Investigating the Students’ Perceptions of the Democratic Values of Academicians

The aim of the study is to investigate how university students percieve academicians’ democratic values, and whether their perceptions on it differ significantly according to certain variables. Designed as a descriptive quantitative research, this study employs of 248 students studying at the Faculty of Education and Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences in Usak University as its participants. “The Scale of Students’ Perceptions of the Academicians’ Democratic Values” was developed and utilized for the study by the researcher. The resulting 6-dimension structure explains 62,831% of the phenomenon in total. In addition to the construct validity, Cronbach’s Alpha Internal Consistency Coefficient was calculated and it was found ,927. The academicians’ perceived level of having democratic values was found to be 2,43. The findings indicated that the academicians had democratic attitudes at low levels based on the students’ perceptions. They attributed much more importance to “respecting institutional rules and regulations” and "giving importance to equality” compared to other four dimensions. The academicians give least importance to the “democratic role modelling behaviours”. Furthermore, the results indicated that there were statistically significant differences according to some demographic variables .


The Concept of Democracy
The concept of democracy is defined in political literature as "individuals' governing themselves" or "their involvement and/or having a voice in governance".Democracy, from the social aspect, is not only a form of government, but it is also the individuals' maintaining the relationships and life experiences with each other based on democratic principles (Büyükdüvenci, 1990).Democracy allows people to be independent individuals by liberating them and allows individuals to determine their personality, identity and position in society in the broadest sense of the term.Thus, the liberated individuals become more efficient and balanced in all respects as they lead a life in harmony with the society and the world in which they live (Karpat, 2010).

Democratic Values and Education
Once a country has adopted democracy as a political system, it aims to educate its citizens as the individuals who internalize, live and practice democracy as an output of the education system.In this sense, it is of vital importance for students to internalize democratic thought and values in Turkey.From a social perspective, democratic values are important factors in the facts, events and relationships occurring in the lives of individuals in the countries adopting democracy.These values in the social structure in which each individual is interdependent on relational basis are essential for both individuals and the society.Until recently, however, the students' gaining life skills and values were of secondary importance in educational programs in our country, but rather these issues were dealt with theoretically (Yeşil and Aydın, 2007).
The traditionalist education approach based on knowledge transfer has lost its importance with the adoption of progressive philosophy of education and constructivist approach.In today's educational approach, life skills and values are the most important features planned to be acquired by the students.The importance given to these elements is explicitly seen in the renewed programs (MEB, 2005;Katılmış, Ekşi & Öztürk, 2010;Kamber, Acun & Akar, 2011;Acun, Yücel, Önder, Tarman, 2013;Yiğit, Tarman, 2013;Tay, Durmaz & Şanal, 2013;MEB, 2015).The fact that the issue of 'values' is adopted and attached importance to has given rise to "values education" in educational programs.
There are numerous values for students to acquire.Laying out a hierarchy of these values in order of importance may not be accurate.However, it is undoubted that acquiring a concept as a value that reflects the fundamental government philosophy of a country is of vital importance.The importance of democratic values has increased in today's conditions under which especially all kinds of beliefs and values are loutishly abused by terrorist organizations.
Education, in this regard, plays an important role for the existence and sustainability of democracy (Davis, 2010).The main objectives of the mentioned 'values education' are described as the individuals' being sensitive to the events occurring around them and in the world, creating social awareness, honesty and taking responsibility, caring about others, sharing something with others and learning to live together in society (Veugelers ve Kat, 2003;Acun, Demir & Göz, 2010).
Examining the democratic values acquired by individuals, it is observed that the studies note the importance of three factors.One of them is the schools (Ensign, 1994;Wyett, 1997;Şişman, 2006;Kovacs, 2009;Davis, 2010).Another factor is teachers (Mullins, 1997;Murphy, 2005;Colby, 2007;Kesici, 2008) and the other one is parents (Büyükkaragöz, 1992;Kaldırım, 2005;Üstün and Yılmaz, 2008;Sarı and Sadık, 2011).Given the importance of schools, teachers and parents in this process, it would not be wrong to say that democratic values can only be acquired owing to the individuals' believing in these values.Universities are an important part of this process as well.Thus, Korkut (1993) states that the universities which are expected to lead the society hold an important place in terms of maintaining and improving democracy culture and its values.

