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,Dharwad
Introduction: 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. These
value 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 and
rise to organized social structures. However, individual other benefits. Job satisfaction is influenced by two
and 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 the
over the humanitarian concerns and a rapid erosion of company, his supervisor and his fellow workers. Job
human and social values has become the order of the satisfaction depends on the work situation which aims
day. Value education has become an answer to the at the fulfillment of certain values that the individual
challenge of strengthening moral and social fabric of possesses. It is the psychological, physiological and
the societies. The need to devise educational methods environmental circumstances that bring satisfaction
and 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 he
into creative and constructive channels has for long should be content with his role as a worker, in a static
been 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 does
also referred to moral and spiritual values. The Emo- and the conditions under which he does his work. In
tional integration committee (1962) made 213 recom- other words the content and the context of his work life
mendations covering all stages of education to meet give rise to attitudinal relations which significantly
the requirements of strengthening national conscious- affect his work behavior. The work related attitudes by
ness among the people. Further National Policies on common consent are work involvement, intrinsic
Education of 1968 and 1986focused much on value motivation and work adjustment and they are directly
education. 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 and
cation 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 for
School 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 female
driving 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 female
Values help to determine one's 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 post
the 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 4.3211
between male and female teachers in respect of their Tools : The following tools were used for the present
personal 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 and
teachers 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) was
Scope 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 the
The present study was restricted to male and female obtained't' 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 groups
restricted 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 male
sis (t-test) and female teachers in respect of their value pattern is
Variables of the study relation to all the variables of value pattern except
I. Independent Variables: value pattern social value. Further there is significant
a) Personal Value difference between male and female teacher in respect
II. 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 than
c) Qualification: (Graduate and post- graduate) the male teachers.
III. Dependent Variable: See Table 2
b) Job Satisfaction Design of the study The above table indicates that the obtained 't'
Method of the Study: The present study is descriptive value is greater than the tabled 't' value (1.97) at 0.05
survey of High schools of Dharwad Taluka. This method level. It is therefore concluded that the two groups
was 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 male
Sample: 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-31
Table2 : 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 2.7667
Table-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 3.3882
tion with authorities, satisfaction with social status there is significant difference between graduate and
and family welfare, rapport with student and relation- post-graduate teachers in respect of their value pattern
ship 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 value
tion 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 the
Further 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 't'
Table 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 not
value 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-31
Table-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 2.0310
factors 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. Graduate
vice conditions, institutional plans and policies, rap- and post graduate teachers do not differ significantly
port 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 conclusions
the variables of value pattern except social value. could be drawn: Teachers working in different high
Further, the two groups differ significantly in respect schools including male and female teachers were found
of social value pattern. 2. Male and female teachers do that in respect of personal value and job satisfaction
not 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, some
social status and family welfare, rapport with student of the similar studies have supported for the present
and 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 personal
post-graduate teachers differ significantly in respect value; Kalia (2001), Patel (2003) and Khandekar
of their religious, democratic and economic. Further (2004).
the two groups do not differ significantly in respect of
R E F E R E N C E
1. 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 Bonna
et al.(1931). Study of Values, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Cimpany. Logue, (1979). Discriminant analysis of teachers values as Predicators
3. Anderson Alwin L. (1966). Comparison of study of value scores of response to an in-service training Act 20. Dissertation abstract
for selected High and college teachers. Journal of Educational international, Vol.39. 10. Gudi, P.S., (1976). A Critical Study of the
Research.,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 School
Bansal, 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 Relationship
Differential Value Patterns of the Professional Students’. M.Ed.issert, with Teacher Attitudes and Job Satisfaction”. In Second Survey of
A.U. 7. Colbert Austin Micheel,(1971). A study of value of educators Research in Education. 13. Whitenore Louis Clyde, (1968). A
in 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 International
38 RESEARCH AN ALYSI S AND EVALU ATION