SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
sffi-
164
MEMORANDUM
0
To ....... SENATE
Subject. .
?
..
.
PROGRAM ..EDUCATION
From
F ?
.
?
SENATE GRADUATE STUDIES
O1
cAEHrc'
COMMITTEE!
1LANNflC
JUNE 22, 1981
Date
...................................................
Action undertaken by the Senate Graduate Studies Committee,
and by the Senate Committee on Academic Planning, gives rise to the
following motion:
"That Senate approve and recommend approval to
the Board of Governors, as set forth in S.81-106,
the Doctoral Program in Education."
S
...
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
?
MEMORANDUM
To .......
MX...H...Evans..Secretar.y ............... .
Senate
..........................................Date...
..,Sena
te. Committee. .o". .Accetni..c......
Planning
Subject..
DQc.to.ral. .Rrograin.in..ductiQr1....
?
2.2. .June..198.1...............................
Action taken by the Senate Committee on Academic Planning at
its meeting on June 10th, 1981, gave rise to the following
motion:
That the proposed doctoral program in
Education be approved and recommended
to Senate
The proposal and accompanying documentation is attached.
SiMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
?
MEMORANDUM
H. N. EVANS
?
B. P. BEIRNE
To
..............................................................
From
.....................................................
DEAN OF GRADUATE STUDIES
Subject
DOCTORAL PROGRAM IN EDUCATION
?
Date.....................................................
NOTION: "That Senate approve and recommend approval to
the Board the proposed Ph.D. Program in Education."
. ?
This motion was approved by the Senate Graduate Studies
Committee on May 4, 1981.
f
?
Ph. D. Ed.
PROPOSAL
?
TO
?
The Universities Council of Briti.hCO)Umhia
?
FROM
?
Simon Fraser University
?
FOR
?
A graduate program leading to the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
?
in Education
May 9, 1981
Revised: May 26, 1981
0
I
• ?
Ph. D. Ed.
I - GENERAL INFORMATION
1.
Title
of the
program
Ph.D., Education
2.
Credential to
be awarded
to graduates
Doctor of Philosophy
3. Faculty or
school,
department or unit to
offer the
program
Faculty of Education
4.
Date of Senate approval
5.
Schedule for implementation
Contingent upon TJ.C.B.C. approval and funding
S
?
January to July, 1983 - Recruitment of Faculty and Students
September, 1983
?
- Admission of First Intake
August, 1985
?
- Graduation of First Intake
II - PROGRAM DESCRIPTION AND RELATED MATTERS
1.
Objectives
of proposed program
To produce highly qualified spec
LaliF;ts
in the areas of
- Educational Governance
- Instructional Psychology
- Curriculum Theory and Implementation
(For further details see Appendix I)
2.
Relationship of the
proposed degree
to the role
and
mission of
the
university
It is the responsibility of the university, and in this case
in particular of its Faculty of EducatiOn,tO provide for
adequate opportunity for advanced academic and professional
development of those individuals seeking to fulfil leadership
roles in the general field of Education. The program proposed,
through a focus on research and advanced study of education and
related discip1ines,PrOV]deS this opportunity.
(For an elaboration, see Appendix I)
S
a
I ?
I ?
r.
Ph. D. Ed.
?
2.
.10
3. List :ind briefly dccribe existin; pi grams it the other Lwo
universi tis related in content
arid
simi 7r ii; ohje
' :tivcr: to
the
proposed program
tJ.Vic. currently offers no doctoral degree in the areas
described in this proposal. U.B.C. does not offer a Ph.D.
degree; it's Ed.D. degree has an orientation different
than the Ph.D. degree proposed in this document.
4. Indication of how the proposed program will:
(a) either complement existing similar programs within the university
or at the other two universities;
() or be distinct from other programs in the field at the other two
universities
(a)
The program proposed assumes active participation of
members of S.F.U.'s other faculties in the instruction and
supervision of the students (Appendix II). In addition, as is the
case in S.F.U.'s Master's programs in Education, students
will he allowed and encouraged to take transfer course-
work at B.C.'s other universities when these offer
specific expertise not available at S.F.U.
(b)
The proposed program is unique in its definition of
fields and its strong emphasis on research apprentice-
shin. This is in contrast to more conventional course
based programs currently available or proposed in this
province. The size and organizational structure of the
Faculty, and the absence of a departmental system fosters
an 'interdisciplinary" perspective within the Faculty.
This perspective is reflected in the communication
between faculty members from divergent disciplinary
backgrounds. (See Appendix III for details).
5.
Curriculum
(see also Appendices IV and V).
The promotion of scholarly inquiry is the most central feature
of the doctoral studies planned. The proposed program, there-
fore, will be centered around interdisciplinary seminars, an
extended period Of research apprenticeship and participation in
doctoral colloquia in fields of specialization of individual
students. Normally, a minimum of 20 semester hours of formal
coursework will be required.
Great emphasis will be placed on the apprenticeship nature of
the doctoral program. This model dictates that fields of
specialization be limited to those areas where sufficient
breadth and depth of Faculty
expertise is available.
Specializations proposed here are:
?
0
3.
Ph.D. Ed.
5.
Curriculum
(continued)
i)
EDUCATIONAL GOVERNANCE. Included in this specialization
are topics such as: the politics of education, school
law, organizational chanW a:td ck:vciopment, quality rf
educational opportunities philosophical issues in
educational policy.
ii)
INSTRUCTIONAL PSYCHOLOGY. Emphasis iii this area is on
research on teaching, counselling, psychology of learning,
and instructional science.
and iii) CURRICULUM THEORY AND IMPLEMENTATION. Topics included
are curriculum theory, the implementation and evaluation
of curriculum programs, curriculum innovation.
The graduate of the proposed program is viewed as a scholar
practitioner -- a highly competent individual, knowledgeable
in his/her specialization skilled in appropriate methods of
inquiry, and capable of exercising academic and professional
educational leadership. The program of individual students
will normally consist of three components:
1) Field of Specialization.
Competence in the field of
specialization may derive from three sources: (1) pre-
doctoral studies; (2) courses in education and supporting
disciplines in this and other universities; (3) research
apprenticeship including formal and informal academic
discussion.
ii) Methods of
Inquiry.
Depending upon the nature of the
doctoral dissertation, a variety of methodological tools
can be drawn upon, including experimental design and
associated statistical methods, ethnographic methods,
survey design, historical methods, and conceptual analysis.
The exact nature of a student's methodological competence
will, of course, depend upon the field of study. Additional
methodological competence beyond the master's degree level
will be acquired by individual study, regular coursework,
research apprenticeship within the Academic Program
Committee, and specialized doctoral. seminars and colloquia.
and iii)
Educational Theory. Two
seminars (Educ. .901, 902) are
designed to provide the student with a broad perspective
on the history and current status of educational theory.
Major works in supporting disciplines (e.g., philosophy,
sociology, psychology) will be studied. These seminars
will be taught by an interdisciplinary team rather than as
.
?
amalgamated "foundations' courses which are the usual fare
in graduate schools across the continent.
4
I.
S
Ph. 1). Ed.
?
14
6.
For professional degrees: Evidence of formal consultation with
?
a
the professional organizations or licensing agencies which
accredit programs of the type proposed
Not applicable.
7.
For professional degrees: If the university already offers a program
at another level in the same field, evidence that existing program
is accredited by the professional organization
The Faculty of Education has developed programs at the
Master's level to a point where a sound academic base
exists for Ph.D. studies. These developments include
the currently existing differentiation of M.A. (Educ.)
and M.Sc. (Educ.) degrees from the M.Ed.
8.
Details of consultations with non-university agencies such as likely
employers, trade groups, etc.
Sec Appendix vi.
