Issuu

Scholarly Research Journal for Humanity Science & English Language, Online ISSN 2348-3083, SJ IMPACT FACTOR 2016 = 4.44, www.srjis.com UGC Approved Sr. No.48612, FEB-MAR 2018, VOL- 6/26

https://doi.org/10.21922/srjhsel.v6i26.11683 LIFESTYLE OF PUPIL TEACHERS WITH RESPECT TO GENDER AND STREAM Seema Dhawan1, Ph. D. & Shivani Upreti2 1

Associate Professor, School of Education, Birla Campus, H.N.B. Garhwal University,

Srinagar, Garhwal 2

Researcher, Birla Campus, H.N.B. Garhwal University, Srinagar, Garhwal Abstract

In the last few years we all have seen a very huge change in the discussion of issues related with our environment and our development. Now everyone is concerned about following healthy lifestyle. It is being widely seen today that the lifestyle of teachers is gradually changing, due to adaptation of modern ways of living and altered lifestyle pattern. Healthy lifestyle has direct impact on the personality of the teachers. Teachers are role model of the students, so it is expected from them that they must follow healthy lifestyle. It is very important to know about the lifestyles of male and female pupil teachers. Also we should know whether there is any difference in the lifestyle of graduate and post graduate pupil teachers. Here an attempt has been taken to study the lifestyle of B.Ed pupil teachers of Pauri Garhwal and Dehradun district. Keywords: Environment, Development, Pupil Teachers, Lifestyle,

R4Z

Scholarly Research Journal's is licensed Based on a work at www.srjis.com

Introduction Life style of an individual is a function of education, relationships, socialization, personality, physical and mental ability and many other resources. Lifestyles affect our physical, mental, emotional and social status. According to WHO (2013) the major causes of global deaths are largely related with lifestyle. A good and healthy life style is an important predictor of future health, productivity and life expectancy (Fahey et. al., 2009).The way we live our life has a great impact on our capabilities to get success and satisfaction in our life. We must live within the means of our natural systems to follow healthy lifestyle and ensure that our lifestyle doesn’t harm anyone in our society and culture. “Young people around the world are well aware of environmental challenges, but the connection between such challenges and their lifestyles is not clear to them. There is a great need to translate these challenges into actions and opportunities at the local and individual level, as well as to create a holistic and pragmatic vision of what a sustainable society is.”Fabienne Pierre, UNEP. Copyright © 2017, Scholarly Research Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies

Dr. Seema Dhawan & Shivani Upreti (Pg. 7578-7588)

7579

Lifestyle is a way of life which shows the attitudes and values of a person or group. When a set of attitudes, possessions or habits are associated with a particular person or group we say that it is his or their lifestyle. Lifestyle also shows our self-image or self-concept. It shows us the way we see our self and believe how we are seen by the others. Lifestyle is a blend of motivations, needs, and wants and is influenced by factors such as culture, family and social class. Life style of an individual is a function of education, relationships, socialization, personality, physical and mental ability and many other resources. Lifestyles affect our physical, mental, emotional and social status. According to WHO (2013) the major causes of global deaths are largely related with lifestyle. A good and healthy life style is an important predictor of future health, productivity and life expectancy (Fahey et. al., 2009). The way we live our life has a great impact on our capabilities to get success and satisfaction in our life.All of us believe that higher education is the way to implant sustainable lifestyles into our society. It is observed by ‘The National Knowledge Commission (NKC)’ that teachers are very important element of the school system and so we must give concern to their training. If we want to achieve the goals of sustainable development, it is very important to emphasize on the sustainable lifestyle of pupil teachers. Also we must consider how the pupil teachers visualize and implement their concepts of sustainable lifestyle into their teaching strategies and styles? How could they interact in the classroom with students to make them competent in sustainable lifestyles? We can define lifestyle as ‘a person’s pattern of living expressed through his/her activities, interests and opinions’. Keeping this in mind a person may have health conscious, academic oriented, career oriented, socially oriented, trend seeking or family oriented lifestyle. Health conscious lifestyle is the lifestyle in which the individual always remains conscious for keeping himself physically fit and fine. Academic oriented lifestyle refers to the lifestyle of an individual who always remains involved in his academic field. Career oriented lifestyle is the lifestyle in which the person is always curious to gain more and more knowledge in his career. Socially oriented lifestyle refers to the lifestyle of an individual who always participates in social activities and is always keen to do good for society. Trend seeking lifestyle is the lifestyle of an individual who is always keen to adopt new fashion and always willing to update himself with new trends. Family oriented lifestyle is the lifestyle of an individual who is always in close touch with his family and shares each and every moment of his /her daily activities with family. Copyright © 2017, Scholarly Research Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies

Dr. Seema Dhawan & Shivani Upreti (Pg. 7578-7588)

7580

In spite of this great importance of healthy lifestyles of pupil teachers, only a few studies have been conducted on the lifestyles of pupil teachers. Realizing the importance of lifestyle in the society and the role which pupil teachers are supposed to play to achieve Sustainable Development Goals, the researcher has worked on the lifestyle of pupil teachers. The main objectives of the study were to compare the lifestyles of male and female pupil teachers and to compare the lifestyle of pupil teachers having science and arts stream. To achieve these objectives null hypotheses were framed. From the review of the literature, it was found that there exists a significant difference in the life styles of respondents based on gender. Life style of female students was found better as compared to their male counterparts, Adarmaja,et.al. (2010). Janse Van Rensburg, C. and Surujlal, J. (2013) studied the gender differences related to the health and life style patterns of university students and found that university students used to engage in behaviors and life styles that placed them at risk for serious health problems. Lifestyle habits of females showed that they exercise more than their male counterparts. Female students showed a higher stress than male students. Pouyamanesh, J. (2014) studied the effect of bad lifestyle on increasing aggression. He reported that a significant difference exists in the aggression of two groups of students with good and bad lifestyle. Total average aggression for students with bad lifestyle was higher than students with good lifestyle. Methodology ‘Descriptive Method’ has been used for the present study. All the B.Ed pupil teachers of B.Ed colleges affliated with HNB Garhwal University of district Pauri Garhwal and Dehradun were taken as the population of the study. The sample of the study was 300. The subjects were selected using random sampling technique from different colleges affiliated to HNBGU. 80 pupil teachers were selected from B.Ed department of Birla Campus of HNBGU at Srinagar, district Pauri Garhwal and 220 pupil teachers were selected from B.Ed colleges affiliated to Garhwal University at District Dehradun. ‘Life Style Scale’ developed by ‘S.K. Bawa and S. Kaur’ has been used to collect the data to study the lifestyle of pupil teachers. Life style scale consists of 60 items. There are 43 Positive and 17 negative items in the scale. This scale measures the life style in six areas, which are: (a) Health Conscious Lifestyle, (b) Academic oriented Lifestyle, (c) Career Oriented Lifestyle, (d) Socially oriented Lifestyle, (e) Trend Seeking Lifestyle, (f)Family Oriented Lifestyle. Life style scale is a five point scale and five response categories are provided for each item: Entirely Agree, Mostly Agree, Somewhat agree, Indifferent, Somewhat Disagree, Mostly Disagree and Entirely Disagree. Copyright © 2017, Scholarly Research Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies

Dr. Seema Dhawan & Shivani Upreti (Pg. 7578-7588)

7581

The positive items are scored as 4, 3,2,1,0 and negative items are scored as 0,1,2,3 and 4 for the responses Strongly Agree, Agree, Indifferent, Disagree and Strongly Disagree. The t-test was used to find out the differences. Results: Life style of male and female pupil teachers Table-1 (df=298) Gender N Health Lifestyle Academic Lifestyle Career Lifestyle Socially Lifestyle Trend Lifestyle Family Lifestyle

Conscious Male Female Oriented Male Female Oriented Male Female Oriented Male Female Seeking Male Female Oriented Male Female

57 243 57 243 57 243 57 243 57 243 57 243

Mean Std. Deviation 26.33 5.475 25.39 4.913 25.51 5.319 25.15 4.626 27.81 6.783 27.43 4.655 21.35 5.337 22.67 3.905 19.42 5.109 19.68 5.296 33.81 6.870 36.10 5.380

