartz Deger Kurami. [Values Tendency of Turkish Teachers and Schwartz Theory of Values] Türk Psikoloji Dergisi, [Turkish Journal of Psychology] 15(45 ): 59-76. McCollum, DL. (2005). Relating Students' Social and Achievement Goals. Academic Exchange Quarterly 9(1): 297. OSYM. (2013). Higher education statistics of 2012-2013 by the Assessment, Selection and Placement Center. Accessed 5 May 2015. http://osym.gov.tr/dosya/1- 69410/h/2ogretimelemanlarisayozettablosu.pdf. Yigit Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 2(1), 1-17 16 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 Press. Sagiv L, and S.H. Schwartz (1995). "Value Priorities and Readiness For Out-Group Social Contact." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 69(3): 437. Schwartz, S.H. (1996). Value Priorities and Behavior: Applying a Theory of Integrated Value Systems. The Ontario Symposium: The Psychology of Values. Schwartz, S.H (1999). A Theory of Cultural Values and Some Implications for Work. Applied Psychology: An International Review 48(1): 23-47. Tahiroglu, M. and V. Aktepe. (2014). Analyzing the Value Priorities of Families, Students and Teachers. Educational Research and Reviews 9(13): 429-440. Tarman, B., & Acun, I. (2010). Social studies education and a new social studies movement. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 1(1), 1-16. Tarman, B. (2012). Prospective teachers’ beliefs and perceptions about teaching as a profession. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice 12, 1964-1973. Tarman, B. (2016). Innovation and education, Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 1 (1), 77-97. Yeh C.J., R.T. Carter and A.L., Pieterse. (2004). Cultural Values and Racial Identity Attitudes Among Asian American Students: An exploratory investigation. Counseling and Values 48(2): 82. Yigittir, S. and A. Ocal. (2010). Value Tendency of 6th Grade Elementary School Students. Selcuk Universitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitusu Dergisi 24. Yigit, M.F., Tarman, B. (2013). Degerler Eğitimimin ilköğretim 4. Ve 5. Sınıf Sosyal Bilgiler Ders Kitaplar?ndaki Yeri ve Önemi The Place and Importance of Values Education in 4.th and 5th. Grade Primary School Social Studies Textbooks. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 4 (2), 79-102. Retrieved from http://dergipark.gov.tr/jsser/issue/19101/202712 Yigit, M.F. (2016). Citizenship Perceptions of University Students. International Journal of Higher Education 5(2): 40-45 Yigit, M.F. and Tarman, B. (2016). How Do Different Ethnicities Approach to the Education System and Differences in Turkey? Italian Sociological Review, 6 (3), pp. 339-353 Yigit Research in Social Sciences and Technology, 2(1), 1-17 17 Zavalsiz, Y.S. (2014). Universite ogrencilerinin deger algisi: Karabuk universitesi ornegi (Value perceptions of university students: The case of Karabuk University). Turkish Studies International Periodical For The Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic 9(2): 1739-1762.