SOCIAL AND CRITICAL CONSTRUCTION OF REALITY IN
EDUCATIONALLY DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS: A DISCOURSE-BASED
ANALYSIS
Assoc. Prof . Dr. Nalan Büyükkantarcıoğlu*
Abstract
Considering language as a primary mediational means and setting out with the hypothesis
that individuals who stand at the two remote ends of educational ladder in Turkish society
will differ from each other in their constructions of social reality and levels of critical
thinking, this study analyzes written discoursal data collected from an equal number of
primary school and university graduate adults. To find out group-specific characteristics,
first, internalized values and value-ordering behaviour of the subjects are identified and
compared on the basis of their responses. Next, levels of critical thinking observed in each
group’s discourse are analyzed. Comparative results support that educational level is an
important social factor affecting also forms of intramental functioning such as reality
constructions and critical thinking.
Key Words : social reality, values, critical thinking, language, education.
Özet
Dili toplumsal olgular›n yansıma bulduğu bir araç olarak ele alan bu çalışma, Türk
toplumunda formal eğitim düzeyleri nedeniyle birbirlerinden uzak iki uçta yer alan
yetişkinlerin toplumsal gerçekliklerini yapılandırma ve eleştirel düşünce geliştirme
biçimlerinde farkl›l›k gösterecekleri varsay›m›ndan yola ç›kmaktad›r. Varsay›m› s›namak
için, eşit sayıda ilkokul ve üniversite mezunu bireyden toplanan yazılı söylemsel veri grup
özelliklerini ortaya koyacak biçimde çözümlenmektedir. İlk aşamada, bireylerin edinilmiş
değerleri ve değer-sıralama davranışları içerik çözümlemesi ile belirlenmekte; daha sonra,
her gruba ait verilerde gözlenen eleştirel düşünce özellikleri incelenmektedir. Kıyaslamalı
sonuçlar eğitim düzeyinin bireylerde toplumsal gerçekliği algılama, yorumlama ve eleştirel
düşünce geliştirme gibi zihin-içi işlevleri de etkileyen önemli bir toplumsal etken olduğu
düşüncesini desteklemektedir.
Anahtar Sözcükler : toplumsal gerçeklik, değerler, eleştirel düşünce, dil, eğitim.
____________________________________________________________________
*Hacettepe University, Faculty of Letters, Department of English Linguistics, 06532, Beytepe, Ankara. nalanb@hacettepe.edu.tr - http://www.idb.hacettepe.edu.tr/prs/buyukkantarcioglu.shtmlINTRODUCTION
The study presented in this paper is a discourse analytic attempt to identify and compare a number of social and cognitive phenomena concerning two groups of Turkish adults with distinct levels of education. In different steps of an earlier extensive project that my friends and I carried out on the functional literacy levels and language use of Turkish individuals with different educational backgrounds (see, König, Büyükkantarcıoğlu and Karahan; 1999, 2000, 2002), we observed noteworthy differences among the subjects. Although such differences could be expected, the
characteristics of the differences were striking, particularly in the context of language use concerning communicative skills, syntactic complexity, lexical variety, morphological, syntactic and semantic well-formedness, etc. What drew my particular attention throughout the analysis of the data was the way each subject group perceived and evaluated reality. To find out the details of what seemed noticeable then, this time I analyze part of the previously collected data from a different perspective : The basic purpose in this study is to find out in what ways level of education gives rise to differences in the forms of individual’s intramental functioning, particularly in the contexts of reality construction and critical thinking**
Construction of Social Reality in Brief
That all mental and discoursal practices are socially situated have been articulated in various works (see, e.g., Bourdieu 1977; Vygotsky 1978, 1987; Wertsch, 1991, 1998; Scollon, 1998, 2001; Berger and Luckmann, 1989; Searle, 1995 ). The key point is the Bakhtinian question , as Wertsch mentions (1991:143), “Who is doing the talking ?” The actor as a social being, that is, individual as the talking “voice”, is no more than a reflection of socially constructed and internalized forms of reality. This is to imply that language mirrors socially, and accordingly, mentally situated “facts”, because “…mental functioning in the individual originates in social, communicative processes” (Werstch 1991 : 13).
While it is one of the basic contentions of sociology that reality is socially constructed, it is equally known that no society is homogenous, nor is it possible to talk about identical realities in the minds of the members due to different life experiences, cultural or political reifications, and social interactions. Constructing reality is consciously or unconsciously “knowing” what is taken as “real” and acceptable. While part of the accepted matters pertain to the “facts” which are provable such as the existence and forms of mountains, trees, buildings, etc., some others pertain to “matters of opinion”, which bear a considerable degree of subjectivity and relativity (Rudinow & Barry, 2004:14). Individuals, groups or societies construct their own “symbolic universes” (Berger and Luckmann, 1989: 92), ascribe them cognitive validity, locate themselves within these universes, and attribute certainty to the characteristics and reality of the phenomena.