Role of Universities in Acquiring Democratic Values
In today's society, the universities, which are among the key educational institutions that embody democracy and its values, are committed to help individuals recognize themselves and be prepared for professional and social life as conscious individuals (Chomsky, 2007).
According to Chomsky (2007), the major contribution that universities can make to a free society is by preserving its independence as an institution committed to the free exchange of ideas, to critical analysis, to experimentation, to exploration of a wide range of ideas and values, to the study of consequences of social action or scientific progress and the evaluation of these consequences in terms of values that are themselves subjected to careful scrutiny.In this respect, university is seen as a living space in which both academicians and students can integrate democratic principles and values into their lives.Likewise, there is a plenty of studies indicating that the university students' internalizing democratic values is essential for the development of democratic understanding (Kılıç, Ercoşkun and Nalçacı, 2004;Karahan, Sardoğan, Özkamalı and Dicle, 2006;Akın and Özdemir, 2009;Sönmez-Ektem and Sünbül, 2011;Yazıcı, 2011;Genç and Esen, 2012;Gömleksiz and Çetintaş, 2012).
The academicians' democratic attitudes, as well as the corporate facilities of universities, have importance in this regard.Sarı and Sadık (2011) found that the academicians' democratic attitudes and behaviours, as well as many factors, have an impact on university students' propensity for democratic values.The academicians should communicate with the students accordingly in order for students to acquire democratic values.The academicians should provide a suitable environment for their students on the issues such as tolerance, trust, cooperation, responsibility, independence, respect for human dignity, friendship, equality, honesty, justice, diversity, respect for privacy and environment, participation, freedom and autonomy, achieving happiness, respect for life, fairness, openness to innovation, respect for others and self-esteem, helping each other, self-confidence and standing against discrimination.
Based on the body of researches mentioned above, it can be said that university as a structure and the behaviours of its stakeholders have effects on the individual's attitudes and behaviours as a social role model.In this respect, it is important to determine how democratic the academicians are perceived by the students.Fundamental democratic values are the basic criteria of democratic societies and democratic education.From time to time, measuring these democratic values at schools/universities may be necessary for the development of democratic society in Turkey, just as it is done in other democratic countries (Uygun and Engin, 2014).
With this study, it is expected to give feedback to academicians and to make a contribution for the researchers in this field.
The main purpose of this study, in this context, is to determine how the academicians' democratic values are perceived by university students.For this purpose, the following questions are tried to be answered:

Method
This study is a descriptive field research based on descriptive survey model.Descriptive method is used in the case of researches that aim to describe an existing situation (Karasar,1984: 83).

Study Group
The subjects of the study consisted of 248 students studying at 8 departments in the Faculty of Education and in the Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences at Uşak University (Classroom Teaching, Science Education, Social Studies Education, Mathematics Education, Economics, Management, Finance and Accounting).The students were sophomore, junior and senior students who studied in 2011-2012 academic year at Uşak University.
Descriptive data reflecting the demographic characteristics of the participants are listed in Table 1.The number of participants may vary for some variables, because some of them were not marked by the participants.(1998), Kesici (2008) and Doğanay and Sarı (2004) were taken into consideration creating the themes related to democratic values of the scale.47 statements were produced in accordance with these themes.2 academicians, who are experienced at educational sciences, have been consulted for assessing these statements' relevance with the themes.In addition, a language specialist was consulted to assess the scale in terms of face validity, intelligibility and usability.
The data obtained from this scale were computerized and tested using the Principle Component Analysis in order to assess the construct validity of the scale.The results are shown in Table 2.As a result of examining the statements, the first dimension consisting of then statements was entitled as "giving importance to freedom and justice"; the remaining 5 factors were respectively entitled as "democratic role modelling -8 statements", "tolerance for differences -3 statements", "respecting institutional rules and regulations -2 statements", "encouraging participation in democratic activities -3 statements" and "giving importance to equality -3 statements".Grading of the scale is as "Very Little" (1), "Little" (2), "Extremely" (3) and "Very Much" (4) based on the academicians' meeting the conditions specified in the statements.
According to this grading system, the academicians are perceived as having democratic attitudes and values at "very little" and "little" ranges of the average scores of the dimensions while they are perceived as having democratic attitudes and values at "extremely" and "very much" ranges.'n-1/n' formula was used in the determination of the ranges of scores.The range of scores was found as 0,75 applying the formula as 4-1/4; the ranges are as the follows; 4,00 -3,25 range "very much" The second part of the scale includes an information form that contains the variables related to the students' demographic characteristics such as faculty, department, gender, place of residence between the ages 12-17 and regional culture.

Data Analysis
In this study, basic descriptive statistics were used to determine the levels of the students' perceptions of the academicians' democratic values.Independent samples t test was performed to determine whether the students' perceptions of the academicians' democratic values varies in terms of faculty and gender variables; one-way variance analysis (F) was used to determine whether their perceptions vary in terms of the place of residence between the ages 12-17 and regional culture.The mean difference values between the groups were analyzed using Tukey test in order to determine the source of difference.The dimensions with significant differences between each other were listed in the tables; however, the dimensions/findings having no significant differences between each other were not included in the tables.

