Despite the widespread usage of the term democracy, it has no unified meaning; therefore, there is a lack of clarity that makes it difficult to effectively communicate (Hay, 2006; Delos, 1945). In a broader sense; democracy refers to a way of lifeand it could only be learned by experience; namely, this experience initially begins in the family where the individuals could participate in decision-making process. Looking at it from another perspective, democracy refers to life styles of individuals regarding theiropinions,perceptions,expectations,and experienceswhile being members of a social group(Dewey, 1916). A recent definition of democracy is enabling individuals to have more freedom and more ability to position themselves in society with their identities, and thus it ultimately leads to a more peaceful and prolific life as individuals are integrated with their world and society (Karpat, 2010).

Similar to democracy, it is equally difficult to define education in a way that is universally agreed upon because every country develops its system of education to express and promote its unique socio-cultural identity, and also to meet the challenges of the times. Yet, in terms of sociological foundation of education, it is an overall accumulation and process in which an individual could achieve the personal development, skills, attitudes, and values in a society (Ergün,1994). In this sense, schools should be considered to be institutions more than what they teach to students yet provide an environment to socialize students to make them think, to learn, un-learn and re-learn (Koliba, 2008).  In this socialization process, students are expected to receive such education and values regarding democracy that is “a democratizing force that helps to prepare students to participate actively in all aspects of democratic life” (Pandey, 2005:72)

Democraticvalueshavefundamentalrolesin individuals’ life experiences, and in their interactions with the social groups they belong to. Values play an important role in the informal relationships in a society although laws regulate the official and formal relations (Duman et al, 2001: 8-11). Values should be taught in countries governed by democracy. Respect and responsibility could create a democratic society (Lickona, 1992). In this sense, incorporation of democratic principles, under-standing and teaching could be realized through the democratic values in a country.Teaching democratic values increases awareness of respecting others, gaining responsibilities, being honest, and living in a society peacefully (Veugelersand Kat, 2003).

Dobozy (2007) states that schools and teachers starting from primary schools stipulate students about democratic values; and they may be fortified to gain the skills to construct their own personal point of views about these abstract concepts based on their life experiences.  Students have the opportunity to gain democratic values such as equality, freedom, and justice in a school atmosphere where their teachers have always questioned how to help students indigenize the values, but not solely subjects of the study (TopkayaandYavuz, 2011). Therefore, the teacher’s role is highly significant in the future of a nation by shaping the minds of youths as the architects of the future generation (Subba, 2014: 38). The connection between education and democracy is considered to be important, as “an entire philosophy of government has seen increased education as the basic requirement of democracy” (Dahl et al., 2003; 57).

Democratic education is a process through which the principles and rules of democracy, the human rights, and freedoms are taught to young people of a society by converting these values into explicit or implicit goals in the curricula through learning experiences.The aim of democratic education is to educate citizens with independent, inquisitive and analytical overview to the world, and thoroughly familiar with the application of the rules of democracy, as well (Karakütük, 2001).

Having good implementation of democratic values in the curriculum program is the utmost important in terms of value, ability, and cornerstone in terms of teachers and their roles. In this context, the values have an important place in teacher’s professional life and understanding their students, and students’ values themselves.

The most important function of a democratic education is to improve the long-established idea of democracy in the human mind and to make democracy a natural form in human behavior and thoughts. Therefore, democratic education equates to "democratic order". According to Dewey; an ideal democracy demands the social responsibilities of the political life and a public, who have a high level education and responsibility consciousness enough (Gutek, 2001:217). Education in a free society awakens and develops the consciousness of democratic life, and allows the public to participate effectively in democratic life (Burton, 1968; cited by Gözütok, 2004:210).

Democracy and/or democratic values are leading concepts and rhetorically power for Turkey and have much importance all over the world; but the influence of these concepts over practice in educational settings has been difficult to measure. Thecurrent literature on democratic education in Turkish context has indicated that there have been several approaches to the value of education, such as the value of teachers in the curricula, the place of teacher in the value of education, and the approaches used to develop the skills of value were among the most discussed subjects in which “teacher” and “values” alike were discussed (Akba?, 2004; 2009; Akkiprik, 2007; Balo?luandBalgalm??, 2005; Can, 2008; Çengelci, 2010 Do?anayand Sar?, 2004; DemirandDemirhan, 2007; Deveciand Dal, 2007; Fidan, 2009; Koç, 2007; Ku?, 2009; Özen, 2008; Sar?, 2007; ?en, 2007; Tokdemir, 2007; Yalar, 2010; Y?ld?r?m, 2009).