III. NEED FOR PROGRAM
1. Tndication of cultural, societal or professional needs the program is
designed to meet in addition to the objectives already mentioned
In Appendix I a case for the program proposed is presented in
terms of a demonstrated social and professional need as
evidenced by:
a)
A strong demand for Ph.D.'s in Education
b)
An inadequate supply of highly qualified Canadian
candidates
c)
The absence of opportunities for Ph.D. studies in
Education in B.C.
d)
The reliance on traditions of educational research
exogenous to Canada
2. Enrolment
(a) evidence of student interest in the program (written enquiries,
etc.)
There is a clear and increasing demand for a Ph.D. in Education.
Despite the fact that the Faculty of Education does not formally
offer a Ph.D. there is a steady stream of inquiries about such
an opportunity, as shown in Table 1.
L
•
?
Ph. D.
Ed.
?
S.
2. Enrolment
(continued)
Table 1
Inquiries about Ph.D. 0pportunitiu;
in_EdUCitiOII
1977
40
1978
32
1979
31
1980
45
The Faculty has admitted twelve students to doctoral
studies under the terms of the university policy on
Special Arrangements.
(b) enrolment predictions, indicating th proportion of new and
• ?
transfer students (program's impact on the total university
enrolment)
A maximum addition of
25
students is projected when Steady
State will be reached
(1986-87).
Currently, the Master's
programs' enrolment equals
275
(headcount) or
220 FTE.
(C)
evidence (other than a) to support enrolment estimates
A gradual increase of the academic qualifications of educators
has been in evidence throughout North America for many decades.
Master's degrees are now commonplace for many groups of teachers
and virtually all administrators. The upward pressure is evidenced
in the growth of S.F.U.'s Master's Program in Education from
100 students in
1974
to
275
in
1981.
(d) proposed growth limits and minimum enrolment
The Ph.D. program normally will be limited to
25
students at
any one time. It is expected that no more than six students
will be accepted in the first year of the program.
b1
?
I
1'h. D. Ed.
6.
3.
Types of jobs for
which the graduates will
be suitable
(a) University Faculty
(b)
Faculty of Community Colleges
(C)
School and School District Administrators and other district staff
(d)
Research Institutes (e.g., ERIBC)
(e)
Personnel in Ministries of Education and other Government
institutions
(f)
Staff of professional associations
(g)
Appointments in private enterprise (e.g., Instructional
research for communications industries)
4. For Ph.D.'s
and professional degrees: Estimated of
(annual)
employer
demand
for graduates, provincially and nationally
Estimated Annual Provincial Demand
?
15
Estimated Annual National Demand
?
100
?
(see Appendix VII)
5.
For
Ph.D.'s
and professional degrees: Estimate of
number
of current
candidates for appropriate (annual) openings in the employment market,
provincially
and nationally.
(a) from
the
institution
itself
lor2
(b)
from the
other
two B.C. universities
Approximately 1 or 2 per year
(c)
from Canadian universities
25
6. (As a further indicator of demand) if the department already offers
graduate or professional programs:
Indications
of student placement
patterns in these programs
over the last three
years (teaching,
industry, professional, government,
other).
The majority of our students (90%) at the master's level
specialize in the areas proposed here for Ph.D. studies.
Virtually without exception they enter the program, often
part-time, from a job which they either keep or return to.
7.
'
Ph. D.
Ed.
•
iv. ?
PRESENT AND PROJECTED RESOURCES
1.
?
Administrative personnel
?
(to be hired or reassigned)
See budget attached.
?
The only administrative personnel
required is at the secretarial level.
?
(Appendix VIII)
2. ?
Faculty, ?
including T.A. 's
?
and R.A.
's ?
(to
)e ?
)
j
j1 i,r
See budget attached.
?
The program require; Lhroe new
faculty positions. ?
(Appendix VIII)
3. ?
Library resources (existing and proposed)
See budget attached and Appendix IX.
4. ?
Capital costs attributable to
the
new program (clas.'rooms, labs,
office, etc.)
Additional space will be needed for offices for faculty and
•
graduate students.
?
This program does not involve space
most of the Ph.P. research
requirements for laboratories as
will take place in school settings.
?
Specifically the
following needs are foreseen:
Faculty offices
?
-
?
3
Offices for graduate students
?
- ?
9
Spaces for secretary
?
-
?
2
See budget attached for associated capital costs.
?
(Appendix VIII)
5. ?
Indication of anticipated external funds
The Faculty of Education has available a number of teaching assis-
tantships for the support of graduate students.
?
This number
(average 7 over 3 semesters for 1979-1980) varies depending on
enrolment. ?
In addition, qualified Ph.D. students may be
supported in part through the availability of sessional
lectureships for the summer undergraduate program offerings.
The Faculty has recently instituted on an experimental basis
joint Faculty Associate/Graduate Student positions.
?
Ph.D.
students would qualify to compete for these positions.
?
Finally
a number of faculty are able to support graduate students through
various research grants.
?
(See Appendix x
'
for details on S.F.U.'s
•
status in the field of Educational Rescch)
p
h. D. Ed.
?
8.
a
6.
Budget requests will
calculated
be
according
to
the methodology
outlined in New and Emergent Programs: Budget Submission
Guidelines
See attached. (Appendix VIII)
7.
For
graduate programs: indication of faculty research awards in the
department (amount and sources)
Since 1976 members of the Faculty of Education have received
research awards approximately totalling $550,000. Major
sources include the provincial Ministry of Education SSHRCC
(formerly Canada Council), the Council of Ministers, and the
National Institute of Education (U.S. Government) in addition
to* various private funding agencies.
V. EVALUATION
1. Evaluation of the proposal by the other two universities referring
to:
(a)
need for the proposed program
(b)
quality of the proposed program
(c)
probable impact of implementation on programs at their own.
institution
See letter signed by Deans of three universities,
Appendix xi.
2.
Any external evaluation of the proposal obtained from experts in
the
field of
the
program
See Appendix XII.
3.
p
rocedures for institutional evaluation of the program during and
subsequent to implementation
A program for formative and summative evaluation is
currently being designed as part of
'
an evaluation of
the overall graduate offerings in the Faculty of
Education. The intent is to invite representatives
of the Faculties of TJ.Vic. and U.B.C. to participate
in the suininative part of this evaluation, when Steady
State will be reached.
4. Plans for future external evaluation
See under 3.
4
S
?
APPENDIX 3
Rational(-,
Simon Fraser University, now in its sixteenth year, is a very
yOufl'J
jtjtUt1Ofl, compare
d
to its institutional peers in Canada and North
America generally. The SVU policy on academic growth ir one which
bUS
been characterized by (a) the establishment of initially limited acad'rrtiC
programs in specific areas and/or disciplines, and (b) the careful and
measured expansion of programs as warranted by increases
fl
student
demand and academic strength.
The final intent has always been to take the foni of a full
university,with a complete spectrum of eiucational offerings.
inportant feature of that intent has been the commitment to
take advantage of our institutional youth to (a) subject traditional
university programs and structures to critical review, and (b) to
jflflO1dtC
where necessary to achieve better struct:1;eS for traditional progrrtrfl
or novel programs for non-traditiona
l
, conternI rary needs.
Initially, the Faculty of Education was formed for tbe limited
. ?
purpose of offering a one-year professional education program, priimrly
undergraduate in focus. Since then, as academic strength has grown and
client needs have surfaced, various grduate proqrams, leading to the
master's dearee, have been developed. During the past five years,
increasing numbers of students have been admitted for studies leading
to the Ph.D. under the University program for Special Arrangements.
Currently, the Faculty of Education numbers 37 tenure-track members,
with a critical mass of academic strength in a number of areas.
In spite
of
the fact that no official
Ph.D.
program is in
place, the academic productivity of the Faculty and client interest in
advanced education has led to substantial numbers of inquiries from
prospective students regard..ng opportunities for such studies.