Language is no more than translating the perception of the outer world into an agreed-upon type of symbolic representation. Following the well-known theorists such as G.H. Mead and H. Blumer, representatives of symbolic interactionism in social psychology pointed to the relationships between language, a system of symbols shared by the members of a social world, and socially
of the human mind and social interactions. Language is the basic medium which acts as the
representation both of the mind and the social world in which meanings are produced. Social cognition theorists, such as J.M. Baldwin, W.I. Thomas and F. Znaniecki, on the other hand, similarly stressed how social categories influenced thought and interpretation processes, and how such processes conditioned the formulation of human behaviour (Sandstrom, Martin and Fine, 2003). Special emphasis of social cognition theorists on thought (for some, to the expense of neglecting the
characteristics of human behaviour ) was further developed by psychologists, among whom the most prominent figure was the developmental psychologist Lev Vygotsky. Vygotsky’s main relevance to the relationships among language, thought , and society held that the process of “knowing” involved the agency of other people; that is, “collaborative action”. Although the source of mind is the biological development of human brain, its functions are closely related to “dialogicality”, that is, social negotiations. In such social processes, it is the natural language which mediates human actions. For this reason, “the relationship between action and mediational means is so fundamental that it is more appropriate, when referring to the agent involved, to speak of ‘individual(s)-acting-with-mediational means” (Wertsch, 1991:12). Vygotskian approach to mediated action had major
influences on Bakhtin’s ideas as he explained the origin of meaning in communication. For Bakhtin, the study of language within the mere framework of form and meaning, abstracted from the socially constructed utterances, would certainly fall short. For Bakhtin, “…language is not an abstract system of normative forms but rather a concrete heteroglot conception of the world” (1981:273). Many social psychologists, discourse analysts, linguists, and sociologists agreed upon the effects of
society-mind-language interrelationships as they approached to a question based on any of these three concepts.
This came to mean that a careful analysis of either of these three phenomena could reveal something noteworthy about any of the other two.
Today, discourse analysis is a method employed by various language-related fields to arrive at descriptions of many social, psychological, educational, linguistic, cognitive, etc. phenomena.
Although the importance of language as a tool had been appreciated much before, text processing in the context of schema theory and discursively based reproduction of social cognitions were studied first by Bartlett in 1932. Investigations of discourse structures, such as those of stories, rumors, etc., to find an evidence of social cognition, as carried out by later scholars, revealed that in-group
interactions in the form of face-to-face conversations created and maintained peer-supported and socially structured knowledge and opinions leading to a common world-view (Van Dijk,1990: 167-168). Although social psychology, to the exception of some attempts, largely ignored the analysis of discourse in the beginning, with the advances in discourse analytic methods in linguistics and with an appreciation of interdisciplinary studies, more collaboration among different fields of social sciences has taken place through time. Impression management, attitude, persuasion, or attribution studies have taken the role of discourse structures into account also from a linguistic perspective. While social psychologists made use of linguistics in this respect, linguists also made use of social psychological theories in the like manner. Today, as van Dijk says, “all fields of social psychology deal with how people make sense of the social world and each other, not only by thinking about each other, looking at each other or interacting, but also and primarily by talking to and about each other” (van Dijk, 1990:178).
Hall (2000: 191) mentions that “ ...an analysis of our valuational language can furnish reliable insights into or at least clues as to the status of value in the world”. A conscious understanding of the socio-cultural and psychological processes and their associated reflections in discourse can lead us, through the analyses of various phenomena in a certain society, to the identification of what desirable forms of change can be expected and thus what can be done to modify less desirable realities and practices. This is actually what literacy studies and literacy development attempts aim at. As a tiny part of such attempts, this paper, while analyzing value-based reality constructions of two
educationally distinct groups, also aims to highlight the importance of critical thinking, because the nature of the dialogic relations between man’s “producing” himself and his objectivation and
legitimation of various values may hinder as well as foster social development.
Critical thinking, values and reality
As individuals, we are sometimes at a point where we can modify and give shape to individual or social forms of reality. However, we are sometimes the passive “consumers” of what we have already found around us. Thus it turns out that an individual has both an active and a passive role in society. In other words, he either holds an identity among like-minded conforming peers or redefine and reconstruct ways of “knowing”. What matters between the two is an ability to think critically. What is critical thinking ? According to CTILAC Faculty (1998);
“critical thinking recognizes :
·
patterns and provides a way to use those patterns to solve a problem or answer
a question,
·
errors in logic, reasoning, or the thought processes
·
what is irrelevant or extraneous information
·
preconceptions, bias, values and the way that these affect our thinking
·
that these preconceptions and values mean that any interferences are within a
certain context
·
ambiguity – that there may be more than one solution or more than one way to
solve a problem.”
Critical thinking functions as an empowering factor for the individual, because reorienting his thinking habits and looking below the surface assign him the role of an active participant in the regulation or reconstruction of the value system towards more desirable ends. Thinking critically is “a set of conceptual tools with associated intellectual skills and strategies useful for making reasonable decisions about what to do or believe” (Rudinov & Barry, 2004:9). Thus it is a process of justifying one’s conduct by the values and beliefs so as to deal more effectively with new social and
psychological realities or to construct more refined forms in accordance with the expectations of a changing world.
Values, as the inherent elements of culture, “are the determiners in man that influence his choices in life and thus decide his behavior” (Inlow, 1972:2). “To say that a person has a value” Rokeach (1973:25) writes, “is to say that he has an enduring prescriptive or proscriptive belief that a
specific mode of behavior or end-state of existence is preferred to an opposite mode of behavior or end-state”. On the basis of modes of conduct and end-state of existence, Rokeach classifies human values into two as instrumental values and terminal values. Terminal values are associated with idealized self-centered and society-centered end-states. Instrumental values, on the other hand, consist of moral and competence values, the attainment of which may lead also to the attainment of idealized terminal values. Behaving in the ways prescribed by the instrumental values can be rewarded with the end-states specified by the terminal values (ibid., 7-14). As the effects of socio-economic, religious, political, and other traditional or contemporary values are reflected in the end-result of individual personality, an individual is more of a system of values than of mere psychological traits. All individual attitudes are value-expressive; however, desirability of a certain value is usually a
subjective matter and realities are constructed around the desirability or preference of values. This is related with what degree of importance is attached to a certain value by the individual. Instrumental or terminal, all values have motivational functions which shape preferences. According to Rokeach (ibid.,14-16), one motivational function is the adjustive function, which indicates compliance to group norms. It ensures the smooth and peaceful existence or adaptation of the individual in the already established value system of society. Another motivational function is the ego-defensive function, which serves the individual’s ego-defensive needs. Finally, values implicate the knowledge or
self-actualizing function involving “the search for meaning, the need to understand, the trend towards
better organization of perception and belief toward clarity and consistency” (Katz, 1960, cited in Rokeach 1972: 16). This is where critical thinking plays an important role.