Democratic values and attitudes of teachers have an impact on teachers’ decisions and practices (TopkayaandYavu, 2011). In a study, Topkaya and Yavu (2011) investigated democratic values and teacher self-efficacy perceptions of 294 pre-service English teachers in the Turkish context. Results indicated that they gained very high democratic values but there was no significant differences based on gender. Further, democratic values are correlated with self-efficacy perceptions.This study has focused ontwo different but practically integrated aspects with regard to what is taught as the value of democracy and how it is taughtin a teaching environment. The present research gives a special emphasis to the notion of democratic classroom environment while teaching democratic values. Specifically, this paper aims to examine prospective teachers’ democratic values in Turkish education context.

Research design

This studyis a descriptive study in which a survey model was utilized to determine the democratic values of the prospective teachers in the fourth year from the different departments of a faculty of education in a Turkish state university. The studies were carried out with survey models and were aimed to determine and describe the specifications of the mass and the present situation (Büyüköztürk et al., 2012).

Research group

The research group is a total 402 prospective teachers studying in Department of Preschool Teaching (n = 41), Guidance and Counseling (n = 41), Social Studies Teaching (n = 75), Science Teaching (n = 60), Primary School Teaching (n = 108), Turkish Teaching (n = 77) in the faculty of education.

Instrument

‘Democratic Values Scale’ developed by Selvi (2006) was used to collect the data. The likert-type scale consists of 24 items, including three sub-dimensions and its factor load values range from .41 to .72. The sum variance explained by sub-dimensions is 44.81%. These have shown that the validity of this scale is high. The first sub-dimension, which is ‘Right to Education’, contains nine items and its variance is 17.74%. The second sub-dimension, which is ‘Solidarity’, similarly contains nine items and its variance is 15.83%. The third sub-dimension, ‘Freedom’ contains six items and its variance 11.24%. Cronbach's alpha reliability coefficient of the scale is .87; the first sub-dimension is .84; the second sub-dimension is .82; the third sub-dimension is .70. Sum of correlations of the items ranges from .25 to .62. The higher points in the scale indicate that prospective teachers have a high level of participation to democratic values (Selvi, 2006: 1174-1176).

In this study, the scale reliability co-efficiency and co-efficiencies of the sub-dimensions are presented in Table 1.

The reliability analyses were performed to examine reliability level of the scale and its sub-levels. The results showed that the Cronbach alpha values are over.70, indicating that the scale is reliable. Cronbach's Alpha of the scale is 892. Cronbach's Alpha values for the sub-levels are: for the freedom sub-level is, 704, for the solidarity.866, and for the Right to Education is .890.

A series of inferential statistics were conducted to examine significant differences among department, mode of education and gender and the levels of the scale. The results are presented in Table 2.

The analysis oftotal points of the scale

Table 2 shows ANOVA statistics that were performed to examine significant differences among departments. The results showed that there was no significant differences among students who attend different departments [F (5,396)=1 .758, p>0.05], indicating that students’ departments do not impact their democratic values. The highest mean score was obtained for preschool education department students (=100,48) while the lowest mean score was obtained for psychological counseling and guidance department students ( =94,14). Table 3shows the t-test analyses that were conducted to examine significant differences between day group students and evening group students regarding their democratic values. The results indicated that there was no significant difference [t (399) =1.078, p= .281,  p> .05].  The mean scores were similar across groups; the mean score obtained for day group students is ( =98,48) while the mean scoreobtained for the evening group is  ( =97,18).

Table 4 shows the t-test analyses that were conducted to examine significant differences between male and female students regarding their democratic values. The results indicated that there was no significant difference [t (399) =.410, p= .682,  p> .05].  The mean score for males is (=98,30) while for females is (=97,18).