Since 1972, the recruitment policy within the Faculty has been
carefully and deliberately formulated to attract and acquire persons
with strong interests in research and development as well as high levels
of commitment to teaching and service. The objective of that policy was
to build a Faculty that would achieve high levels of international
recognition, in spite of the fact that ours is one of the smaller
Faculties of Education in North America. The first level of that objective
has been achieved, as later sections of this document will demonstrate.
It is out collective judgment that the essential criteria of zlcademiv
need and demonstrated strength have been met, that the time has conu for the
Faculty of Education to make available the full range ot academic educatinn
.
opportunity, from the Bachelor of Education to the Ph.fl. in Education. Sub-
sequent sections of this proposal will outline the need, the.ev.idence of
academic strength, and the academic program designed to meet demonstrated
needs in a way that both takes advantage of and strengthens the
acadenic
power of the Faculty of Education and the University.
The proposal to establish a Ph.D. degree program can be justified on
three main grounds:
i)
there is a demonstrated social need;
ii)
the distinctive character and vitality of the faculty warrants
and can support such a program; and
iii)
the institution of a Ph.D. in Education is a natural, logical and
necessary extension of existing graduate programs.
i) Social Need
Demand for a Ph .D. in Education
There
j
!
;
a c]ar and increasing dumarvl for a Ph .D. in Education.
Despite the fact that the Faculty of Education does not foimally offer
a Ph.D. there is a steady stream of inquiri.s about such an opportunity,
as shown in Tabla I
Table 1
I nqu i r. .1 P:ioit Ph .1). Oppor t:ni
?
it
Lduc.;. .on
197-
1979 ?
31
.I93)
In addition, the Facult
y
has admitted twelve students to
doctoral studies under the terms of the university policy on
3c.1.a1 Arrangements. The pattern of admission is
reflected in Table
2.
Table 2
Jmi.;ons to Ph.D. under Special Arranqnmenti
i72
L975
2
lJ8U
4 ?
¶
So far four of these twelve student Ie
?
enmiut
ed t1joir d.
requirements and have graduated with tli
spiy of Suitably Qualified Canadian Cida_
With current federal immigration poi icie:; making
tie
appointrn't-
to Canadian university faculties of "foreign" candidates extremely
difficult, the pressure to appoint Canadians to university faculty
positions has increased dramatically over the last several
.
yearS. AL
present, the two primary sources of such appointees are the Ontario
institute for Studies in Education and the university of Alberta; but:
even with the supply of graduates from these institutions, our faculty
has found it extremely difficult to find well-prepared Canadian
doctorates for a considerable number of positions we have had to fill.
The demand exceeds the current supply to a considerable degree. in
1980 Canadian institutions, we estimate, graduated less than 90
individuals with a Doctoral degree in Education. In that same year
we received through direct mailing advertisement for 200 positions
requiring such a degree. In that year University Affairs, an organ of
the Canadian Association of University Teachers carried advertisements
for some 150 positions for which the doctorate in Education was a
desired qualification.
Prevalence of Out-of-province Doctorates
.
?
?
The third element of the social need argument concerns the prevalence
of doctoral studies taken outside the province for members of Faculties
of Education. Table 3 shows the extent to which members of Education
Faculties in British Columbiu completed doctoral studies elsewhere.
T-ble .
Place of Origin of Ductor,'l- flcjrte:; c 'M ,nb.r
of Faculties of Education: t1niv,ri tv of B.C.,
?
i v.:ri t
of Victoria, Simon i'r.scr Urijv
r1l-j:
(ouCe: University C7!1er:ds)
l.i)-PU
Session
Other
University ?
B.C.
?
Alta.
?
Can.
U.B.C. ?
16
?
23 ?
11
?
(9%) ?
(13%)
?
(6)
U.S.A. ?
U. Y. ?
Other
.120 ?
1
(073.)
?
(4(4)
?
(..)
U. Vic. ?
7
(10%)
S.F.U. ?
4
(13%)
.
? TOTAL
?
27
(10%)
-
?
11
?
1
?
(16%)
?
(4k')
?
4 ?
3
(13%) ?
(10%)
?
38 ?
17
(14%)
?
(6%)
30%
?
(Canadian)
3 ?
1.
?
(66%) ?
(3.%)
?
19 ?
--
?
--
(64%)
?
184
?
ii
?
2
?
(65%)
?
(44)
?
(1%)
70
(Non-Canadian)
education
It. is
in;tructivr
at the three
tht:
provincial
only
30
percent
universities
of the faculty
received
member:;
doctoral
in
?
0
training in Canada, and only 10 percent did so in British Columbia.
Since no B.C. university offers the Ph.D. in Education the B.C.
resident seeking such doctoral level studies has distinctly restricted
opportunities. Aside from the Ed. D. program at the University of
British Columbia, the B.C. resident must essentially look to the
other provinces of Canada or to the United States for advanced study
in education. The conclusion seems inescapable:
British Columbia universities, as publicly supported institutions,
must make available high quality doctoral programs in education
for the residents of this province.
related concern is the preservation of a distinctive Canadian
cultural identity. While there is considerable value in the cross-
fertilization of ideas that takes place between individuals trained in
different cultural contexts, the overwhelming predominance of U.S.
doctorates among faculty members in B.C. Faculties of Education may be
a matter of concern. This is particularly true in the case of a field
of study like education - one that is so fundamentally important to the
transmission of "Canadian" culture.
An Expanding Market
Further support for more opportunity for doctoral studies in
Education lies in the expanding employment opportunities. Community
Colleges and public school districts increasingly are regarding the
doctorate as a desirable qualification. In 1972 there were only
12 individuals with this degree in administrative roles in public
education in B.C. In 1979 that number was 48. The pressure for study
beyond
the master's degree is quickly accelerating (Appendix VII) . A
conservative estimate of current annual provincial demand is 15; annual
national demand is estimated (conservatively) at 150. Within 5 years we
expect this demand to be considerably larger.
Status of Research and Development in Canadian Education
At present, Canadian educators -- practitioners, policy makers, and
academics alike -- rely heavily on research conducted elsewhere (e.g.,
United States and Europe). As a recent survey by two of our members of
Faculty showed (see Appendix X), the Ontario Institute, the University
of Alberta and Simon Fraser have begun to develop a tradition of research
in the Canadian context. The effect of these institutions is not, however,
sufficient to meet the need for top flight educational research and
development work of national and international significance. Travis
speaks to this issue:
0
.
jun an tho i:
j
u:;trzai ?
u
w
habitually
p
re.1
t'
I a
look
ca rr.i
to
od
the
on
C
samw
pr i mu
C'oUfl
i i I I
I
C
.i
r?
Ii
the.
for
1!
s ,'i:;
to 11mlMovioll
and e:Iucu
tionai rJlLory and pra tic:. Our
idct
of imJ)lz
?
.:
.rcearch
and advanced studies in rn eu, fi 1'] , co tab I
?
in
education and the social sciences, 1.ct.iaijs a ruad,tion f
reliance on Lj,u U.S.T.
?
Instructional rniji,i1.', cdc;s, ?
c.I
personnel are imported along with issumpOwn
y
Lut what I
significant, problemc tical , or :e Nilabic ?
T.Lus the'_iij
cE
such research
and scholar/I]
j uCAty
as i: under! 9Lc,? in
Canada is predominantly Americai K tmcnojun,r:C;J
content.
(Travis, 199: 34)
10velopment
?
Ed catioiialLeadershiji
The institution of
a high quality
I Ii Xi. pJ';qram in ?
,;_ati.e'i
Simon Fraser will a I.o contribute to th :;Lr
II
utic
ti
ciq aid
1 cducationai leadership within the
?
ovi:u; ?
.tt
present, ippo:; ci;
?
to positions of educational leadership hi hr i Li :h ('cl rnib.i ..i
are ofL
1
1
.