At this stage, it would be useful to refer to Maslow’s well-known hierarchical theory of
human motivation (1954). Maslow’s theory proposes that values may be ordered ranging from lower-
to higher-order, each subset serving different needs. Lower-order values generally reflect safety and security needs, material comfort, religious and traditional forms of conformity. They are usually the core values of culture. Motivational functions of these values are mostly adjustive and ego-defensive. Whereas higher-order values underline the importance attached to values such as love, self-esteem, independence, competence, self-presentation, social equality, human rights, etc. They generally implicate the motivational function of knowledge or self-actualization.
Maslow takes the conception of value almost synonymous with the concept of need; however, his emphasis on the nature of value-ordering indicates a relationship between the type of internalized values and personal or social improvement. Rokeach (1973), who finds Maslow’s theory applicable to his rather detailed conception of value, relates value-ordering to socio-economic and educational backgrounds of individuals in his analysis concerning adult Americans. He says :
If we assume that lower-order safety and security needs are reflected in a
higher regard for values concerning material comfort, conventional
forms of religion, and conformity, then our findings suggest that such
lower-order needs are more important to the poor and the uneducated.
In contrast, the affluent and educated typically regard values reflecting
safety and security needs as relatively unimportant, not so much because
they are not valued but because they are taken for granted. Taking such
values for granted frees the affluent and educated to place greater
emphasis on higher-order values, for example, on love, competence, and
self-actualization (p.327).
When the society is in a state of transition, validity or perfection of values are open to
criticism, particularly by those with self-actualizing functions. In such a state, even though the attitude and value similarity of a homogeneous community seems to be threatened, progress is realized by autonomous individuals who are conscious of the hegemonic power of the taken-for-granted ideologies and who need to call them into question when necessary. As Inlow (1972:2-3) mentions, “...all individuals habitually introject certain values from their respective cultures. Individuals who are more autonomous, however, are able to rise above at least many of the culture’s values that impinge on them. These individuals, in fact, are usually the prime movers of progress”. To integrate more individuals into social progress, thus to facilitate the formation of the knowledge society, it is essential to motivate them to adopt more higher-order values with self-actualizing functions. Individual’s exposure to quality information and skill developing practices may change his values, attitudes and behavior towards more desirable ends prescribed by the contemporary structure of the world. People who are unaware of the restrictions in their total belief system, of the limits of their consciousness or of the forces dominating their values locate themselves in a comparatively narrower sphere of facts unless they are faced with broader perspectives.
Vygotsky’s terms “intramental” and “ intermental” functioning (Wertsch, 1991: 26-28) emphasize a dialogic link between mental and social processes. In other words, how an individual’s mind functions or what his rationality is like (intramental functioning) depends, to a great extent, on his socially defined networks with other minds (intermental functioning). Among many forms of decontextualization associated with literacy developing practices, if formal education is to be regarded as an important process, one assumes that it should have some effects on the mentally salient end results such as value-based reality constructions, and thinking as reflected in language use. Even though individuals are born into already established socio-cultural or socio-political structures and find themselves experiencing reality within these boundaries, improving the existing conditions and individual perspectives is not at all helpless. Although variables such as intrinsic motivation, social networks, freedom of thought, access to different forms of information, quality of life experiences, etc., are all important in this process, as long as its objectives are far-reaching, innovative and in line with the requirements of what is referred to as the knowledge society, formal education can be credited as one of the important effective factors. This is to imply that those who have attained further levels of education, thus have been exposed to quality experiences are somewhat better equipped with quality types of mental functionings than those with limited educational background. In educational processes, “as the individual seeks goals to which he feels committed, he learns to think for himself, to weigh and use his knowledge, and to be self-dependent. In pursuing his interests, the need for knowledge, skills and values arises” (Smith, Stanley and Shores, 1957: 145). This is largely due to individual’s increased flexibility of thinking.
A variety of sociological research has focused on the link between one’s educational attainment and his social orientations. This is to mean that the quality of individual’s social
orientations and the quality of his life experiences are interrelated. For example, Kohn’s (1969) argues that close-knit relations within self-oriented groups usually lead to reductions in value variations. This means that an individual’s conception of “self”, of others, and of the facts around him in such groups is pictured within a comparatively limited perspective. Whereas an extensive experience of schooling, as Sieben and de Graaf (2004) explains, provides opportunities for contact among people with
different cultural backgrounds, thus maintains relationships among different groups in such a way that this process invokes the adoption of a variety of values through time. Jackman and Muha (1984) mention that higher-educated individuals are apt to develop somewhat more individualistic ideologies, non-conformity traits, and less-traditional life styles even if they can still develop a tolerance towards conservative cultural or economic values to a certain degree. The idea is that schooling can generate different forms of attitude, behaviour and ideology either through didactic teaching or through indirect
social learnings. The effects of schooling can eventually be observed also in the working life. For Kohn (ibid.), even autonomy and work complexity are the reflections of educational attainment and ways of social orientation. For many researchers, schooling has also a triggering effect in the cognitive development (see, for example, Vogt, 1997; Boudourides, 1998). The result is a critical attitude, a more self-confident and prospective individual.
All the above discussions imply that there must be a relationship among the level of education, conceptions of desirability of higher-order values, intellectual practices and reality constructions. For this reason, it can be assumed that individuals with quality educational backgrounds will have a potential to question the validity and meaning of traditionally defined norms and values, to be flexible to adapt to new situations and circumstances.