Inferential statistics regarding the sub-dimension named “Right to Education”

Table 5 shows ANOVA statistics thatwere performedtoexamine significant differences between the students’ Right to Education and values based on their departments. The results showed that there were no significant differences among students from different departments [F(5,396)=2 .015,  p>0.05]. The highest mean  score   was   obtained   for    preschool   education department students ( =40,38) while the lowest mean score was obtained for psychological counseling and guidance department students in Right to Education level ( =37,41).

Table 6 shows the t-test analyses that wereconducted to examine significant differences between day group students and evening group students regarding Right toEducation level. The results indicated that there was no significant difference [t (399) =1.385, p= .167, p > .05]. The mean scores were similar across groups; the mean score obtained for day group students is ( =39,94) while the mean score obtained for the evening group is  ( =39,13).

Table 7 shows the t-test analyses that were conducted to examine significant differences between male and female students regarding their “Right to Education” level. The results indicated that there was no significant difference between males and females [t (399) =.163, p= .870, p > .05].  The mean score for males is (=39,60 while for females is ( =39,69)

The results indicated that there was no significant difference [t (399) =1,738 p= .399, p > .05].  The mean score for the males is (=20,58) while for the females is ( =20,11).

Inferential statistics regarding the sub-dimension named “Freedom”

Table 11 shows the ANOVA analyses that were conducted to examine significant differences among students studying in different departments in terms of freedom.The results indicated that there was a significant difference [F(5,396)=4 .214,  p<0.05]. The highest mean score obtained for preschool education department students is (=21,34) while the lowest mean score was obtained for science department students in the freedom level ( =19,40).

 There were significant differences among social sciences, preschool education and science education departments. In this context: on one hand; thePost Hoc test is usedto examine the significance differences among the group; on the other hand, Tukey method in Post Hoc testis used to determine the differences of groups. The results showed that there were significant differences between Preschool Teaching and Social Studies departments (p<0.05). When analyzing the differences among groups, it was seen as the arithmetical mean( =21,34) of Preschool Teaching and the arithmetical mean ( =19,76) of Social Studies department. This difference seemed to be in favor of Preschool Teaching department. A significant difference between Preschool Teaching and Science Teaching departments (p<0.05) was found. When analyzing the differences among groups, it was seen as the arithmetical meanof Preschool Teaching( =21,34)  and the arith-metical meanof Science Teaching department (=19,40). This difference seemed to be in favor of Preschool Teaching department. The students attending the preschool education department significantly differed from others in terms of solidarity.

Table 12 shows the t-test analyses that were conducted to examine significant differences between day group students and evening group students regarding freedom. The results indicated that there was no significant difference [t (399) =.703, p= .482, p > .05].  The mean scores were similar across groups; the mean score that was obtained for day group students is ( =20,38) while the mean score that was obtained for the evening group is  ( =20,18)

Table 13 shows the t-test results conducted to examine significant differences between male and female students regarding freedom. The results indicated that there was no significant difference [t (399) =1.738, p= .083,  p> .05].   The mean score for the males is ( =20,58) while for the females is (=20,11).

This paper reached the following results: First, this study showed that there were no significant differences among departments based on the total scores [F (5,396)=1.758, p>0.05]. This result was supported by a study of Sad?k and Sar? (2011) who found that the teacher candidates are well aware of the democratic values.This result may give the impression that it is important for social sciences undergraduate students to exhibit behaviors related to democratic values. Taken up by teachers doing the courses fordemocratic values,it seems that the teachers have democratic values of academics; there is a significant relationshipamong them if there can be examined taking into account a variety of variables (Yaz?c?, 2011).Ak?n and Özdemir (2009) found no significant differentiation in solidarity and freedom levels. However, Gömleksizand Kan (2008) founda significant difference in terms of democratic attitudes of the teacher candidate students. Democratic attitudes of the social sciences teacher candidates were higher than the science teacher candidates. The discrepancy between the two studies may stem from the absence of the science education program students. Further, Aydemir and Aksoy (2010) found a significant difference between the department and democratic attitudes.Aydemir and Aksoy (2010) also found significant differences among the teacher candidates departments and their democratic attitudes.

Second, the mode of education (e.g. dayor evening) did not impact the students’ democratic values [t (399) =1.078, p= .281,  p> .05]. 