Findings
Descriptive statistics were used to determine the levels of the students' perceptions of the academicians' democratic values.The results are listed in Table 3.The average level of the academicians' having democratic values was calculated as 2,43.Accordingly, it can be said that the students' level of perceptions of the academicians' having democratic values was "little".Considering the sub-dimensions, "respecting institutional rules and regulations" (X= 2,95=extremely) and "giving importance to equality" (X= 2,81= extremely) were perceived by the students as the highest sub-dimensions regarding the academicians' having democratic values."Tolerance for differences" (X= 2,54) was found at "extremely" level as well.The lowest perceived sub-dimension was "democratic rolemodelling" (X= 2,01)."Giving importance to freedom and justice" (X= 2,45) and "encouraging participation in democratic activities" (X= 2,39) were also found at "little" level.
Independent samples t test was performed to determine whether the students' perceptions of the academicians' democratic values varies in terms of the faculty at which they study.The results are listed in Table 4.The results of the analysis show that there is a significant difference in favour of Faculty of Education students regarding "giving importance to freedom and justice" [t = 3,121; p < ,05], "democratic role-modelling" [t=4,232; p < ,05] and "encouraging democratic participation" [t=2,973; p < ,05] dimensions of the scale.In terms of the total scores of the scale, a significant difference [t=4,130; p < ,05] was also found in favour of Faculty of Education students.
Accordingly, it can be said that the Faculty of Education students perceive academicians more democrat compared to the students of Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences.
Independent Samples t test was performed to determine whether the students' perceptions of the academicians' democratic values varies in terms of the gender variable.The results of the analysis are listed in Table 5.
According to the table, the "tolerance for differences" dimension related to the students' perceptions of the academicians' democratic values was found to differ significantly by gender variable [t=2,235; p < ,05].Accordingly, male students, compared to female students, perceive academicians more sensitive about being tolerant to differences.There was no significant differentiation by gender in other dimensions.
One-way variance analysis was used to determine whether the students' perceptions of the academicians' democratic values vary in terms of the departments at which they study.The results of analysis are listed in Table 6.As shown in Table 7; compared the students' perceptions of the academicians' democratic values related to GIFJ dimension in terms of the students' departments, the average of the Social Studies Education students (X= 2,646) is significantly higher than the average of the Finance department students (X= 2,172 ).
As for DRMO dimension, the average scores of the students studying at the departments of Classroom Teaching (X= 2,310), Science Education (X= 2,140) and Social Studies Education (X= 2,310) are significantly higher than the average scores of the students studying at Finance department (X= 1,652).
Considering GIE dimension, it is seen that the average scores of the students studying at the departments of Science Education (X= 2,912), Mathematics Education (x: 2,933), Economics (X= 3,098) and Management (X= 2,874) are significantly higher than the average scores of the students studying at Finance Department (X= 2,466).
Considering the total average scores of all dimensions, he average scores of the students studying at the departments of Classroom Teaching (X= 2,590), Science Education (X= 2,510) and Social Studies Education (X= 2,609) are significantly higher than the average scores of the students studying at Finance department (X= 2,171).No significant difference was found in other dimensions.Examining Table 8, it is seen that the "GIFJ" dimension related to the students' perceptions of the academicians' democratic values differed significantly by the place of residence in which the students spent their lives between the ages 12-17 [F=2,411; p<.05].According to the table, it is seen that the students who lived in villages between the ages 12-17 (X=2,79), compared to those who lived in districts at the same period (X=2,38), perceive academicians as more sensitive to the democratic values related to Freedom and Justice.No significant differentiation was found in other dimensions.
One-way variance analysis was performed to determine whether the students' perceptions related to the academicians' democratic values vary in terms of the regional culture in which they grow up.The results of analysis are listed in Table 10.According to table, the students living in the Mediterranean region (X=2,66) perceived academicians as giving more importance to the democratic values related to Freedom and Justice compared to those living in the Central Anatolia Region (X=2,16).The students living in Inner Aegean region (X = 2,73) perceived academicians as giving more importance to the democratic values related to "Tolerance" compared to those living in the South East Region (X = 1,71).
The students living in the Eastern Anatolia region (X = 2,75) perceived academicians as giving more importance to the democratic values related to "Respect for Institutional Rules and Regulations" compared to those living in the South East Region (X = 1,71).The students living in the Coastal Aegean region (X=3,18) perceived academicians as giving more importance to the democratic values related to total sum compared to those living in the Central Anatolia region (X = 2,63).The students living in the Inner Aegean region (X = 2,56) perceived academicians as giving more importance to the democratic values related to "Tolerance" compared to those living in the Central Anatolia region (X = 2,20).No significant differentiation was found in other dimensions.

