This is very broad, so I'll just touch on a few of the more significant aspects you bring up.
It's quite possible that individuals wouldn't even know who their parents were. At least not in the biological sense. The most likely consequence of this is a sense of collectivism, at least in regards to the responsibilities we associate with parents -- the younglings would be considered to collectively be the children of the spawning generation, who in turn would collectively be considered to be responsible for them.
That said, it's also possible that a given brood would be known to come from a particular set of eggs, which in turn would be known to have been laid by a given mother. This could give rise to maternal interactions. Further, depending on the exact mechanisms and circumstances of fertilization (e.g. isolated pools fertilized by only a single male), the father may be known as well (or even instead!). So you could have the same (or at least similar) concept of a family as we do; I think it more likely, though, that you'd have the collective version (previous paragraph) instead.
A concept of responsibility for the younglings would be a necessary foundation for intelligence (barring some pseudo-science mumbo jumbo about genetic memory being passed on to the offspring, of course), because ultimately someone has to teach them. In this case, you'd have a society where the elders collectively teach their skills and knowledge to the younglings. This would include imparting social norms, religious beliefs, etc. to them, not merely the "three Rs" ("Reading, wRiting, and aRithmetic") taught in schools.
As a result you'd have a stronger sense of community and of belonging to a group than we do, but this of course does not in any way preclude individuals being individuals -- they'd just tend to view themselves as individuals within the group. Most likely you'd still have social outcasts -- including those who distance themselves on their own -- but equally likely the elder generation would be more upset and concerned about this than our own is -- they would be less likely to just say, "Oh, that's just how he/she is," and instead try harder to bring them into the fold and make them a part of society.
Here, I think the most likely techniques are those that nature evolves. The first is simply large broods -- if each mother lays a thousand eggs, then a predator eating or destroying 98% of them still leaves 20 healthy younglings hatching, more than enough for solid population growth. The freshly-hatched younglings would likely stay in the pool for a while, vulnerable to predators further thinning their numbers, but with so many examples right here on earth showing that raw numbers is a successful strategy I don't see any reason to improve upon this.
That said, an intelligent species that values their young would very likely develop means of protecting their young, including (for example) artificial breeding pools protected from predators.
Another common survival technique is for one or the other of the parents to stand guard over the eggs until they hatch. I honestly find this a more likely species to advance into intelligence, because it already demonstrates strong parenting instincts necessary for an intelligent species to progress. This also more naturally flows into more-developed means of protecting the eggs and fresh hatchlings.
That's not to say that a society of intelligent beings couldn't evolve and still leave their eggs and hatchlings unprotected. They may in fact view such as an important part of growing up, of making society as a whole stronger by ensuring that only those strong enough to survive and contribute do so. (For a real-life example of something similar, take a look at the ancient Spartans -- though they've been largely embellished and all but fictionalized, there's still some grains of truth at the heart of it.)
Really, how they ensure the survival of their unborn is going to depend entirely upon what type of society they are and how they evolved, which is pretty much entirely up to you.