THE STUDY
On the basis of the aforementioned considerations, at the beginning of the study, it was hypothesized that level of education would matter in the characteristics of value-based social reality construction and levels of critical thinking . Therefore, the study meant to find answers to the following research questions :
(a) In what ways do the groups differ from each other in terms of their values ? What
kind of realities are constructed around such adopted values ?
(b) On the basis of their responses to the given task, do they differ in their critical
thinking skills ? What is the relation between reality constructions and critical thinking levels ?
(c) How effective is the level of education in these processes ?
Method
Selection of subjects
The set of data analyzed in this study is part of the database used for our earlier projects as mentioned. I selected the data of 50 subjects coming from the two radically different poles of
education so that assumed differences could be easily observed. The subjects, all of whom were living in Ankara, the capitol, consisted of Turkish adults between the ages of 30 and 45; 25 of whom were with a background of elementary school and 25 with a background of university education. Due to the nature of the research questions of this study, they had to be people with children; therefore, during the data selection process, I took this point into consideration. Although there is always a variety of factors influencing the ways of social construction of reality and critical thinking, within the
out all other factors such as sex, income, life standards, social networks, etc. The subjects had already filled in a short personal information questionnaire in which the schools/ faculties they graduated from, their ages and their occupations were asked about.
Data collection
The data analyzed for the purpose of this study were collected by means of two different sets of questions which expected written responses. The first set included four open-ended questions formulated to elicit in-depth information about the views of the subjects about their children’s education and personality development. While we analyzed the answers from the functional literacy and language use perspective in our earlier studies, now, views elicited around the given questions would be the representatives of the internalized values and their order of importance. These views, together with the answers given to the second set of questions, would also reflect certain features of critical thinking. The first set included the Turkish versions of the following questions :
1.
What are your ultimate expectations from the education of your child
?
2.
What positive personality traits do you expect your child to develop ?
3.
What examples of your child’s behavior would you find the most
favorable ?
4.
What examples of your child’s behavior would you find the most
unfavorable ?
Instead of using a structured questionnaire, it was preferred to use all open-ended questions in both sets. One advantage of such questions in this study is that they provided a wealth of
information since respondents were not forced to make a choice among given alternatives, thus had an opportunity to express their thoughts and values freely. Another advantage is the opportunity to better observe their ways of thinking critically. While the first two questions given to the subjects in the first set (questions # 1-2 above) served the identification of terminal values, the last two (questions # 3-4) were formulated to identify some of the instrumental values. Content validity of the questions was assured depending on the adequate representation of the responses of the subject-matter objectives.
The answers elicited from the second set of questions, together with the answers given to the first set, helped to identify levels of critical thinking. The subjects were asked to state a social problem in Turkey, which they personally found the most important. To serve this end, the subjects were provided with the beginnings of four different sentences, each of which marked the introduction, development and conclusion parts of a coherent text respectively. They were asked to complete and develop them . Below are their English translations :
1.
In my opinion, the most important social problem in Turkey is... ,
2.
I personally think the reasons for this problem are...
3.
My family and I are negatively affected by this problem, because....
4.
To solve this problem, ....
Data Analysis
The collected data from each set of questions had to be analyzed in a two-step process for the purpose of this study. The first step was the identification of the thematic content; the second step involved the identification of critical thinking levels.
Identification of the thematic content :
As dealing with answers given to open-ended questions is more difficult than with those given to purely structured questions, for the identification of the thematic content, it was first necessary to develop response categories through a process of content analysis. Prior to thematic analysis, responses given to each question by the subjects had to be written on a separate sheet. Examining responses one by one and ascertaining similarities and differences, those with similar meanings were combined under one meaningful category, even though the wording used by the subjects naturally changed. This way, it was possible to identify different categories, each based on a common theme (for the details of content validity and content analysis, see Krippendorff, 1980; Kumar, 1999; Bilgin 2000). Assigning a numerical value to each category and counting the occurrence of common
categories in responses (it was possible to observe more than one category in individual responses), distribution of the categories for each group was identified. This coding and classification process was applied to the responses of both elementary school and university graduates so that the quality of the instrumental and terminal values, that is, whether they are of lower- or higher order, could be compared. Inspired by the organization of Rokeach Inventory of Values (1973) and using content analysis techniques, I developed an inventory both for the terminal and instrumental values of the subjects. This inventory provided information not only on the similarity and difference of values, but also on their variety in each group.
Identification of critical thinking levels
To trace the levels of critical thinking, I used part of the criteria (those between A and E underlined below) developed by the CTILAC Group on critical thinkers (1998). According to the given criteria,
·
can approach something new in a logical manner
·
look at how others have approached the same question or problem, but
know when they need more information
·
use creative and diverse ways to generate a hypothesis, approach a problem
or answer a question ( A)
·
can take their critical skills and apply them to everyday life (B)
·
can clarify assumptions and recognize that they have causes and
consequences (C)
·
support their opinions with evidence, data, logical reasoning, and statistical
measures (D)
·
can look at a problem from multiple angles (E)
·
can not only fit the problem within a larger context, but decide if and
where it fits in the larger context
·
are comfortable with ambiguity.”
The responses provided for each blank in the second set were categorized first according to the common themes. Following the method used for the first set, similar answers written for each blank were combined under a category. However, the categorial analysis based on the common themes had to be further developed for this set to identify the level of critical literacy in each group. To this end, responses of each subject were evaluated in terms of the 5 selected criteria above. Assigning 20 points for each fulfilled criterion in responses, the structured essays were evaluated out of a total grade of 100. The average grade for the elementary school graduates was compared to the average grade found for the university graduates.