Std. Error t Mean .725 1.275 .315 .704 .508 .297 .898 .503 .299 .707 -2.123* .250 .677 -.333 .340 .910 -2.742** .345

** = Significant at 0.01 Level of Significance. * = Significant at 0.05 Level of Significance. The table no.1 presents the lifestyle of male and female pupil teachers. Total pupil teachers studied were 300 out of which 57 were male and 243 were female. The mean score of health conscious lifestyle, academic oriented lifestyle, career oriented lifestyle, socially oriented lifestyle, trend seeking lifestyle and family oriented lifestyle of male pupil teachers were 26.33, 25.51, 27.81, 21.35, 19.42, 33.81 respectively. These mean scores indicate that male pupil teachers adapt family oriented lifestyle most which is followed by career oriented lifestyle, health conscious lifestyle, academic oriented lifestyle, socially oriented lifestyle and trend seeking lifestyle. These values show that male pupil teachers adapt family oriented lifestyle most while trend seeking lifestyle is least adapted by them. On the other hand, the mean score of health conscious lifestyle, academic oriented lifestyle, career oriented lifestyle, socially oriented lifestyle, trend seeking lifestyle and family oriented lifestyle of female pupil teachers were 25.39, 25.15, 27.43, 22.67, 19.68, 36.10 respectively. These mean scores indicate that female pupil teachers adapt family oriented lifestyle most which is followed by career oriented lifestyle, health conscious lifestyle, academic oriented lifestyle, socially oriented lifestyle and trend seeking lifestyle. Copyright ÂŠ 2017, Scholarly Research Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies

Dr. Seema Dhawan & Shivani Upreti (Pg. 7578-7588)

7582

These values show that female pupil teachers adapt family oriented lifestyle most while trend seeking lifestyle is least adapted by the female pupil teachers. The table also depicts that the mean and S.D. values of the male and female pupil teachers for their health conscious lifestyle were 26.33, 5.47 and 25.39, 4.91 respectively and SE was found to be .72 and .31. The calculated t value for health conscious lifestyle was found 1.27 , which is not significant at 0.05 level of significance. Thus, the null hypothesis formulated that there will be no significant difference between the health conscious lifestyle of male and female pupil teachers is not rejected. It means that there is no significant difference between the adaptation of health conscious lifestyle of male and female pupil teachers. For academic oriented lifestyle, the mean and S.D. values of the male and female pupil teachers were 25.51, 5.31 and 25.15, 4.62 respectively and SE was found to be .70 and .29. The calculated t value for academic oriented lifestyle was found .50, which is not significant at 0.05 level of significance. Thus the null hypothesis formulated that there will be no significant difference between the academic oriented lifestyle of male and female pupil teachers is not rejected. It means that there is no significant difference in the adaptation of academic oriented lifestyle of male and female pupil teachers. For career oriented lifestyle, the mean and S.D. values of the male and female pupil teachers were 27.81, 6.78 and 27.43, 4.65 respectively and SE was found to be .89 and .29. The calculated t value for career oriented lifestyle was found .50 , which is not significant at 0.05 level of significance. Thus the null hypothesis formulated that there will be no significant difference between the career oriented lifestyle of male and female pupil teachers is not rejected. It means that there is no significant difference in the adaptation of career oriented lifestyle of male and female pupil teachers. For socially oriented lifestyle, the mean and S.D. values of the male and female pupil teachers were 21.35, 5.33 and 22.67, 3.90 respectively and SE was found to be .70 and .25. The calculated t value for socially oriented lifestyle was found -2.12, which is significant at 0.05 level of significance. Thus the null hypothesis formulated that there will be no significant difference between the socially oriented lifestyle of male and female pupil teachers is rejected. It means that there is significant difference in the adaptation of socially oriented lifestyle of male and female pupil teachers. Female pupil teachers adapt more socially oriented lifestyle than the male pupil teachers. (Fig.1).

