LIFE VALUES OF AMERICAN STUDENTS: HISTORICAL AND PEDAGOGICAL ASPECTS

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.31499/2306-5532.3-4.2017.135854

Keywords:

values, valuebenchmarks, terminal life values, instrumental life values, life values, functions of life values, American students, education, higher educational establishments, historical and pedagogical aspects

Abstract

The article presents the historical and pedagogical aspects of American students’ life values problem. The scientific views of American scientists on the problem of life values are analyzed. The most common is the understanding of life’s values as the foundation on which everyone builds their own life; as the principles of life, which determine how one should behave; as a beliefthat occupies a central posi-tion in the individual’s system of beliefs. In different historical periods, the most im-portant life values of American youth were the ability to intercultural communi-cation, freedom of choice, professional competitiveness, family well-being. American methods of studying terminal and instrumental life values of students in the process of obtaining their education in higher educational institutions have been described. The following main terminal values of American students at the beginning of the twenty-first century are highlighted: the existence of a family, self development, freedom of choice (statements and activities), pluralism and democracy in public relations, patriotism and active social position, professionalism and compete-tiveness, financialsecurity, health and fitness. Attention is drawn to the following functions ofAmerican students’ life values: 1) orientational towards ideals and pat-terns of activity; 2) constructive about life strategies; 3) normative about behavior styles. Curricula and programs of American higher education institutions are aimed at developing the students’life values in the following areas: spiritual, mental, eth-nopsychological, humanistic-communicative, social socialization, socio-political, professional competence and competitiveness, culture of health and safety.

References

Hall, E. T. (1983) Hidden Differences: Studies in International Communication. Grunder & Jahr, 24.

Jenkins, R. H. (2003) Franklin Delanj Roosevelt: The American Presidents Series: The 32nd President, 1933–1945. Times Books.November 4.

Kerr, Clark. (1991) The Great Transformation in Higher Education, 1960–1980. State University of New York Press.

Lechuga, V. M. (2008) Assessment, knowledge, and customer service: Contextualizing faculty work at for-profit colleges and universities. The Review of Higher Education, 31(3), 287–307.

Rogers, С. (1983) Freedom to Learn for the 80s. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Company.

Rogers, C. (1972) Bringing Together Ideas and Feelings in Learning. Learning Today, 5, Spring, 32–43.

Rokeach, M. (1973) The Nature of Human Values. New York: Free Press.

Schwartz, S. H. and Bilsky, W. (1990) Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 878–891.

Schwartz, S. H. and Boehnke, K. (2004) Evaluating the structure of human values with confirmatory factor analysis. The Journal of Research in Personality, 38, 230–255.

Seiden, M. (2009) For-Profit Colleges Deserve Some Respect. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 55 (41), 80.

Sheth, J. N., Newman, B. I. and Gross, B. L. (1991) Why We Buy What We Buy: A Theory of Consumption Values. Journal of Business Research, 22, 159–170.

Trager, G. L. and Hall, E. T. (1954) «Culture as communication: A Model and an Analysis.» Explora-tions 3, 137–149.

Downloads

Published

2017-12-31

How to Cite

Ocheretіanуі A. (2017). LIFE VALUES OF AMERICAN STUDENTS: HISTORICAL AND PEDAGOGICAL ASPECTS. Studies in Comparative Education, (3-4). https://doi.org/10.31499/2306-5532.3-4.2017.135854

Issue

Section

ISTORIYA TA METODOLOGIYA PORIVNIALNYH DOSLIDZHEN