Altogether this monograph includes 152 studies. Out of these, 66 were completed in the Department of Educational Administration, 48 in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction, 35 in the Department of Educational Psychology and 3 in the Department of Educational Foundations.
This collection of abstracts of Master of Education theses, projects and internships hopes to achieve two main purposes. First it should serve as reference material for faculty members, graduate and undergraduate students, and others interested in research in education in Newfoundland and Labrador. This is a continuation of interest which resulted in an earlier publication by W.J. Gushue and Amarjit Singh, A Bibliography of Newfoundland Education, 1973, Faculty of Education.
Secondly, this monograph should inform interested educators and the general public about what we know through scientific investigation about our schools, students, school personnel, financing of education, curriculum and teaching, counselling and guidance services in schools, special education and adult education.
The material presented here should
indicate the efforts made by the graduate students and the
faculty of education towards understanding the process of education in
Newfoundland and Labrador in a systematic way. Obviously, the researchers
have identified certain problems and variables pertinent to education in the
province. They have used certain theories, methodologies, analytical
procedures, and perspectives. Based upon their research, most of them have
made specific policy statements.
The research conducted by the graduate
students in the Faculty of Education does provide us
with an array of insights into the process of education in Newfoundland and
Labrador as well as permit us to draw some conclusions of the perspectives
of the researchers themselves.
It must be further noted that research focusing on students teachers, etc., has not always been conducted by graduate students enrolled in any particular department. For example, one may find that a graduate student enrolled in the Department of Educational Administration has carried out research focusing on problems relating to some aspect of guidance and vice-versa.
It is of some interest to sociologists to identify the organizational and structural settings in which particular studies are carried out. In enumerating the studies I have taken this into consideration.
Thus, interested readers may identify each of the departments in which the student completed his/her work simply by looking at the following letters printed just below the serial numbers appearing on the left-hand side of each item enumerating in this monograph.
| A | = | The Department of Educational Administration |
| C&I | = | The Department of Curriculum and Instruction |
| F | = | The Department of Educational Foundations |
| P | = | The Department of Educational Psychology |
In presenting studies I have tried to paraphrase at least one of the most important findings or purposes of the study. In some cases when I felt that paraphrasing might distort the stated purposes of the study, I have simply mentioned the title of the study or the way the researcher described the purpose of study in his/her own language. I have followed similar procedures in reporting results of studies. Taking into consideration the scope and purpose of this monograph I decided not to mention all the findings of each of the studies, but to cite only one or two findings thought most important by the researcher. In the text when I write "it was found", what I actually mean is that among other things "it was found". This should make it clear that the study being reported, in fact, included various findings.
There is line of thinking in sociology that the production of knowledge is influenced by the social structure in which it is produced. Further, this knowledge is generally used to legitimize the given social hierarchies by those who are in power. One of the characteristics of the legitimization process is that people on the top study people on the bottom. Moreover, in a society in which socio-economic-political-cultural changes are occuring due to various internal and external factors, different individuals, at different times and situations, come to take leadership roles in some aspects of social change and try to guide the forces of change towards a definite direction. This sense of direction on their part is derived from their understanding and perceptions of ongoing socioeconomic, political and cultural processes.
If we apply this sociological framework to the production of knowledge by the graduate students in the various departments of the Faculty of Education, which is one of the largest Faculties in the only University in the Province, certain interesting observations can be made.
After reviewing the research carried out by the graduate students in education, it appears to me that a set of studies was carried out which corresponded to the ongoing changes in Newfoundland society initiated mainly by various external forces. These studies also reflected the interests of those people who acquired a leadership role in the process of social change. The following trends may be observed:
What it all means, it seems to me, is that there has been very little attempt made to develop a distinct perspective on Newfoundland society and culture. Without a perspective there can be no effective planning and development of an educational system which will meet the needs of a particular society.
It is true, some may argue, that there is a definite perspective on Newfoundland society - and it is that the province must modernize like any other industrialized and developed province in Canada.
But a case can be made to show that this perspective on Newfoundland society may be unrealistic, that it may continue the dependency of Newfoundland society on others, and that it may not be serving the needs of the people. This requires seeking alternative models for socioeconomic development and corresponding models of educational development.
In the area of economic development two main alternatives seem to be available: (1 ) investment in large scale industrial development (2) investment in small scale industrial development. An emphasis on large scale industrial development requires quite a different educational planning than the emphasis on the small scale industrial development. Furthermore, experiences of other countries indicate that consequences of each of these perspectives are quite different.
Educational planning inspired by the perspective of large scale industrial development in many less industrialized areas of the world has been followed by a rise in educated unemployment, exploitation of less dominant groups by the dominant groups, outward migration, disintegration of communities, social antagonism at all levels of society, and the linkage of local economics with powerful multi-national corporate economies and lopsided growth. Powerful economic centres have a tendency to perpetuate or even increase differences in economic power.