Dr. Seema Dhawan & Shivani Upreti (Pg. 7578-7588)

7583

(Fig.1) For trend seeking lifestyle, the mean and S.D. values of the male and female pupil teachers were 19.42, 5.10 and 19.68, 5.29

respectively and SE was found to be .67 and .34. The

calculated t value for trend seeking lifestyle was found -.33, which is not significant at 0.05 level of significance. Thus the null hypothesis formulated that there will be no significant difference between the trend seeking lifestyle of male and female pupil teachers is not rejected. It means that there is no significant difference in the adaptation of trend seeking lifestyle of male and female pupil teachers. For family oriented lifestyle, the mean and S.D. values of the male and female pupil teachers were 33.81, 6.87 and 36.10, 5.38 respectively and SE was found to be .91 and .34. The calculated t value for family oriented lifestyle was found -2.74, which is significant at 0.01 level of significance. Thus the null hypothesis formulated that there will be no significant difference between the family oriented lifestyle of male and female pupil teachers is rejected. It means that there is significant difference in the adaptation of family oriented lifestyle of male and female pupil teachers. Female pupil teachers adapt more family oriented lifestyle than the male pupil teachers. (Fig.2).

(Fig.2)

Dr. Seema Dhawan & Shivani Upreti (Pg. 7578-7588)

7584

It may be concluded that two t-values are found significant while four t-values are found insignificant. Thus, the hypothesis that there will be no significant difference between the lifestyle of male and female pupil teachers is partly rejected and mostly accepted. Life style of science and non-science pupil teachers Table-2 (df=298) Stream Health Lifestyle

Conscious

Academic Lifestyle

Oriented

Career Lifestyle

Oriented

Socially Lifestyle

Oriented

Trend Lifestyle

Seeking

Family Lifestyle

Oriented

Science Non Science Science Non Science Science Non Science Science Non Science Science Non Science Science Non Science

Mean Std. Deviation 132 26.36 5.556 -

168 24.95 4.491

Std. Error T Mean .484 2.443* .347

132 25.53 4.797

.418

168 24.98 4.727

.365

132 27.31 5.495

.478

168 27.65 4.809

.371

132 22.40 4.669

.406

168 22.43 3.876

.299

132 19.48 5.880

.512

168 19.75 4.718

.364

132 35.92 5.347

.465

168 35.46 6.058

.467

1.001

-.568

-.055

-.446

.687

** = Significant at 0.01 Level of Significance. * = Significant at 0.05 Level of Significance. The table no.2 presents the lifestyle of science and non-science pupil teachers. Total pupil teachers studied were 300 out of which 132 were science and 168 were non-science. The table shows the mean and S.D. of the lifestyle of science and non-science stream pupil teachers. The mean score of health conscious lifestyle, academic oriented lifestyle, career oriented lifestyle, socially oriented lifestyle, trend seeking lifestyle and family oriented lifestyle of science stream pupil teachers are 26.36, 25.53, 27.31, 22.30, 19.48, 35.92 respectively. These mean scores indicate that science stream pupil teachers adapt family oriented lifestyle most which is followed by career oriented lifestyle, health conscious lifestyle, academic oriented lifestyle, socially oriented lifestyle and trend seeking lifestyle. These values show that science stream pupil teachers adapt family oriented lifestyle most while trend seeking lifestyle is least adapted by them. On the other hand, the mean score of health conscious lifestyle, academic oriented lifestyle, career oriented lifestyle, socially oriented lifestyle, trend seeking lifestyle and family oriented Copyright ÂŠ 2017, Scholarly Research Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies

Dr. Seema Dhawan & Shivani Upreti (Pg. 7578-7588)

lifestyle of non-science stream

7585

pupil teachers are 24.95,24.98,27.65,22.43,19.75,35.46

respectively. These mean scores indicate that non science stream pupil teachers adapt family oriented lifestyle most followed by academic oriented lifestyle, health conscious lifestyle, career oriented lifestyle, socially oriented lifestyle and trend seeking lifestyle. These values show that non- science stream pupil teachers adapt family oriented lifestyle most while trend seeking lifestyle is least adapted by the non-science stream pupil teachers. The table depicts the mean and S.D. values of the science and non-science pupil teachers for their health conscious lifestyle were 26.36, 5.55 and 24.95, 4.49 respectively and SE was found to be .484

and .347. The calculated t value for health conscious lifestyle was found

2.44, which is significant at 0.05 level of significance. Thus the null hypothesis formulated that there will be no significant difference between the health conscious lifestyle of science and non-science pupil teachers is rejected. It means that there is significant difference in the adaptation of health conscious lifestyle of science and non-science pupil teachers. Science pupil teachers adapt more health conscious lifestyle than the non-science pupil teachers. (Fig.3)