Third, males and females do not significantly differ in the democratic values[t (399) =.410, p= .682, p> .05].There are several studies that have found mixed results.Karahan et al. (2006) found no significant differences between male and female students’ democratic attitudes. In a study, Do?anay and Sari (2006) found that the perception of female students was higher than the boys yet there was no significant difference. However, there are few studies that found significant differences between male and female teachers’ democratic values.  For example,Ak?nandÖzdemir(2009)foundthat prospective teachers’ democratic values significantly differed by gender; especially their values regarding freedom and solidarity differed significantly based on gender. Some studies also found that females have a more democratic attitude than males (GömleksizandKan, 2008; Karahan et al., 2006). Demoulin and Kolstad (2000) examined 1452 teacher candidates’ democratic values. They found that female teachers had more democratic maturity than males.Karaman and Kepenekçi’s (2006) studyalso indicated that female students had a more positive attitude towards children's rights.Aydemir andAksoy(2010) found a significant difference between democratic attitudes of students by gender. Democratic attitudes of female students were found to be more positive than male students.

Fourth, departments did not impact upon “Right to Education” values of the teacher candidates[F (5,396)=2 .015,  p>0.05]. Yet, Preschool department students scored high in this level ( =40,31)while psychological counseling and guidance department students received the lowest score

(=37,41).This result was again supported bySad?k and Sar?(2011)’sstudy whofound that teacher candidates perceive democracy as the concept of equality and freedom. Ak?n and Özdemir (2009) found similar results regarding teachers’ values about Right to Education, solidarity and freedom. However, Gömleksiz and Kan (2008) found that social science teacher candidates significantly differed from science teacher candidates in terms of democratic attitude. The source of this difference between the two surveys may stem from the absence of the Science Education Program students in this paper.Aydemir and Aksoy (2010) similarly found thatstudents studying at different departmentsdiffered significantly about their democratic attitudes.

Fifth, male and female students did not significantly differ in terms of Right to Education level [t (399) =.163, p= .870, p> .05].  In parallel to our findings; Karahan et al. (2006) found no significant different between the teacher candidates gender and their democratic attitude.Do?anay and Sari (2006) found that although the average perception of female students higher than the average for boys, there wasno significant difference at this level.However, there are several studies that found significant relations between teachers’ gender and their democratic values.Ak?n and Özdemir (2009)found thatdemocratic values in the education of prospective teachers by gender significantly differed; especially freedom and solidarity values of males and females differed significantly; women had more democratic attitudes toward students than males (GömleksizandKan, 2008; Karahanet al., 2006). Demoulin and Kolstad (2000) investigated 1452 teacher candidates’ democratic maturity. They found that female teachers had democratic maturity males. Karaman and Kepenekçi (2006)’s study also concluded that female students hada more positive attitude towards children's rights. Aydemir and Aksoy (2010) found that gender impacted upon the democratic attitude of students. Democratic attitudes of female students are more positive than male students

Sixth, there was no significant difference between mode of education and Right to Education level [t (399) =1.385, p= .167, p> .05]. The mean scores were similar across groups. The former literature does not include similar results to our best knowledge; therefore this result is important for further research.

Seventh, the results indicated that there were no significant differences among students studying in different departments and their solidarity values [F (5,396)=1 .860,  p>0.05]. The highest mean score was obtained for preschool education department students ( =38,82), while the lowest mean score was obtained for psychological counseling and guidance department students in the solidarity level( =35,90). Ak?n and Özdemir (2009) found thatthere were no significant differences among teachers in terms of solidarity and freedom values.However, Gömleksiz and Kan (2008) found significant differences among teacher candidates’ solidarity values. Ak?n and Özdemir (2009)found that there was no significant differentiation in solidarity and freedom subscale.

Eighth, the results indicated that there was no significant difference between day group students and evening group students regarding solidarity[t (399) =.532, p= .595,  p> .05].  The mean scores were similar across groups.

Ninth, males and females did not differ significantly in terms of solidarity.[t (399) =.163, p= .870,  p > .05].  In parallel to our findings; Karahan et al. (2006) found no significant difference between the teacher candidates’ gender and their democratic attitude.Do?anay and Sari (2006) found that although the average perception of female students is higher than the average for boys, there was no significant difference at this level.