L 1e
wit:lc doctoLat:es
from i.flst.ituti
ri:; nllnid
K
.C.
roil, ver
y
of ;A,
outsid.- Canada (e
q ,
Oregon, Texas, ?
i
?
,
tn
wccit l
cit a
Few)
The d.ve.Lopi:ig emphasis
on mt cli:;.;
vs
a:.0 V.
,
linipa"M
cn,
for 1'..c ..
. ?
at the school district level, in
t.hc' s;p:r
ci
.e:iihitry , in r ;-s -ac. h nf f I
in curriculum development, and in pro; s' dive 1. ;;tient
mu;' we1 1:;e:c':
a
pattern emerging in which school dQUIUS, like tcetr: '!'l. -; ties , mu;
recruit
from outside
the
province, uni
e . ;
.. i'ldi
.
I iou] riII
t oiL.;;I
;eu
work at the doctoral level are.' mile avai ;hl .
to i .
Il
ls
,::; ;,; U'
?
r:,v ro_
Similarly, other cd'.icationai
organi
zations in
tjic'
lacwince, s
the Minis-try, the colleges, and
t
ho ,i,;:;o it ion:;, are at
r'u'ii r,L:,t;(
highly trained
staff
from etsi;h,'
tiR:
i4evi
tnA
..
As with the universities, some cros'-ft, Ii. ].i,rrit
.i 'ut
of
.j.clq',;'•; i,;; ?
ci.ntly
desirable: hev'', virtually Ml
the
senior :hicu t.crs
in
he
ie
id holding
Ph
.[J ?
s
gained them cu
e
si
di'
ii ?
tI
?
:;'' en:; inic fec:: I
Sr.v.is , t,ejoi D. "Hinterland Sehc'oii ny and
Educati.':sal Pycho1oay Lit
Crr'ic
Today,
''
ic Watt '''
'c.
:1"
E3uc:ation ?
Iv
1
i4
(
1
1
)
"
19) :
Character and Vii alit1
of
th
Cult
The
Faculty of Iducatjjn at irnori Fraser
1i.-ir
dvoloped a distinctive
character from its inception. The Prof e:sjona1 Development Program
conceived by Dean A. P. MacKinnon reflects this distinctiveness. The
program
consists,
of a three s,eine:tc'r sequence of alternating school
classroom and campus study experiences. Major principles underlying
the rrograrn are as follows:
a)
the skill components of teaching are learned in actual
confrontation with the task rather than in a formal and
largely verbal instructional setting.
b)
theoretical instruction in conceptual components comes
after practical experience and is based, as far as
possible, upon perceptions developed from practical
experience.
c)
students are permitted to test the validity
of
their
occupational choice by early and extensive exposure
to the demands of the profession.
ci) a major portion of the skills, knowledge and attitudes
required by teachers is imparted by practicing teachers
who play a central role in the training program.
e) the whole educational hierarchy would become involved to some
extent with the training program.
The Faculty has continued to develop and mature while maintaining
its
d istinctive .
c:haracter. This character is partl
y
a function of
Lhe administrative structure, which is organized on
'
a programmatic
rathrr than a departmental basis, and which uses a differentiated
:taffing model combining a small cLrc of tenure track professors with
m.-ster teachers appointed as faculty associat(.
These
features, of the Faculty reflect three important characteriir:
w?ic. would make Simon Fras,ers Ph.D. prorarn fart-icularly distinctive:
Cori tment to
the
Inte g
ration ofTheory and Practice
he Faculty is committed to the integration cf theoiy and practice.
integration is reflected in tie structure: of thc teacher education
proaram--the differentiated staffing model combining theoretical knowledge
on the part of professors with the practical expertise of master teachers.
Ic i also reflected in the more general coimnitinent of
the
faculty to
the .i norovcment of educational practice.
:11ter(1 I.Scit)liflarypers1)ectv(
?
-
The size and organizational structure ot the Faculty, and particularly
the absence of a departmental syste'n, fosters an "interdisciplinary'
perspective within the Faculty. This perspective is reflected in the
cortLmuication between faculty members from divergent disciplinary
backgrounds within the field of study that is education. It is also
evident in the emergence of interdisciplinary research proposals
focusing on a problem of common interest but involving faculty members
with widely different academic backgrounds.
4
.
?
4
S
Vi1. t•.
The ccrrmitnwnt of thu faei1. y Lc hr :0
?
1
t
y i
??
r
and zchol,i r'b ij-,
is reflected in the following icatirt::;
01
1 j":lt
y
..
if. rrnancc
- : groW:ig nuriber of facult y
t.'
mendcr:; :
?
I t ra
t ii ?
rx
tern: I
for research tro jr:t_;.
?
firI
?
('i' ?
'i'IJ.lri
n-ice:;
(Canada Council, SS1I:C , 0retaiy '1
?
t it ,
?
i. ri ;' ry .)f
Education) and frn t:iiu
?
itei ?
t:te::
(Nt ?
ii ?
FILm ?
1:1
Education) -
!'ctL1 ?
4
Extern;l
F
.
-unrI7.nq ACqUitO
(y
?
t''i:.l
1976 197)
?
1976 ?
$ 199,15
?
1977
?
17,098
?
1978
? 102, 7n(
?
1979
?
226,806
Sour c :
off
ice of ij.jan of Gradu t
ft Lid i o
•Linen
- Individual
t:n'r
faculty members
Univc,rsi
ha
y
: rec
.
.i '1 Ii 'ornjnd.vocIn
L
for
excellence in research and schlarl' (:('nr) hti.,.
- Thu r,ublication record of Facult
y
mF!
i.: i
lear
IL
d
lournal
s is
enviable
for
a small
faculty. ?
In a r((urO
:t.tdy
;-irlriu and Martin
?
i:k or Ored
Canadian Faculties of Education in tenno of tot a! nuhli cation (:ountz
in
leadinT
nine
education journa] s in 107'-, 1977, 1970, and ]()79. 1ihi '
reflects the relative j)OSltiOflS of the t:or six in':titutio:is. Tht:
full table is found in A p
pendix B.
Table ¶
Lank Ordering of Top Six Canadian Facultie::
of Education Based en Total Publication Counts
in Nine
Leading Educat.i cr Journal:;
1976-1919
(i
tc:I
usivu) -
Faculty ?
Rank ?
Total
Publication Count
?
University of Alberta
?
1 ? 4'
Ontario Institute for Studies
in Education ?
2 ?
32
Simon Fraser University
?
3 ?
30 1/1
University of British Columbia
?
4
?
20.
5/6
• ?
University of Victoria ?
5
? 16
University of Western Ontario
?
6
?
11 1/3
Source: Appendix X
I t
?
I ?
IJ(
II
I
v. ?
(.
?
t.
Uni.v.: ;ily
0
?
Al
l,.rI, ?
it
?
in
t
md Uat
15 ?
o
t
h
j:'
cowl
Stn]iis
in Educati
n
are in
In
for the respective facultief:;.
Simon Fraser relative to these
would undeniably rank first on
ii ?
I
?
'HI ?
r; (
.
j
?
to.:
?
AL
s:i
?
:Jou
i ?
I
uf flciU(dtiOflul R(^(arCh
) [or
th
OiL-mr to
I
nstitute for
tcrchane--jourmiulc that.
are
in-house
Organ:;
(:iven the small
size
of the faculty at
other two
large faculties, Simon Fraser
a er capita basis.
- The participation of faculty members at international conferences
further attests to faculty scholarly performance. In a recent study
in
the Educational Researcher, Richards ranked
the ton 100 American
Educationa. P.esearch Association program contributions by institution
for 1975-1979. (Appendix C
'fable 6
1
inks of Canarli an l.iiivmrsit.i.es
In Top
1
00
AEHA
Contributions
Rank ?
institution
16
?
Jntario Institute for Studies in Education
58 ?