(Fig.3) For academic oriented lifestyle, the mean and S.D. values of the science and non-science pupil teachers were 25.53, 4.79 and 24.98, 4.72 respectively and SE was found to be .41 and .36. The calculated t value for academic oriented lifestyle was found 1.00, which is not significant at 0.05 level of significance. Thus the null hypothesis formulated that there will be no significant difference between the academic oriented lifestyle of science and non-science pupil teachers is not rejected. It means that there is no significant difference in the adaptation of academic oriented lifestyle of science and non-science pupil teachers. For career oriented lifestyle, the mean and S.D. values of the science and non-science pupil teachers were27.31, 5.49 and 27.65, 4.80 respectively and SE was found to be .47 and .37. Copyright ÂŠ 2017, Scholarly Research Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies

Dr. Seema Dhawan & Shivani Upreti (Pg. 7578-7588)

7586

The calculated t value for career oriented lifestyle was found -.56, which is not significant at 0.05 level of significance. Thus the null hypothesis formulated that there will be no significant difference between the career oriented lifestyle of science and non-science pupil teachers is not rejected. It means that there is no significant difference in the adaptation of career oriented lifestyle of science and non-science pupil teachers. For socially oriented lifestyle, the mean and S.D. values of the science and non-science pupil teachers were 22.40, 4.66 and22.43, 3.87 respectively and SE was found to be.40

and .29.

The calculated t value for socially oriented lifestyle was found -.05, which is not significant at 0.05 level of significance. Thus the null hypothesis formulated that there will be no significant difference between the socially oriented lifestyle of science and non-science pupil teachers is not rejected. It means that there is no significant difference in the adaptation of socially oriented lifestyle of science and non-science pupil teachers. For trend seeking lifestyle, the mean and S.D. values of the science and non-science pupil teachers were 19.48, 5.88 and 19.75, 4.71

respectively and SE was found to be .51

and

.36. The calculated t value for trend seeking lifestyle was found -.44, which is not significant at 0.05 level of significance. Thus the null hypothesis formulated that there will be no significant difference between the trend seeking lifestyle of science and non-science pupil teachers is not rejected. It means that there is no significant difference in the adaptation of trend seeking lifestyle of science and non-science pupil teachers. For family oriented lifestyle, the mean and S.D. values of the science and non-science pupil teachers were 35.92, 5.34 and 35.46, 6.05 respectively and SE was found to be .465

and

.467. The calculated t value for family oriented lifestyle was found .68, which is not significant at 0.05 level of significance. Thus the null hypothesis formulated that there will be no significant difference between the family oriented lifestyle of science and non-science pupil teachers is not rejected. It means that there is no significant difference in the adaptation of family oriented lifestyle of science and non-science pupil teachers. It may be concluded that one t-value is found significant while five t-values are found insignificant. Thus, the hypothesis that there will be no significant difference between the lifestyle of pupil teachers having science and non-science stream is partly rejected and mostly accepted. Discussion This study shows similar results as shown by the previous studies. From the review of the literature, it was found that there exists a significant difference in the life styles of Copyright ÂŠ 2017, Scholarly Research Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies

Dr. Seema Dhawan & Shivani Upreti (Pg. 7578-7588)