Findings And Evaluation
Content analysis of the given responses to question # 1 in the first set revealed the value categories (A-L) shown in Table 1. Linguistically speaking, responses to this and other questions were comparatively shorter, lacked clarity of expression, had morphological, syntactic, and orthographic problems in the elementary school graduate group (from this point on to be referred as Group 1). However, it was still possible to identify the terminal values expressed around the child’s education. The university graduate group ( from this point on to be referred to as Group 2), on the other hand, wrote more extensively and displayed a wider range of value variety. Although it is always possible to think about many other values around the given questions, it should be noted that the values given in the tables are the ones identified only through the analysis of subjects’ responses.
Below are the tables designed and explained on the basis of response analysis for each question in the first set :
Table 1a : Terminal values : expectations from the education of the child (question # 1)
Categories ( A – L ) Child’s… Percentages in Group 1 : Elementary School Graduates N=25 Order of importance in Group 1 Percentages in Group 2 : University Graduates N=25 Order of importance in Group 2
A being a university graduate 32% 3 68% 1
B having a good education 44% 2 32% 2
C having vocational training 0% - 4% 9
D having a post-graduate education 0% - 24% 4 E having a comfortable life 24% 4 12% 7
F having a good job 76% 1 32% 2
G being useful for mankind 0% - 24% 4
H realization of own goals and
interests
0% - 28% 3
country
J personality development 0% - 24% 4
K self-learning; learning through research 0% - 16% 6
L enjoying reading books 5% 6 20% 5
Number of identified value categories 6 12
Figure 1 : Distribution of value categories in Table 1a
As presented in Table 1a, types of terminal value categories and their distributions present outstanding differences between the two groups. In Group 1, the reality idealized around the child’s education depends mostly on having a good job in the future, because a good job is regarded as a tool providing a comfortable life. For Group 1 parents, who are mostly blue-collar workers, having a comfortable life means financial relief with better life standards. Parents think this is possible through having a good education, however, they do not necessarily specify level of education to the exception of the 32% of the subjects who mentioned university level. In general, it seems that parents’
conception of a good education is any level better than their own. Although some form of a good education is desired, it is interesting to note that only 5% of the subjects mentioned book reading as a useful outcome of education. Among the values identified, Group 1 members also consider process of education as a tool for the child to become a good citizen for the country. However, what is particulary intended by “becoming a good citizen” is not clearly explained in their responses. This is a very cliché-ridden remark in Turkish society, thus the exact definition of a “good citizen” here remains unclear for objective evaluation. In their responses to the first open-ended question, Group 1
categories and percentages give signs of comparatively limited reality perspectives, thus categories of meaning-giving to the education of the child reflect rather self-safety and material comfort-based lower-order values.
In Group 2, on the other hand, parents’ expectations mostly focus on the development of their children’s individual skills or personality characteristics. This group conceives education in various formal types and steps including vocational training and post-graduate education. Although “attending
university”, “having a good education” and “having a good job” are identified as the first three most common categories just as in Group 1, what differs is that “attending university” is given more
importance with a percentage of 68, not only because they think it provides chances for better jobs, but also it enhances personal assets and skills. Importance attached to such values is evident in the order and variety of other values presented in Table 1. While many of these values are non-existent in Group 1, identification of a variety of categories in Group 2 gives signs of a more detailed reality constructed around higher-level values. Among these categories are the child’s self-learning, being useful to mankind rather than to the country only, fulfilling his own goals and interests, etc. Needless to say, book reading is highly valued by parents in Group 2. It seems that Group 2 members’ conception of future is based mostly on individual development supported by university education, reading, and personality features with higher-order values.
Table 1b : Terminal values : Personality Traits Expected (question # 2)
Categories ( A- L) Child’s being… Percentages in Group 1 : Elementary School Graduates N=25 Order of importance in Group 1 Percentages in Group 2 : University Graduates N=25 Order of importance in Group 2 A successful 52% 1 76% 1 B independent/ self-confident 10% 3 36% 2 C organized, systematic 0% - 24% 5
D friendly and loving 24% 2 20% 6
E responsible 0% - 32% 3
F challenging, ambitious 4% 4 24% 5
G forgiving and helpful 8% 3 20% 6
H broadminded 0% - 12% 7
İ initiative 0% - 28% 4
J dependable 8% 3 24% 5
K creative 0% - 12% 7
L respectful to others’ opinions and rights
4% 4 32% 3
Number of identified value categories
Figure 2 : Distribution of value categories in Table 1b
As seen in Table 1b, parents in both groups highly value the child’s being successful. Yet, the idea of success is related mostly to school success in responses. Regardless of their educational backgrounds, parents attach such a great importance to school success that it is taken almost as a personality trait in both groups. Some personality traits naturally leading to success, such as being organized, systematic, responsible, broadminded, initiative and creative are taken into consideration only by Group 2 members while these are not even mentioned in Group 1. Thus for the majority of the parents in this group, any child with good grades at school seems to be regarded as having “good” personality features. However, they still refer to the importance of certain traits such as being friendly, loving, forgiving, helpful, dependable, ambitious, respectful, independent and self-confident, but many of these value categories show much lower percentages when compared to those in Group 2. Group 2 responses display not only a variety of values but also a higher degree of percentages for them. Reality constructed around expected personality traits in Group 1 generally marks the values underlying conformity, respect, help or love. These are also traditionally accepted values which underline group solidarity. Yet, those values which particularly foreground individual’s self-developing skills are observed mostly in Group 2 responses. When the percentages are considered, besides the valued characteristics such as being helpful, respectful, etc., it seems that parents in this group have expectations for a much self-confident, self-developing, broadminded and altruistic children, which indicate the perception of future on the basis of comparatively higher-order values. It is also noticed that Group 2 parents do not underestimate the importance of traditional values, but are aware of and open to new values and are willing to have them as part of their children’s personality characteristics.