Small scale industrial development emphasizes cooperative socialization, integration of communities, equity, and harmonious development as opposed to lopsided growth, thus requiring educational planning and initiative of quite a different nature.
This means that there are two criteria of progress, if we wish to pose problems in terms of the notion of progress. Does investment in large scale industrial development or investment in small scale industrial development increase Newfoundland's power as a society over its natural resources, and secondly, which one of these types of development diminishes the power and influence of dominant groups in Newfoundland and outside over the less influential and less powerful majority. So far in Newfoundland, it appears, we have opted for the large scale industrial development and I have discussed elsewhere that educational planning in the province seems to have been geared to this kind of economic development.
Review of the studies indicates that very little research has explored the alternatives in educational development in the province. Little leadership has been forth coming from the members of the Faculty in this direction. Most of the studies may be labeled as replications of studies carried out in almost entirely different social contexts. We have used ready made variables, theories, methodologies suitable for research in certain kinds of economic, social and political settings (advanced industrial economic) which appear to be different from Newfoundland society. This apparent lack of interest in deliberately looking for alternatives in education most suitable to the political economy of the province may be due to an overly narrow interest in one's profession and its advancement. One of the results of this narrow professional orientation seems to be an emphasis on the selection of topics for research at random with superficial sensitivity to the social context.
At other levels, there is a tendency to use quite unrelated theoretical perspectives in order to justify one's selection of variables for research. A careful look at some of the chapters containing the review of literature will reveal that they usually contain references to unrelated studies carried out by others within theoretical modes and methodologies quite alien to each other. Some of the studies referred to in the chapter bear verylittle, if any, relation to the research questions asked in the thesis. The decision to include a particular study in the chapter reviewing related research seems to be based mainly, if not entirely, upon the similarity of the titles of the study with the title of the student's own study.
These few passing remarks are not meant to undermine in any shape or form the genuine efforts on the part of graduate students and the Faculty members in understanding the complex process of education in the province.These remarks are reflections on the general status of some of the contemporary social science and educational research in North America and elsewhere and on the growth of professionalism in general,
Social science research and educational research drawing heavily on social science concepts have been criticized from various angles. Economists, sociologists, political scientists, and psychologists have been criticized for studying the wrong problems and for studying the right problems in the wrong ways. The critics point out that, firstly, academic economists have paid insufficient attention to problems of the distribution of income, wealth, and economic power in society, that they have virtually neglected the study of institutional arrangements and the role of notions of the "distribution of power" and the "class struggle" in explaining the distribution of income, and that instead of studying the "dynamic" socioeconomic processes very deeply over long periods of time, they have focused on the traditional theory of income distribution which is "static" in nature. Secondly, these economists have placed less emphasis on extremely complex mechanisms by which values and preferences are formed and changed in contemporary societies. The activities of large corporations, of large property owners, of the military establishment, and the political leaders, of labour-union leaders, minority groups, and protest groups are not frequently studied by these economists. Thirdly, academic economists have overemphasized problems of the quantity and composition of the output of commodities and services and have rarely focused on problems of the quality of life. Fourthly, it is charged that these economists show little interest in qualitative changes in the economic system and that they are obsessed with marginal changes within a given economic system. Fifthly, these economists have shown little interest in problems of the interaction between economic and social factors both at the domestic and international levels. Very few studies have been carried out in order to understand the mechanisms by which various pressure groups at the local level obtain privileges through economic and other types of legislation, and how foreign aid, trade policies and the like may sometimes lead to foreign domination. Also, economists have not studied the problems of public administration and policy-making sufficiently from the viewpoint of the underprivileged groups.
As far as the choice of topics for research is concerned, critics point out that for a long time economists focused on producing small scale variations on formal models that have already been developed by others. This is especially true for the analytically minded economists. These economists seem to be less interested in "messy" problems in the world in which most people live.
Topics for research are selected not on the basis of substantive problems but on considerations of available analytical techniques. Thus endless effort is made on improving the existing techniques and models without any substantive content.
Similarly in sociology, Horowitz long ago pointed out that "specialized techniques of questionnaire design, codification, and compartmentalizing allow for interviewing process to become the end of research rather than an instrumentality." Psychologists have been criticized in a similar vein.
Increasingly social scientists seem to be playing some role in the formulations of social policies and in the implementations of these policies through political leaders and bureaucracies. The way they conduct their research and interpret the data sometimes can have serious effects on the lives of those they study. The work of Parzival Copes is a case in point. Therefore, there is much to be gained from recent criticism of social sciences and a plea for self-evaluation.