Tenth, there were significant differences among departments and freedom [F(5,396)=4 .214,  p<0.05]. The highest mean score obtained for preschool education department students is ( =21,34)while the lowest mean score was obtained for science department students in the freedom levelis ( =19,40).

Eleventh, there was no significant difference between solidarity and mode of education [t (399) =.703, p= .482, p> .05]. 

Twelfth, males and females did not significantly differ in terms of freedom [t (399) =1.738, p= .083,  p> .05].  In parallel to our findings; Karahan et al. (2006) said teacher candidates havinga significant difference depending on gender in research has not been established; that they deal with the democratic attitude.

The foundation of Democracy and Democratic Values have taken place in the last hundred years including the accompanying changes in political and educational doctrines since the end of the eighteenth century. When we have analyzed the constitutions of both Turkey and USA, there seems a change and continuum on the structure of constitutions, that is to say, from being RepublicantobecomingDemocratic.In turn, by analyzingthe educationalapproachesanddoctrines,the philosophy of education has taken fundamental steps to equally provide “Right to Education”, “Solidarity”, and “Freedom” to all students and participants in education in framework of Democratic Value in Education in the same way in which there were three fundamental steps in democracy: the abolition of slavery, the elimination of oligarchical privileges (whether claimed by birth and wealth), and with the removal of class distinctions based on color, race, and sex (Adler, 1944: 80).

Firstly, in this perspective, when we have evaluated the first findings in which there were no significant differences among departments, mode of education andgenders based on the total scores [F (5,396)=1.758, p>0.05], it could be said that the sampling departments are well aware of democratic values in their classroom in terms of department, mode of education[t (399) =1.078, p= .281,  p > .05] and genders[t (399) =.410, p= .682,  p > .05]. Namely, they could exhibit the behaviors related to democratic values with the help of academic courses and academicians having the democracy feeling and values. It could be said that the academic life and lectures are designed to the democratic sensibility and values in a planned and intentionally to remove the class distinctions based on mode of education and sex as Adler (1944) said.

Secondly, when we analyzed the findings in terms of sub-dimensions of the scale, as the same was before, it could be said that there was not a significantly different impact over the departments [F(5,396)=2 .015,  p>0.05], genders [t (399) =.163, p= .870,  p > .05], and mode of education [t (399) =1.385, p= .167,  p > .05] in the democratic values in the subscale named“Right to Education”; furthermore, no significant impact over thegenders [t (399) =.163, p= .870,  p > .05], and mode of education [t (399) =.703, p= .482,  p > .05] in the democratic values in the subscale named“Solidarity”. In variable named mode of education, the former literature does not include similar results to our best knowledge; therefore we could mention that this result is important for further research. In this context, the whole students from the sampling department have strong beliefs in the subscale named “Right to Education”and “Solidarity”. This has also shown that the students who graduated from these departments regardless of their mode of education and genders in the subscale named  “Right to Education” and “Solidarity” have had a more positive attitude towards future children's rights to education.

Lastly, when we analyzed the findings in terms of sub-dimensions of the scale, as the same was before, it could be said that there is significant impact on the departments [F (5,396)=4 .214,  p<0.05], but no significant impact on genders [t (399) =1.738, p= .083,  p > .05]  and in the democratic values in the subscale named“Freedom”. The notionof Freedom superseded individual freedoms which were seen as bourgeois values meant to perpetuate the rule of the capitalist elite. The ability of regimes to distort the meanings of freedom, democracy, and equality was not a result of the naivety of the public but of brute force utilized by the various governments to impose their will, and their definitions (Abukhalil, 1997: 150). If we could evaluate the finding to reach a conclusion from this statement, the notion of freedom is supposed to depend on governmental policy and doctrines. This shows that the constitution of democratic values, including “Right to Education”, “Solidarity”, and lastly “Freedom” depend on to what extent a state and/or government hasa well-established freedom notion. From this point of view, we could say this study is so important to demonstrate in different ways and approaches that there is a democratically well-equipped and planned doctrine and philosophy of education in Turkey. In turn, this reflects on teachers and class, as well as prospective students.

The authors have not declared any conflict of interests.