7587

respondents based on gender and life style of female students was found better as compared to their male counterparts, Adarmaja, et.al. (2010).This study also show that male and female pupil teachers have obvious differences in the adaptation of their lifestyle. Trend seeking lifestyle is least adapted by both male and female pupil teachers whether of science or non-science stream. Female pupil teachers adapt socially oriented lifestyle more than male pupil teachers. Science stream students are more health conscious than non-science students. Conclusions Lifestyle has always been an issue of attraction in the present era. Male and female pupil teachers have shown differences in the adaptation of their lifestyle. Both male and female pupil teachers adapt family oriented lifestyle most while trend seeking lifestyle is least adapted by them. Also it was found in the study that both science and non-science stream pupil teachers adapt family oriented lifestyle most while trend seeking lifestyle is least adapted by them. It was felt that pupil teachers are always in close touch with their family and share each and every moment of their daily activities with them, that is why both male and female pupil teachers whether of science or non-science stream adapt family oriented lifestyle most. Both male and female pupil teachers adapt trend seeking lifestyle least as they are not always keen to adopt new fashion and are not always willing to update themselves with new trends. It can be concluded from the study that female pupil teachers adapt socially oriented lifestyle and family oriented lifestyle more than male pupil teachers. It is due to the upbringing of females in Indian culture to be social and to look after the family from the very early age. Also the study shows that there is no significant difference in the adaptation of health conscious lifestyle, academic oriented lifestyle, career oriented lifestyle and trend seeking lifestyle of male and female pupil teachers. This is due to the fact that both male and female are being considered equal everywhere. We found in the study that science stream pupil teachers adapt health conscious lifestyle more than non-science stream pupil teachers. It may be due to the fact that students having science as their subject get a detailed knowledge about human body and healthy life. Science stream pupil teachers have been studying various processes, phenomenon and their effect on our life since their secondary standards, so they have a vast knowledge about good or harmful things for our lifestyles. Also the study showed that there is no significant difference in the adaptation of academic oriented lifestyle, career oriented lifestyle, socially oriented lifestyle, trend seeking lifestyle Copyright ÂŠ 2017, Scholarly Research Journal for Interdisciplinary Studies

Dr. Seema Dhawan & Shivani Upreti (Pg. 7578-7588)

7588

and family oriented lifestyle of science and non -science stream pupil teachers. This may be due to the fact that both science and non -science stream pupil teachers have got equal exposure towards these fields. Thus we may conclude that pupil teachers should be motivated to accept the new norms of lifestyle keeping in mind the traditional Indian values and ethics. It can be done by organizing conferences, seminars and workshops to develop the positive attitude in them towards various dimensions of lifestyle. Pupil teachers should be guided to accept and follow a healthy lifestyle for the welfare of the entire world. References Adaramaja, S.R.; Adenubi, O.S. and Alabi,Y.L., (2010). Influence of Demographic factors on the Lifestyle of Tertiary Institutions Students in Kwara State, Nigeria: Educational Media and Counselling Interventions. Research Journal of Applied Science, 5(2), 73-77. Afridi, A.A.K.; Motwani, K.; Khawaja, S.; Khoja, A.A.; Fatmi, Z.; Azam, I.; (2013). Self-perceived health among school going adolescents in Pakistan: Influence of individual, parental and life style factors? Glob J Health Sci, 5(4):71-78 Bawa, S.K. & Kaur, S. (2010). Manual for life style scale. National psychological corporation, Agra Dabral, B. (2011). A comparative study of creativity, achievement and level of aspiration of secondary stage students of government, non-government and open schools. Ph.D.thesis, Department of Education, H.N.B.Garhwal University. Bhatnagar, R.P. (2008). Reading in Methodology of Research in Education, R. Lall Book Depot, Meerut. Bhattacharya, S. (1972). Psychometric and Behavioural Research, New Delhi: Sterling Publishers Pvt. Ltd. Brodhag, C. & Taliere, S. (2006). Sustainable Development Strategies: Tools for Policy Coherence. Natural Resources Forum, Pp.136-145. Dang, N. (1998). Emotional stability pattern and attitude towards teaching of teachers. Ph.D.thesis, Department of Education, Calcutta University. Musaiger, A.O. (2005). Lifestyle Factors Associated with obesity Among Male University Students in The United Arab Emirates, Journal Nutrition and Food Science, 33(4):145-147. Naoshi, Maeuezato (2003). Study on Lifestyle of University Students-Views on Health and Health Behaviors, Journal of Hokkaido University of Education,Japan, 53(2), 73-79.