Results, Conclusions and Recommendations
In this study, we analyzed the students' perceptions of the academicians' democratic values and the extent to which academicians have these values in terms of various variables.
According to the results, it can be said that academicians are perceived as democrat at "low" level by the students.These findings are consistent with the literature (Duman and Koç: 2004;Doğanay and Sarı: 2006;Kumral: 2009;Kayabaşı: 2014).The academicians are expected to have democratic values at high levels; however, research results do not support this assumption.
Having analyzed the sub-dimensions, it is seen that academicians give more importance to the "rules and regulations" at university based on the students' perceptions.According to Aypay and Bektaş (2010), the academicians' behaviours -such as fulfilling certain responsibilities abiding by the existing rules and exhibiting solid and unchanging attitudestransform university into "bureaucratic organizational model" as an organizational structure.
This naturally leads the university students to perceive academicians as inadequate in terms of democratic values.This finding lends support to literature.
The students who participated in the research gave the lowest score to academicians regarding "democratic role modelling" dimension.Accordingly, it can be said that the academicians were unable to be a good role model for their students.The fact that academicians are unable to be democratic role models should not be ignored in universities which is one of the leading institutions that are supposed to have democratic values at higher levels.
The scores related to the academicians' "giving importance to freedom and justice" were found at "low" level.In contrast, Kıroğlu, Elma, Kesten and Egüz (2012) found that the academicians approached tolerant towards the students' participating in decision-making process, freedom to choose instructor, voicing their objections and suggestions on various issues, behaviours and clothing preferences.These results are not consistent with the findings of this study.This may be due to the fact that the democratic values of the academicians were evaluated based on the students' perceptions and/or the study subjects were different.Doğanay and Sarı (2006) tried to determine the university students' perceptions related to the quality of life in terms of democratic life and they reached the conclusion that the students gave the lowest score to "communicating with academicians" dimension in their study  Kumral (2009) found that the students are of the opinion that the academicians lack communication, have inadequacies in the field and formation training and exhibit hard, disrespectful and contemptuous attitudes.In another study conducted by Kayabaşı (2011), the prospective teachers stated that the academicians behaved in accordance with democratic principles.However, they stated that the academicians exhibited inadequate attitudes in terms of providing opportunities to discuss in classroom and participating in decision-making process.Duman and Koç (2004) found that the democratic attitudes and behaviours of academicians were at "moderate" and "lower" levels based on the students' perceptions.
Having analyzed whether the students' perceptions of the democratic values related to academicians varies in terms of the gender variable, the male students, compared to female students, stated that the academicians gave more importance to freedom and justice (clothing preferences, etc.).Doğanay and Sarı (2006) found that the university students' perceptions related to the quality of life in terms of democratic life varied by gender variable in "participation in decision-making" and "classroom setting" dimensions.The female students' perceptions related to the quality of life at university were found to be more positive compared to male students.Sağlam (2000) and Kaya et al., (2012) also reached similar conclusions underlining significant differences in favour of female students, while Arslantaş (2011) found a difference in favour of male students.Erdem and Sarıtaş (2006), on the other hand, found that the perceived democratic values and attitudes did not differ by gender.
Having analyzed whether the students' perceptions of the academicians' democratic values differ in terms of the faculty and department at which they study, it is seen that the Faculty of Education students generally perceive academicians more positive compared to FEAS students.These results are consistent with the expectations.Because, the characteristic of being a teacher and educator contains, by its very nature, democracy and its associated values.In addition, the fact that the academicians in the Faculty of Education have a specific pedagogical training renders the communication between academicians and students more positive.In terms of the departments, the students who studied at the department of finance had lower perceptions compared to the students studying at other departments.There was no difference between the students studying at other departments.This finding may indicate a specific condition regarding the academicians of the related department; so, it would be wrong to make a generalization.It was observed that there was no difference between the departments of prospective teachers.Kaya et al. (2012) also found similar results in a study conducted with the participation of prospective teachers.These findings are consistent with the results reached at this study.
In terms of the place of residence variable, the students who lived in villages between the ages 12-17, compared to those who lived in districts at the same period, perceive academicians more positive related to the dimension of giving importance to Freedom and Justice.Although we have not come across any study on this subject, the life in villages is known to be more traditional and conservative on social relationships.Thus, an individual who grew up in such a culture might have perceived academicians and their behaviours more liberal at university, which is relatively a freer environment.
It was also seen that the students' perceptions of the academicians' democratic values differ in terms of the regional culture in which they grew up.The findings generally indicate that the students living in the Mediterranean Region and Coastal and Inner Aegean regions, compared to the students living in the Central Anatolia region, perceive academicians as having more democratic attitudes and values.This finding was different from the researchers' expectations.It is known that the lifestyle in the Mediterranean and Aegean regions, especially in the coastal areas, is more secular while it is more conservative in inner and eastern regions in Turkey.Therefore, the expectations about democratic values and freedoms are considered to be higher and so the people living in these regions are expected to perceive academicians as more inadequate.In this respect, further studies are required.
It has been seen that the students perceive the academicians as "prescriptive" and "egalitarian".Reaching both findings simultaneously can be interpreted as a sign that the academicians abstain from a number of factors (administration, environment, and etc.).
However, this attitude might stem from individually or along with other factors.There is need for further studies on this subject.However, it can be said that the democratic behaviours of academicians are connected with the attitudes of university administration.Universities' providing academicians with the assurance of academic freedom and becoming democratic institutions in this sense will ease the pressure on academicians and remove one of the obstacles that lead them to exhibit "prescriptive" attitudes.Besides, universities' organizing activities (e.g.seminars, conferences) to develop democratic values of academicians can increase their sensitivity.Especially considering that the academicians are perceived inadequate for being a role model, it is suggested that this issue should be paid a close attention.University administration's encouraging academicians to join social, scientific and sporting activities together with the students can also make a contribution in this regard.
The researchers in this area are suggested to investigate this subject with different samples and/or methods and do studies examining the reasons why the academicians are not perceived as democratic at desired levels.
. The findings reached by Doğanay and Sarı indicate low perceptions at universities and their findings are in line with the ones reached through this study.These findings indicate that the communication between academicians and students is neglected more than other democratic features existing at university.Similarly, the results related to giving importance to freedom and justice dimension reached at this study overlap with the findings reached by Doğanay and Sarı.According to the researchers, the academicians' ignorance of active participation of students in teaching-learning process, not involving the students in the decisions to be taken at lesson planning and implementation stage and disregarding their students may lead the classroom setting to move away from a democratic environment.The low communication between academicians and students mostly in class supports this view.