Tables 1a and 1b display terminal values which focus on self- or society-based end-states. As the attainment of these terminal values are possible through the attainment of instrumental values, Tables 2a and 2b below provide us with some ideas about how the subjects conceive the way leading to the purpose :
Table 2 a : Instrumental Values : Favourable Values (question # 3 ) Favourable Values
(A-I)
Percentages in Group 1 : Elementary School Graduates N=25 Order of Importance in Group 1 Percentages in Group 2 : University Graduates N=25 Order of Importance in Group 2 A studying lessons 68% 2 40% 1 B obedience to elders 76% 1 28% 2 C reading books 5% 7 20% 4 D honesty 32% 4 28% 2 E being helpful 10% 5 24% 3 F learning from mistakes 0% - 12% 6
G being clean and tidy 8% 6 16% 5 H attending social activities 0% - 28% 2 I being economical 36% 3 9% 7 Total number of values 7 9
Figure 3 : Distribution of value categories in Table 2a.
Responses given to question #3 in the first set identified parents’ conception of favourable
personality traits in their children. The idea is that the child’s fulfillment of the favoured values or forms of behaviour , as parents guide them, can lead him/her to the attainment of some of the terminal values. Values identified through the response analyses displayed a rather poor link between how parents wish things to be and how they define the road leading to them. It was interesting to note that
parents in both groups expressed, to the exception of two values in Group 2, quite limited number of favourable values, most of which dwell on traditional ones. This sort of picture brings into mind such a consideration, especially for Group 2 parents : They do hold quality and far-reaching objectives for their children, but they, themselves as parents, do not guide or prepare their children for the attainment of these higher-order objectives at home. For example, these parents, though in changing percentages, define the child’s being independent and self-confident as one of the important terminal values, thus expect education to provide them with this characteristic, but none of the parents express related favourable values in their instrumental definitions so that the child develops into such a person as a result. Whether or not some of the terminal values have been truly internalized by the parents can be a matter of question here, but it is interesting to note this down in this analysis. Talking about the two exceptional instrumental values; these are” learning from mistakes” and “attending social activities”, which are stated only by Group 2 members. These instrumental values are theoretically more suitable to realize some of the expected end-states such as being creative, responsible, or independent, but one would certainly expect more goal-oriented values from the subjects, especially from those in Group 2.
Table 2a displays that higher-percentage Group 1 categories are mostly around self-security needs and traditionally accepted values. The child’s studying his lessons, being obedient to elders, being economical and honest are the most favoured examples of behaviour in this group. Group2 , on the other hand, still highlights the child’s studying hard, though with a comparatively lower percentage this time, and expresses two other favoured forms of behaviour, such as child’s being involved in social activities and learning from his own mistakes. In Group 2 traditional values are still given a considerable importance, though with changing percentages, but looking at reality seems not to have been framed merely by the forms of traditional ideologies. Findings reveal that Group 2 parents do not consider being economical as important as, for example, attending social activities.
Table 2b : Instrumental Values : Unfavourable values (question # 4 )
Unfavourable Values Percentages in Group 1 : Elementary School Graduates N=25 Order of Importance in Group 1 Percentages in Group 2 : University Graduates N=25 Order of Importance in Group 2 A laziness 48% 2 32% 2 B telling lies 44% 3 28% 3 C disobedience 72% 1 24% 5 D stealing 4% 5 16% 6 E being selfish 4% 5 24% 5 F being naughty 36% 4 12% 7 G irresponsibility 0% - 36% 1 H rote-learning 0% - 25% 4 Total number of values 6 8
Figure 4 : Distribution of value categories in Table 2 b.
As seen in Table 2b, the detected unfavourable values highlight “disobedience” in Group 1, but “irresponsibility” in Group 2 as the most disliked one. According to the priorities given to certain values in Group 1, a child should not be disobedient, nor should he be lazy, naughty and a lier. Whereas the second group defines irresponsibility, laziness, lying, rote-learning, selfishness and disobedience as negative examples of behaviour in varying degrees. Group 1 values, and thus reality constructed around unfavourable values, indicate the dominance of traditionally accepted ideologies in child-rearing practices. Variety and percentage of values observed in Group 2 definitions point to comparatively broader perspectives, for example, giving a consideration for “rote-learning”, which means that parents want their children to develop their cognitive skills and conscious learning. This also reflects parents’ way of looking at educational issues with somewhat broader perspectives. When percentages are also considered, the findings give clues of a more refined reality construction to the advantage of Group 1 members.
Analysis of Critical Thinking Skills
Table 4a below represents an analysis of the responses given to the first question in the second set. Following the method explained for the thematic analysis in the first set, the responses were thematically categorized first to find out whether problem specification differed between the two groups. It really did in relation to the variety of problems and in the order of the percentages showing the priority of one problem over the others. Specifying economy and the related problems as the most important was the highest common category among the elementary school graduates (74%). The problem specified as the next important one in this group was “unemployment” (33%). Fewer subjects (8%) referred to “education”, “the government” and “graft and corruption” as the most important current problems. When the variety of specified problems is considered, Group 1 is limited to 5 categories, highlighting the first three around the financial themes. Whereas the university graduate subjects, with a variety of 11 different categories, specified the problem of education as the most important one (48%), probably with a belief that at the root of most problems are the educational
issues. Although economy was given the second degree of importance (32%) in this group, there was no mention of “unemployment” in the subject responses. “Graft and corruption” and “unequal income distribution” were given of equal importance by the 12 percent of the subjects. The variety of the categories in this group surpasses that of the other group in number, showing a more developed ability to approach a question from multiple angles, which is part of elaborate critical thinking skills. Even though the first group suffered from economic problems, they did not mention “unequal income distribution”, probably because such a concept is unfamiliar to them or the term is not commonly employed in their active vocabulary. Similarly, the concepts such as “democracy”, “political
stability”, “creating artificial problems”, “lack of social memory” and “solidarity” do not take place in their discourses, most probably because they are not the inherent components of their reality
constructions.