Simon ra:o: University
74 ?
!ni';ersit'
of
British Coluirnia
72
?
McGill Univcr;ity
84
?
Uniiersit: of WesteLr. Ontario
4
E1 ?
nivtmrsit' of A].hrri
Sourc:: Appendix X
it is notcworthy that Simon Fraei: ranked 58 --16 ranks above the
lJniversitv of British
Columbia, 20 above McGill University,
26
above
the Universit
y
of western Ontario and 40
above the University of Alberta.
iurtherrnore, the only Canadian institution ranking higher than Simon
Vrmser wa;; tJc Ontario I:;t
j tute for Stu.Ii&
•
a. in Education which i
s
SOlely
a jradui
Lm/reseaj
cli education faculty.
--
The research and scholarship of faculty members is also reflected in ?
the distinguished work of graduate students in their M.A. theses.
10
students have had their theses selected in a national competition
for presentation at the University of Manitoba Conference on Curriculum
Applications. Several other graduate students have had papers
based
en their theses published in refereed journals and/or presented at
national conferences like the learned societies or international
conferences like the American Educational Research Association
Conference.
0
1)'/4-iJ7
250
1
1974
?
1975 ?
1976 ?
1977 ?
1978
200
150
100
.
t ?
a
Fir. i,11%
?
ln.li vidual
?
faculty
?
r'r;
have ai
1( LI
?
r(:uJrI i
Li
rm
?
•j
r
S
?
-
writir; and jublishin
q
variou;
k
ml ?
ot ?
i
1!ort
?
iIId ?
bOr>k;.
The ?
.increain'J
rju-nlxur
of hooks
and
rn
noj
iu
h ?
ii ?
ie
r'.jv ?
LII ?
the
facult y
att ?
sts to the
vitality
and VJ.'jour of ?
t he
?
fcu) t ''
?
and
?
t
the
strong
commitment
to rcseairt,
!;
c l
ik,
la rf:; I ,
i
p ?
an 1
?
pub Li,ua tion.
iii) Natural Extcnicni to Exitinq Program
Graduate programs in the Faculty of 1ucati on at tie astcr' s
level havedeveloped ;tronqly in rccent
y(tri
to tin: point wh:re a
sound academic base exists for Ph.D. Studic5,;. These developments inyludc.
time differentiation of
M.A. (Educ.)
and M.Sc. (l::dmic.) dr.'qrt'e; from th'
M.Ed. , and of new emphases in Curriculum and Instruction, 1earflhfl(J
Disabilities, Reading, and Teaching Enqli.mhm a' a Scr:t:nd Tam uaqt'.
The program in Counselling has matured to the ji.nt
of reccivinc widespread recognition as a trong program.
T
he Jdniirti:;trii
Li '
Leadership Program has recently undergone :uhantial review and
redefinition and has enrged considerably strengthened from this
prOCE'i5.
In addition, a large proportion of graduate students are working on
Individual programs of study tailored to the., r needs and time interests
and competence of particular professors.
In recent years the quality of graduate applicants has improved to
the point where the Faculty is able to select students more rigorously
on both academic and professional criteria. At the same time the demand
for graduate study is increasing. Figure I. shows the increasing enrolment.
S
in iraduate study in the Feulty of Education for the per ic,d
l7'1]"'1).
Figure 1: Faculty of
Edu'nt.ior (radua
te EnrOlmn(nt.s
')ry)
/
7
- -
210
A
I
iC
/
/
/
/
Full 'f.ne L:1uiv1cnts
1979
?
1980
)
.
APPENDIX II
The Interdisciplinary Nature of the Proposed Program
1.
S.F.U.'s Faculty of Education is not departmentalized; its organi-
zation reflects
function (
Professional Development; Undergraduate
Program; Graduate Program) rather than disciplinary origins (e.g.,
Psychology; Philo;ophy; Statistics,
etc.).
This form of organization
stimulates within-faculty interdisciplinary perspectives.
2.
Supervision of Ph.D. candidates is the responsibility of a Supervisory
Committee which normally includes a member from another S.F.U. faculty
related to the student's field of specialization (e.g.,
sociology,
history, linguistics) [Sue Appendix IV, Calendar Description].
3.
A number of members of faculties other than Education (e.g., in
Philosophy, History,
Sociology)
have been identified as potential
contributors to the
instructional
program, among others through
special tonics seminars (Educ. 907, Educ. 908).
4. The following is
3
list of courses currently offered in departments
outside of the Faculty of Education which are considered likely and
appropriate electives for students in the Ph.D. program proposed.
[lIST ?
800-5 ?
Hist'oriography
1,1NG ?
850-3
?
Seminar in Second Language Acquisition
POL ?
822-5 ?
Canadian Provincial Government and Politics
?
851-5 ?
Public Policy in Canada
?
853-5
?
Public Administration
PSYC 715-3
Proseminar in Measurement
720-3
Proseminar in Learning
730-3
Proseminar in Perception
750-3 Proseminar in Developmental Psychology
760-3
Prosemiriar in Social Psychology
770-3
Proseminar in Personality
910-3 Research Design I: ?
Experiments
911-3 Research Design II: Research Studies
S.A. 815-5 sociology of Knowledge
858-5
Philosophy
of the Social Sciencies
ECON
890-4 Public Finance
891-4
The Economics of Public Choice
MRM
644-3
Public Policy Analysis
PHIL
860-5
Graduate Seminar in Philosophy of Science
.1
a ?
£
APPENDIX ITT
?
The Faculty of Education
Whereas membership of su
l
,crvisOry
Comifli
t. tec: is in principle OUen
to all faculty members, only those wit.h dcmoiistratc xerti c ii
the area of a particular student's field of study arf
,
CXlft'C
I
8d
to
serve on that student's committee. Moreover, it is expected that
students will select senior supervisOrs; from among those faculty
members which have a strong record of scholarship in the student'.
field of specialization.
George Ivany
B.Sc.(Memorial U of Nfld.),
Dip. ?
in Educ. ?
(Memorial U of
Nfld.).
M.A. ?
(Teachers Coil., Columbia U),
Ph.D. ?
(U of Alberta)
Professor and Dean of Education
Science Education
S
Jaap Tui.nman
B .Ld .
?
( 7,woil.e ?
Dutch ?
Reformed
r
i( t
(h
?
Cu. I
M.A.
?
(Zwoile), ?
MM. ?
-
l'edaqogiek,
Ph.D. ?
(U of Georgia)
Professor and Director of Graduate PrograuS
Reading, Verbal Learning
Peter Coleman
B.A. ?
(lions.) ?
(UBC) ,
?
M.A. ?
(USC)
Teach. ?
Cert. ?
(USC) ,
?
D.Ed. ?
(UBC:)
Associate Professor
Educational Administration
Dianne Common
B.A. ?
(U of Manitoba) ,
?
Cert. ?
of Educ.
(U of Manitoba),
?
13.Ed. ?
(U of Manitoba)
M.Ed.
?
(U of Manitoba) ,
?
Ph.D. ?
(U of Ottawn)
Assistant Professor
Educational Administratio
n
and
Curriculum Development. Social Studies.
A.J. ?
(Sandy)
?
Dawson
B.Sc. ?
(U of Alberta), ?
M.A. ?
(Educ) ?
(Wash.U)
Ph.D. ?
(U of Alberta)
Associate Professor
Specialized training in mathematics
teaching, reading, language arts, and
science, Philosophy of math.
?
learning.
Alternate Teacher Educ. Programs
.1
Suzanne U. de Castell
?
B.A. (lions.) (Sir Ceor(fe Williams Univ.)
N.J. (Univ. of Londoi) Ph.D.(Univ. of London)
Assistant Professor
Educational theory, Mental health and
illness, Critical theory and
sociology of knowledge, literacy, theory
and practice.
Kieran Egan ?
