Assessment of students’ awareness of the national heritage (Case study: The preparatory year students at the University of Hail, Saudi Arabia)

Figures & data

Figure 1. The proposed model.

Table 1. Reliability statistics

Cronbach’s alpha	N of items
0.781	11

Table 2. Personal data of respondents

Attribute	Frequency	Percentage
Gender
Male	108	60.7
Female	70	39.3
Total	178	100
Place of residence
Urban	154	86.5
Village	24	13.5
Total	178	100
Schools
Public	143	80.3
Private	35	19.7
Foreign	None	None
Total	178	100

Table 3. Level of interest in the national heritage

	Not interested		Interested to some extent		Interested		Very interested
	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%
Personal level of interest in the national heritage	39	21.9	66	37.1	56	31.5	17	9.6
Family’s Level of interest in the national heritage	57	32.0	49	27.5	62	34.8	10	5.6
Total	178	Total	178	Total	178	Total	178	Total

Table 4. Perception of the local residents’ awareness of the importance of the national heritage

	Null		Low		Very low		Average		High		Very high
	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%	N	%
Perception of the local residents’ awareness of the importance of the national heritage	27	15.2	43	24.2	23	12.9	51	28.7	24	13.5	10	5.6
Total	178

Table 5. Mean scores and standard deviations of scale items

Items	N	Minimum	Maximum	Mean	Std. deviation
	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic	Statistic
1) Curricula in the pre-university stage contained information about the national heritage	178	1.00	2.00	1.3652	0.48284
2) If yes, did the curricula contain sufficient information about the national heritage	178	0.00	2.00	1.0674	0.89313
3) If yes, was this information being displayed in an interesting and in an attractive manner	178	0.00	2.00	0.2978	0.63432
4) The school administration in which I learned, was interested to organize tours to the national heritage sites	178	1.00	2.00	1.7191	0.45071
5) Number of trips that were organized by the school administration was enough and frequent	178	0.00	2.00	0.4607	0.78195
6) I was keen to participate in these trips how long I had the opportunity	178	0.00	2.00	0.3315	0.56969
7) If yes, is the information obtained when visiting archaeological sites and heritage sites related to what you’ve learned in school?	178	0.00	4.00	0.6348	1.28279
8) My teachers in pre- university, had a good information about the elements of the national heritage	178	1.00	4.00	2.2079	1.05045
9) I see that the curricula is an effective way to raise awareness of the importance of national heritage and preserving it	178	1.00	4.00	2.8483	1.14710
10) I see that school plays a prominent role in raising awareness of the national heritage	178	1.00	4.00	2.8090	1.07752
11) I support including a course of national heritage within courses both in the pre- university or undergraduate	178	1.00	4.00	2.9831	1.12734
Valid N (listwise)	178

Table 6. Differences between gender, type of school regarding the role of schools, teachers, efficiency of curriculum

ANOVA
		Sum of squares	df	Mean square	F	Sig.
Gender
Role of school	Between groups	0.725	1	0.725	0.656	0.419
	Within groups	194.584	176	1.106
	Total	195.309	177
Teachers information about heritage	Between groups	1.366	1	1.366	1.039	0.310
	Within groups	231.538	176	1.316
	Total	232.904	177
Effectiveness of curriculum	Between groups	1.279	1	1.279	1.102	0.295
	Within groups	204.226	176	1.160
	Total	205.506	177
Type of school
Role of school	Between groups	0.106	1	0.106	0.095	0.758
	Within groups	195.203	176	1.109
	Total	195.309	177
Teachers information about heritage	Between groups	1.002	1	1.002	0.761	0.384
	Within groups	231.902	176	1.318
	Total	232.904	177
Effectiveness of curriculum	Between groups	0.061	1	0.061	0.053	0.819
	Within groups	205.444	176	1.167
	Total	205.506	177

Table 7. The relationship between the place of residence and the perception of the awareness level of the local community of the importance of national heritage

Correlations		Residence	Perception of the awareness level of the local community of the importance of national heritage
Place of residence	Pearson correlation	1	−0.071
	Sig. (2-tailed)		0.347
	N	178	178
Perception of the awareness level of the local community of the importance of national heritage	Pearson correlation	−0.071	1
	Sig. (2-tailed)	0.347
	N	178	178

Table 8. Impact of familial interest in predicting the personal interest in local heritage

Coefficients^a
Model		Unstandardized coefficients		Standardized coefficients	t	Sig.
		B	Std. error	β
1	(Constant)	1.463	0.158		9.254	0.000
	Familial interest	0.385	0.068	0.394	5.686	0.000

Notes: R = 0.394^a; R² = 0.155; Adjusted R² = 0.150; F = 32.329.

^a Dependent variable: personal interest.