Table 1 .
Study Group

Table 2 .
Scale of the Academicians' Perceived Democratic ValuesAs a result of the Factor Analysis,887), which tests the sample's suitability for factor analysis, and Bartlett's Sphericity test significance level (p: 0,000) were found in (suitable) ranges.According to the results of Principle Component Analysis performed through Varimax Rotation method, 19 statements were excluded out of 47 statements constituting the scale due to the reasons such as low factor loadings, high factor loadings in more than one component and impairing structural integrity of the scale.It was seen that the remaining 28 statements formed a structure consisting of 6 dimensions.Factor loadings of these statements ranged from ,830 to ,549.The resulting 6-dimension structure explains 62,831% of the phenomenon in total.The statistics including the variances explained by each dimension, number of statements, eigen values are listed in Table2.In addition to the construct validity,

Table 3 .
Average and Standard Deviation Values related to the Academicians' Having Democratic

Table 4 .
T-Test Results for the Faculty Variable

Table 6 .
One-way Analysis of Variance Results in terms of Departments Examining Table6, it was found that the academicians' democratic values perceived by university students differed significantly in terms of the departments at which they study in "GIFJ" [F = 2,554, p < ,05], "DMRO"[ F= 4,113, p < ,05]and "GIE"[F = 3,144, p < ,05]

Table 5 .
T-Test Results for Gender Variable dimensions as well as in the overall scale averages[F = 3,491, p < ,05].No significant difference was found in other dimensions.

Table 7 .
Averages of the Dimensions with Significant Differences in terms of Departments

Table 8 .
One-way Analysis of Variance Results in terms of the Place of Residence between the ages 12-17

Table 9 .
Averages of the Dimensions with Significant Differences in terms of the Place of Residence between

Table 10 .
One-way Analysis of Variance Results in terms of Regional Culture Examining Table10, it was found that the academicians' democratic values perceived by university students differed significantly in "GIFJ" [F=2,080; p<.05], "TD" [F=2,066; p<.05],"RIRR" [F=2,376; p<.05] dimensions as well as in the total dimension[F=2,196; p<.05]representing the sum total of all statements.There was no significant difference in other dimensions.

Table 11 .
Averages of the Dimensions with Significant Differences in terms of Regional Culture