B.A. (lions.) (U of I.ondon),
P.G.T.C. (U of London) Teaching Cert.
Ph.D. Program (Stanford U)
Ph.D. (Cornell U)
Professor
Education, Philosophy of History,
Poetics, Social Studies.
jolflL
F. J:llis ?
Dip. (Distinction) (Vancouver Normal Sch.)
D.A. (UBC), M.A. (UBC), Ed.D.
(U of Cal. Berkeley)
Professor
The education of professionals -
identification of issues and dilemmas
Roger D. c,ehlbach ?
B.A.(College Honors) (U of Illinois),
M.S. (U of Illinois) , Ph.D. (U of Toronto)
Assistant Professor
Educational play, Language and
cognitive development.
Maurice Cibboob
?
Teach.Cert. (Vancouver Normal School)
B.A. (UBC), M.A. (U of Wash.),
Ed.D. (Harvard U)
Professor
Program Development, Self-Education,
Study of Experts without Formal Education.
Cornel Hamm
?
Dip. (Vancouver Prov. Normal Sch.)
B.A. (UI3C) , M.A. (Columbia U)
Ph.D. (U of London)
Associate Professor
Philosophy of Educ; particular emphasis:
Jhj cs and Education.
Br y
an 1lieLert:
?
fl.i:d. (U of Calgary) , M.Ed. (U of Alberta)
Ph.D. (U of Alb:rt.a)
Assistant Professor
Counsellor Training, Biofeedback,
Stress Management.
0
4
•$ ?
'•.,
C
S
Robert J.D. Jones
?
B.A. (Concordia)
B.Ed. (Montreal)
N.A. (Concordia)
Assistant Professor
Educational Technology
Computer Assisted Instruction
A.C. (Tasos) Kaepidcs
?
Teach. Cert. (Teachers Coil.)
B.A. (U of Athens), Ed.M. (Tem p le U)
Ed.D. (Temple U)
Professor
Philosophy of Education, Examination
of the phi 1 osoph ical di.rnens ions of
educational. theory (ethical and
epistemoiocji cal oi: related to
phloophy
of language
and
mi rid).
Janet Ross Kendall
?
A.B. Political Science (Occidental Coll.).
Elem. Cert. (Sari iranci.sco State Col L)
Ph.D. (U of Iowa)
Assistant Professor
Read mg comprehension, process of
learning to read.
Glenn Kirchner
?
B.P.E. (UBC), M.Sc. (fl of Oreqor)
r:d.D. (U of Oregon)
Professor
Physical Education,. Movement Educat
i
on,
Comparat ivo Edica Lion
Carolyn Manichur ?
Teach. Con:. (Teacher's College),
B.A. (College of Arts arid Science)
B.Ed. (U of Saskatchewan, M.Ed.
(U of Saskatchewan) , Ed.!). (U of F'luri.cla)
Assistant Professor
Theory and Curriculum Development,
Secondary English, Teacher Effectiveness,
Personality variables in the classroom.
Michael E. Manley-Casimir
?
B.A. (Hons.) (Exeter), Cert. of Ed. (Exeter)
M.Ed. (uBc) $ Ph.D. (U of Chicago)
Associate Professor
Social Issues, Children's Rights,
School Discipline, Administrative
Decision Making, Law and Education
Policy Studieri in Education
S
a
.
lack F. Martin ?
B.A. (U of Alberta), M.Ed. (U of Alberti)
(U c{ Atherta)
Associate Professor
Counsellor and Teacher Effectiveness,
Self-control (self-reinforcement)
Instructional Counselling.
Foia.Ld W. Marx ?
B.A. (California State U, Northridge),
M.A. (California State U, Northridge)
Ph.D. (Stanford U)
Associate Professor
Research on Teaching, Educational
Measurement; Instructional Psychology.
Milton MeC1 arn
?
B.Ed. (UI3C) , Ph .D. (t;L1C)
Associate Professor, Faculty of Educ.
and Biological Sciences
Environmental Education, Science Education,
Program Design and Curriculum Development;
Curriculum Integration.
IThomas J. O'Shea ?
B.Eng. (Civil) (McGill U)
E.Ed. (U of Saskatchewan)
M.Ed. (U of Manitoba)
Ed.!). (UBC)
Math Education
K. George Pedersen
?
Diploma in Teaching (Vancouver Normal
School) , B.C. (UBC) , M.A. (U of Washington)
Ph.D. (U of Chicago)
Professor and President, Simon Fraser University
Economics and Finance of Education,
Educational Policy, Administration of
Post-Secondary Institutions.
Leone M. Prock ?
B.A. (U of Auckland, N.Z.), Dip.Ed.,
(U of Auckland), N.A. (1st Class Honors),
(U of Auckland, N.Z.), Ed.D. (U of Illinois)
Associate Professor
Instructional Theory and Practice,
Learning Disabilities.
Norman Robinson ? B.A. (UBC) , M.Ed. NBC),
Ph.D. (U of Alberta)
Associate Professor
Politics of Education, Educational
Governance, School-Community
Relations, Administrative Theory.
0
Gloria Paulik Sampson
?
A.B. (U of
Chicdqo) ,
M.A. (U of I
L(.:iIi'.an)
Ph.D.
(1) of Michigan)
Associate 1rOfeSLOr
Pugh sL
a,;
a
Second Lanyu:Iye
Applied Li riquistics
Stanley M. Shapson
?
E.Sc. (Mc(,ill U) , M.A. (York U)
Ph.D. (York U)
Associate Professor
Bilingual and Multicultural Educat:iOr,
Cognitive Development, Evaluation
of
Educut.ional ProqrànIS
David Stirling ?
B.Sc .
(P. . )
(Guelph) ,
N. A. (Geo.i; ?
. on)
Ph.D. (U of Saskatchewan)
Assistant Profesot
Research: Curriculum Secondary Sciioc']
P.E. Exercise Phyiology, Respirat
ory
Physiology
A.
Ronald Walker
A.R.C.O. (Organ)
A.R.C.M. (Piano)
Cert.
in
Educ. (U of
BinnLnyham)
B.Mus. (Hons.
Class
2) (London)
Ph.D. (London)
Assistant Professor
Music
I'ducatJorl.
1^1
Eileen Mary Warrell
?
Teach. Dip. (I.M. Marsh College of. 1'.G.)
M. Ed.
(Westcrn
Washington State ('cli
Assistant Professor
Phys .
Ed. , Movement; Education,
Element ary School Curriculum
Selma
Wassermaun ?
B.S.
(City
U of N.Y.), E.S..
(City U or
N.Y.),
Ed. D. (N. Y. University)
Professor
Curriculum and Instruction, Emphasis on
curriculum and program development,
instructional strategies, and
human
growth and development.
Marvin E. Wideen
?
B.Ed. (U of Saskatchewan) , B.A. (U of
Saskatchewan) , M.Ed. (U of Saskatchewan)
Ph.D. (U of
Colorado)
Associate Professor
Innovation
in Teacher Education,
In-
service Education of Teachers,
Science
Education
Philip H. Winne
?
A.A. (Dutchess Comm. Coil.),
13.S.Ed. (Bucknell U), M.S.Ed.
(Bucknell U), Ph.D. (Stanford U)
Associate Professor
Instructional Psychology, Measurement
Statistics and Research Methods,
Program Evaluation.
l3erni cc Wong ?
B.A. (Double Honours) (U of Keele)
M.A. (U of Victoria), Ed.D. (UBC)
Assistant Professor
Memory processes in learning-disabled
children, Comprehension problems of
learning-disabled adolescents,
Piagetian Research, Experimental
Psychology
June D. Wyatt
?
B.A. (Brooklyn Coil.), N.A. (Brown U)
Ph.D. (Union Graduate School)
Assistant Professor
Cross-Cultural Education,
Community Education.
!eguido Zola
?