Table 3a : Levels of critical thinking : stated problems
Type of Problems
Percentages in Group 1 :
Elementary School Graduates N=25 Percentages in Group 2 : University Graduates N=25 A economy 74% 32% B education 8% 48% C unemployment 33% 0% D the government 8% 4% E democracy 0% 4% F political stability 0% 9%
G creating artificial problems 0% 4%
H lack of social memory 0% 4%
I graft and corruption 8% 12%
J solidarity 0% 4%
K unequal income distribution 0% 12%
Figure 5 : Distribution of stated problems in Table 3a.
Table 3 b below displays the criteria applied to the responses given to the second set of questions. The right-hand side numerical values are the average grades given to each group after the analysis of responses.
Table 3 b : Levels of critical thinking : average of grades according to CTILAC criteria
Criteria (A-E)
Percentages in Group 1 : Elementary School Graduates N=25(Average grade out of 100) Percentages in Group 2 : University Graduates N=25
(Average grade out of 100) using creative and diverse ways to generate a hypothesis, approach a
problem or answer a question (A)
60 91
taking critical skills to apply them to everyday life (B)
75 94
clarifying assumptions and recognizing that they have causes and consequences (C)
51 89
supporting opinions with evidence, data, logical reasoning, or statistical measures (D)
4 20
looking at a problem from multiple angles (E) 42 86
Average grade : 46 76
Figure 6 : Distribution of average grades in Table 3 b.
For each criterion (A-E), the university graduates represent higher grades and the total average values indicate a difference of 30% to the advantage of Group 2. The results of this part of the analysis are particularly striking in the sense that Group 2 averages related to critical thinking skills are far beyond those of Group 1.
CONCLUSION
As mentioned in the beginning, all people create own realities that are shaped by the impact of society. This societal structure can be in the form of groups, clans, nations, etc. In any form, the impact of the social structure conditions the perception of its members in such a way that they get more alike throughout the process of socialization and the internalization of accepted values. However, differences are always the case due to different life experiences, cultural, ethnic or educational
backgrounds, life standards, etc. Bringing one of these variables into focus, in this study, I tried to present a tiny proportion of an extensive social picture on the basis of two educationally different groups in Turkish society. In relation to the research questions raised, the analyses carried out
presented noticeable results. In addition to the ones discussed in the evaluation section, here are some general points to conclude :
In the subject groups, reality constructions seem to have been based on the extent of information made available for individuals. As each consequent step in the educational ladder provides individuals not only with more elaborate forms of information, but also with various information-processing and skill-developing practices, the outcomes reflect in the ways individuals construct their subjective realities and express them discursively. In Group 1, it has been observed that reality around the given topic has been constructed around a limited number of values, most of which reflect the characteristics of the lower-order type. Many of these categories are the derivatives of the cultural core. As most works emphasize, beliefs, knowledge or cognition of individuals derive from shared experiences with the world around them. For this particular group, “the world” seems to be no more than the experiences taking place within their limited environment The ideologies by which these subjects rationalize their conduct of behaviour and upon which they build their expectations and hopes generally favour traditional and submissive traits. On the other hand, the reality of their basic aspirations is found in the social mobility and economic welfare, which would possibly enable their children to lead a better life in the future. Yet their judgements, which supply them with a sense of purpose and direction, are hardly supported by a need to challenge the core values or to broaden the horizons through a variety of differentiating ideologies.
It seems that there is a parallelism between this comparatively limited world-view and the employment of mostly simple sentence structures in their language use. Although linguistic
complexity features were not the purpose of this study, depending on the results of our earlier project on functional literacy and language use, it sounds now plausible to make such an inference. This finding seems to be another supporting evidence for the view pointing to the interaction between the complexity of cognitive structures and linguistic structures. The restricted value categories detected in this group are closely related to the level of complexity in concept formation. If this illustration is extended into the critical-thinking levels identified for this group, the results do not present a prospective picture at all. It would be too much of underestimation to assume that the subjects are indifferent to or unaware of the facts around. As displayed in Tables 3a and 3b, these subjects can specify problems and display the features of a certain degree of critical thinking. However, general patterns of problem specification, cause and effect recognition and logical reasoning observed in responses generally relate to self-serving and wealth-centered practical ends. This fact is the cause of the restricted views in their approaching to a problem. When the socio-economically defined living standards of this group in Turkey are taken into consideration, how much they can challenge the existing conditions is a matter of discussion. Certain exceptional individuals who have been involved in value-prospering social networks or activities in their lives may be the case. Depending on their levels of motivation and self-monitoring behavior, they can always have a chance to improve their visions and ways of linguistic expression. However, helping the individuals in this group to be wholesome members in the information or knowledge societies in general need well-planned and well-managed informal learning (or teaching ) processes. As Egbo (2000: 26) mentions, “life chances have much to do with opportunities that are provided by social conditions…”. Distinguishing between
options and ligatures, Egbo emphasizes the importance of both the experience in education and the
bonds that individuals develop with each other. These types of life chances have an undeniable role in the empowerment of individuals who are “at the sidelines of their societies”. “To secure the social relations of the emerging sociocultural and political milieu” (Rassool, 1999), individuals with limited reality constructions and critical thinking skills need to be placed on equal platforms.