B.A. (Hons.) (Bristol U), Postgraduate
Cert. in Educ. (Bristol U),
M.Phil. (Leeds U)
Assistant Professor
Language and Language Learning,
The Language Arts, Literature for
Children and Young People, Literary
Criticism
0
r
APP1DIX I V
?
The Curriculum: Additional Information
I.
?
New Courses
The Faculty of Education proposes the following new graduate courses:
Education 901-5 Seminar in the flistory of Educational Theory
The historical roots of educational thought are examined
from a broad cultural perspective. Major works in disciplines
such as philosophy, psychology and sociology which have had
significant impact on educational theorizing
will
be studied.
Special attention will be paid to the relationship between
theory and educational practice.
Education 902-5 Interdisciplinary Seminar in Contemporary
Educational Theory
Contemporary educational theories
. ?
from supporting disciplines (e.g., psychology, sociology,
philosophy) will be examined and analysed. The relationship
between contemporary theories, current practice and educa-
tional change will be focal.
Education 903-0 Research Apprenticeship
The apprenticeship is designed to provide the student with
practical experience in scholarly inquiry in close co-
operation with a faculty member in the student's area of
specialization.
Education 907-5 Selected Topics
Education 908-5 Selected Topics
Education 910-5 Directed Readings
Doctoral Colloquia
Doctoral colloquia are designed specifical
students to benefit from the knowledge and
members and peers in the student's area of
• colloquia are intended to promote critical
to sharpen understanding and to test ideas
of scholarly debate.
y to enable Ph.D.
skills of faculty
specialization. The
analysis of issues,
in the cut and thrust
?
J:ducdtion 911-5
?
Colloquium in Curriculum Theo.cy (1)
?
912-5
?
Colloquium in Curriculum Theory (II)
?
Education 921-5
?
Colloquium in Educational Governance (I)
?
922-5 ?
Colloquium in Educational Governance (11)
?
Education 971-5
?
Advanced
Topics in Instructional Psychology (I)
?
972-5 ?
Colloquium in Instructional Psychology (II)
Education
899-10 Ph .D.
Dissertation
See Appendix for the individual new course proposals (Appendix V
TI. Calendar Description
Admission
Ror admission requirements, refer to the General Regulations,
Section 1.3.3. Admission to a Doctoral Program. In addition
to the University requirements a student normally is required
to provide a minimum of two letters of reference, to submit a
500 world statement of professional goals, a sample of academic
writing, and general aptitude scores from the Graduate Record
Examination. A personal interview also may be required.
Admission to graduate study in the Faculty of Education is
competitive. All applicants must satisfy the University
requirements for admission but the number of students admitted
is always contingent upon the availability of Faculty members
to supervise students' programs.
pervi sion
At the
tit-K-
of admisiori , in eon;ui. t ati on with the gi aduate
Student,
!n. Graduate l
l
roqraifj Cortwtit tee
will
appoint a Senior Supervisor
tid , upozi
his/1101
recomtndat. ion, approve a Supervisory Committee
The Committee will normally consist of at least four members. Three
of these must be from the Faculty of Education;
inclunioll
or one
mc
'om a'ohi ." fccutv related to the student's field of specialization
?
?
(e.g. sociology, ?
linguistics) ?
;tr.nLt en:oiraged.
The
responsibilities of the Cornittee are detailed in section 1.6.4 of
the General Regulation. In addition, members of this committee arr'
expected to participate in the doctoral colloquia in the student's area
of study.
Lieree Requirements
The Ph.D. program allows srccial
j
znt ions in
Kductional Govercc,
-, t vct ioz /
?
ncheioc j u,
a
nd
Curricul urn Acory mid Irplenr.ntation.
t:vry 111. 1). procjram will in(-] tide
the
following:
.
.
1)
'Succeful performance in approved c:ourses notmaily amount ing to
a total ef at least 20 semester hurs credit. beyond the requil ri-nl s
listed utxve for the F.A
(Eric) ,
or M.Sc. (Educ) , or M.Ed.
Normally, Ed;.cation 901 md 902 zu,d tw..
' doctoral coiloqni.a maL' ep
the
minimum coursework. The upervi ory Cornittet may reqni r
further work in
this or
other faru1 t students
are
:
t ?
.hxjw additional
?
rt: ?
tom
J'/f,
Oa ?
••'. ?
L' ?
'
?
!/n
2)
Succensfui ?
fermance in ton'rchcn,;ivc uxaminati on; . The exminiti
:It
will normall y
he written. The Com1.rihnnsive Examination Committee
i
11
consist of the etudent's Su.ervisory Coiiiittee and one other fult.y
meml.er to h dosinci1ecI by the L)irrct
ot ?
f Craduat_e Programs
Students are exro(--ted to write rxzlmi tati(
, rts in thr'e areas
i) Educational Theory; ii) Research Methods; iii) Field of
Specializaticu (Educational
'JVerIh1ict;
Iristructonai Tsychulc' y;
Curriculum Theory and Implementa
t i(
, n) . If the student passer: the
conprOhcnsi
y
e examinations but the it'ilts indicate deficiencies i
certain areas, the student will be
required to renrdy t:hes'
deficiencies. A student who fails may take t he examination a
limo. A student. will be required to
Wi
I hdraw after a second fai lure
3)
An ori.inai arid significant thesis completed by the candidate with
guidance of the student's Supervi;ory Committee.
Dissertation procedures
a)
A Thesis Proposal Seminar should be given by each candidate at
an early stage in his/her research program. Each candidate sLoul
produce a written proposal, make it available to all interested
members of the Faculty,
and
present it on a preannounced
date. The members of the candidate
'
s Supervisory Committee should
attend the presentation and they
?
Ad arrn ?
br othet i nt
ro
-;t& (
members of the rac:ultv to att
i
11(1 1
?
St
11. ?
That. ?
onmit
?
,
aloiy with t
c
Candidate, should
the
L Ufl
the futu:e coure ¶
research on the thesis, pavin
g
duo rcyard to the comments tiat
they have received.
b)
A Thesis Seminar should be prc:;cnl ed by each candidate ..fter uhe
3upervirory Committee has agreed that the thesis is substantiall;
complete but before it has formally approved it as ready for a
Thesis Defence. The Graduate Programs Committee, in consultation
with the candidate and the candidate's Supervisory Committee,
will designate two other members of the Faculty who may submit
written comments on the thesis, and/or thesis seminar to the
Supervisory Committee. The Supervisory Committee will consider
these comments, as well as those of other members of faculty in
determining whether additional substantive work should be done
on the thesis or whether the thesis is ready for Thesis Defence.
In the latter case, that Committee should submit a written report,
along with other written comments, to the Graduate Programs Committee.
This should be completed at least two months before the proposed
date for the Thesis Defence.
c)
The Thesis Defence. Procedures for this defence are described
in
the General Regulations section.
1 M)N IRASLR 1N1 VflI TY
;1d
uat e Cours
?
I rcI)o;a .1
?
r::.
li.
fl'Aklf: ORNAF1O:
ipt:'nni.
Education
?
we Numi.
Seminar in the History of Educational Thought
:,cription:
?
See attached page.
I-.
0
c:red.i t !1cur:
?
3
?
Vector:
?
Prez'iui:tte(s) if an'.':
• NRCLIMLNT AND SCHEDULING:
Estimated Enrollment:
?
6-8
?
When will the course first he offered: 1982-3
Uow ofi en will the course be offered:
?
Annually
Ui:-TJIi"tTTON:
Scs attached page.
IU ;s t
WLic} iacuiy sicnibe w. 11 normally
I
each the course: A team of faculty will teach the course.
wh. are ihe budgetai v i
m l
iicd
Lions ol mounting the course: Aliocat ion of 1/2 FTE in
senes cr
when course is offered.
Are there
sufficient
Library resources (append details):
See
Library assessment.