The university graduate group, on the other hand, has been distinguished by the nature and variety of the terminal and instrumental values favoring the development of integrated personalities, self-realization needs, appreciation of personal assets and higher education. Many of the internalized values reflect the characteristics of higher-order value category. These subjects seem to have
developed an understanding of the rights of their children, even though certain forms of obedience are still expected. A good variety of values, which are logically compatible with one another, and the employment of mostly complex sentence structures in discourse are the cues of a broader perception of reality and more efficient ways of linguistic expression. In like manner and like degree, their critical awareness, made evident by their problem-specification and problem-solving skills, displays higher levels. From this illustration, it is possible to say that the university graduate subjects achieve both mental and behavioral transitions towards less dogmatic, independent and critical thinking. In comparison to the elementary school graduates, the university graduates may be associated with more elaborate patterns of critical thinking, however, this picture should not lead anybody to assume that the university education in Turkey employs a well-organized critical-awareness fostering programs by all means. Up to what degree university education, together with the other stages of formal education, develops various types of awareness practices is beyond the scope of this work, but an important point to bear in mind is that substantive social transformation cannot be realized unless all individuals and all stages of education are geared towards improvement. Critical thinking is a valued personal, educational and social asset necessary for such a process. This process is necessary for the knowledge society, the formation of which is among the important social objectives in most developing countries.
REFERENCES
Bakhtin, M.M. (1981) The Dialogic Imagination. University of Texas Press. Bartlett,F.C. (1932) Remembering. London : Cambridge University Press.
Berger, P.L. & Luckmann, T. (1989) The Social Construction of Reality. Anchor Books. Bilgin, N. (2000) İçerik Analizi. İzmir : Ege Üniversitesi, Edebiyat Fakültesi Yayınları. Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge University Press.
Boudourides, M.A. (1998) Constructivism and Education : A Shopper’s Guide. Contributed Paper at the International Conference on the Teaching of Mathematics. http://www.duth.gr/~mboudour. Released on 28 October, 2005
Büyükkantarcıoğlu, N., König,G., and F. Karahan. (2002) “The Relation Between Language Skills and Functional Literacy in University Graduates”. Kalbu Studijos : Studies about Languages. Kaunas: Technologija, No.2, pp. 87-93.
CTILAC (Critical Thinking and Information Literacy Across Curriculum) Faculty. “Critical Thinking Definition”. 18 Nov.1998 . http://www.bcc.ctc.edu/lmc/ilac/ ir.bcc.ctc.edu/critdef.htm (5 March 2004).
Egbo, B. (2000) Gender, Literacy and Life Chances in Sub-Saharan Africa. Clevedon : Multilingual Matters: The Language and Education Library.
Hall, E.W. (2000) What is Value ? : An Essay in Philosophical Analysis. London: Routledge. Inlow, G.M. (1972) Values in Transition: A Handbook. NewYork : John Wiley & Sons.
Jackman, M.R. and Muha, M.J. (1984) Education and Intergroup Attitudes : Moral Enlightment, Superficial Democratic Commitment, or Ideological Refinement ? American Sociological
Review,49, pp. 751-769.
Katz, D. (1960) The Functional Approach to the Study of Attitudes. Public Opinion Quarterly,,24, pp. 163-204.
Kohn, M.L. (1969) Class and Conformity: A Study in Values. Chicago : University of Chicago Press. König, G., N. Büyükkantarcıoğlu, and F. Karahan. (1999) “Evaluating Language Skills in the Context
of Functional Literacy: A Literacy Project with Turkish Speakers from a Sociolinguistic Perspective”. Paper presented at Lancaster University, “Discourses and Learning Conference”. 10-11 July.
König, G., N. Büyükkantarcıoğlu, and F. Karahan. (2000) “Woman Literacy and Language Awareness : Exploring the Language Skills of Primary School Graduate Women through a Sociolinguistic Perspective” Paper presented at “Sociolinguistic Symposium 2000 ”. University of the West of England, Bristol. 27-29 April.
Krippendorff, K. (2004) Content Analysis : An Introduction to Its Methodology (2nd. Edition) Sage
Publications, Inc.
Maslow, A.H. (1954) Motivation and Personality. NewYork: Harper.
Rassool, N. (1999) Literacy for Sustainable Development in the Age of Information. Clevedon : Multilingual Matters: The Language and Education Library.
Rokeach, M. (1973) The Nature of Human Values. New York : Free Press.
Rudinov, J. & Barry, E.V.(2004) Invitation to Critical Thinking (5th Edition) Thomson- Wadsworth.
Sandstrom,K.L., Martin, D.D., Fine, G.A. (2003) Symbols, Selves and Social Reality : A Symbolic
Interactionist Approach to Social Psychology and Sociology.
Sieben, I. and de Graaf, P.M. (2004) Schooling or Social Origin : The Bias in the Effect of
Educational Attainment on Social Orientations. European Sociological Review, 20, pp. 107-122. Scollon, R. (1998) Mediated Discourse Analysis as Social Interaction. Longman.
Scollon, R. (2001)
Mediated Discourse: The Nexus of Practice. Routledge
Searle, J. R. (1995) The Construction of Social Reality.The Free Press.
Smith, B.O., Stanley, W.O., Shores, J.H. (1957) Fundamentals of Curriculum Development. Harcourt, Brace & World Inc.
Van Dijk, T. A. (1990) Social Cognition and Discourse. Giles, H. and Robinson, W.P (Eds.)
Handbook of Language and Social Psychology. John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Vogt, W.P. (1997) Tolerance and Education: Learning to Live with Diversity and Difference. Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage Publications.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978) Mind in Society. Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L.S. (1987) Thinking and Speech. Plenum.
Wertsch, J.W. (1991) Voices of the Mind. Harvester- Wheatsheaf.
Wertsch, J.W. (1998) Mind as Action