Appended: a) Outline of the Course
b)
An indication of the competence of the Faculty member to give the course
c)
Library resources
Approved: Departmental Graduate Studies C mmittee:
?
_Date
Faculty Graduate
Stusf
mit e :
?
Date//M
Faculty: ?
\J\C1A' ?
Date
Senate Graduate St dies Committee: ?
Date
_
Date
:.1ncat i n 9CA
0 ?
2. Enrollment and Schedul_
The historical roots of educational thought are examined from a broad
perspective. Major works in disciplines such as philosophy, psychology
and sociology which have had significant impact on educational, theorizing
will be studied. Special attention will be paid to the relationship between
theory and educational practice.
3. Ji.stification
The primary intent ol this course is, to f:mui
?
mr
ize ;tuiIent
will' tin
writing of influential theorists in the history of educat tonal t.houiit
Major works from
the
disciplines of phiio;ophy, p:ychol.ogy and ;oeieiuy
will be read and discussed, and the course will be team taught by
faculty
members from these disciplines. Thus, the orientation will be inter-
disciplinary. The characteristic areas of concern addressed by the
'suppui.titt'
disciplines will be identified, and the distinctive conceptual and i;iethodo-
logical perspectives of the 3 disciplines will be brought to bear on each
theory discussed.
Special attention will be paid to explicating the different presappositiuns
of major theorists with respect to the child, society, and 1.nowledge.
Outline
I. Orientation
1.
What is "Educational Theory"?
2.
The Role of Supporting Disciplines
3.
The Theory/Practice Nexus
ii. Philosophical Foundations
1.
-Classical Humanism: Plato's Republic
2.
The Roots of Progressivism: J. J. Rousseau
3.
The Genesis of Reconstructionistn: John Dewey
4.
Neo-Classical Compromises: R. Peters
III. Psychological Foundations
1.
Cognitive Psychology: E.L. Thorndike
2.
The Genesis of Psychoanalytic Theory: Freud
3.
Symbolic Interactionism: G.11. Mend
4.
Human Abilities: Spearman
IV. Sociological Perspectives
1.
Education and Socialization: E. 1)urkheitn
2.
Education and Social Status: N. Weber
3.
'Schools for All': The Rise of Mass Schooling.
4. c)
.
is
Education 901
LIST OF IJCAT1VE SOi1RCE;
'first, P. 11.:
?
"Educational Theory" in Tibble, J. W. (ed.)
The Study
-
of Education.
O'Connor, D. J.: "The Nature of Educational Theory" in Proc .Phii.
of Ed. Soc. of C.B. 1972.
Tibblc, J. W. (ed.), The Study of Education.
r)eardan, R. et al.:
?
caton and the Development 01 Kinds.
Dewey: Democracy and Education.
McClelland, J.: Philosophy of Education.
flettl eship: The TheOry of Ju St Ice in Plato's Republic
Peters R. S.:
Lthics
_
a n
d Eth cation.
Plato: Th e
-
R
ep
ublic.
Rousseau: Emile.
cheff ler,
, I . :
?
The
li1iguu
?
of
Edtict ion
?
Whitehead: The Aims of Education.
Hirst • P.: Knowledge and the Curriculum
James, W.
?
T
a1k_to_Teachers. Tsy
c
holo g
y (abridged).
Watson, J. B.: Behaviourism.
Spearman, C. TheAbilitjc
r
Of Man ?
Their Nature and Measurement (1927).
Vernon, P. E. The Measurement of Abilities (1939)
Lbbinghaus, U. Meo: A Contribution to Experimental Pyo1og. (1913).
Tliorndike, E. L. Educational
pc
cho1og1 (vols. 1, 2; 1913).
Guthrie, E. R.
Thh
O1ofLearnj
?
(1935).
Judd, C. H. Education as Cultivationof the Hiher Mental_Proces'. (1936).
Kalona, C. Or
?
in and Meniorizn (1940)
Jersild, A. J. and Holmes, F. B. Children's_Fears. (1935),
Skinner, B. F. The Behavior of
_ganisms(l938)
Bartlett, F. C. Remembering (1932).
Freud, S.:
The Case of Little Hans. Intrcucçyjtures
in
Ps y choana lysis.
T
'I
III.
C
S
0 ?
}:(hIc:;lt ion
901
Mead, C. H.: Mind
?
- ,
elf ?
Sclety. ?
(excerpts)
Strauss, A.: The Social sych21 oy
LSi .
I
IV. Durkheirn, E.: Education and Sociology.
?
rl!:
Method.
Weber, M.: Economy and Society. (excerpts)
Johnson, R.: Education and Society 1.780-1850.
Floude & Halsey: Social Class and EciucatonalpportujJ.
Katz, M.: Class, Bureaucracy and Sc ools, the IUSOPI
Educational Change in America.
Aries, P.: Centuries of Childhood.
is
t ?
N I
V ?
I t I ?
.
('.r:;c ?
l'rr)(,:-1
1
I:; flIMAT (:
S(flariJ1flj)crary Education
al
Thoug
ht
psychology, Sociology, philosophy) will be examined and analysed.
The rel onhp
between
con
emporary
theories ?
ent)cte
pd
____
educational chanqe will be focussed
on.
it
iour :
3 ?
Vector:
?
l'reieii
ite ?
)
if
any :
Edijc. 901
AND
?
i:uU ?
1,Tu)i.ltheI)t : ?
Whn
will
the courc
f iri ic- offered:
: 1982-3
?
lc of f ?
wi ] J
the come beof
I
ered: ?
U'iath
.smeterfoliaw j noEduc
901
r;.[} I (;1.'f].i
See attached page.
--
IO1L'.l
?
•,
Jucsyry
impi
.1i
?
o 1 mruit. ?
the
?
I ?
in
einester when course is offered.
Are
th':,u f
ic ent
library
resources
(appciid deti i; ) :
See Librar
y
assessment
I: ?
)
utline of Lhe
Course
An i ndi cati
on of
the
conipetenc
ot
the
ic: Itv
member to
.
iv'
ihe cour
.) Library re-sources
Foc
.
ulty Gradu
?
,u xes omm^ ttee:
?
Da t
e4tK Kell
Faculty:
?
?
cç ?
.
[
l
ate
flruate C radu1J
P
Studies Committee ?
_Date_A6Fi
I
:;nate
t e
S
?
t 1
3.
JustificaLion
This course focu;c s on cct.cinpota y
?
;F;r
on of Use
?
historical works explored in Education 901. Tracing the rul it,ion
of contemporary and historical theories in terms, of par11ei
presuppositons about the child, society and the nature of
knowledge will illustrate the devulo
j mrut of 'pala ijm';
?
Ti?
educational thought.
The course will be team taught by faculty from different
disciplines. Attention will be drawn throughout to the ways in
which caiipeting theoretical
perspectives
define and structur,
in quite different ways, perceptions of central educational
questions and acceptable solutions. The imlact of current
tLerri
e
on educational change and innovation will he discr:snnd.
The intended
OULC(MnC
Of this cuurne
of
nt
tily
i that
will be able to foinrulat.e arid defend exit eri.a for juc'd idueri i,rt
theories, develop a coherent view of the relation of
theory to
educational practices, and will hav acquired as a result of their
investigations of the major educational theories of the prst,
the conceptual and analytical tools to critically evaluate
.
?
currently emerging educational theories.
4.
a) Outline of the course
I. The Nature of Educational Theory:
1.
Current conceptions of 'Educational Theory.'
2.
Criteria of a good Educational Theory
3 •
p
roblems in bridging the Theory/Practice gap
II. Contemporary Philosophy of Education:
1.
The Analytic Tradition
2. Existentialism and Phenornerroloqy
3.
Reconstructionism
III. Psychological Contributions:
1.
Behaviourism: A. Bandurn and B. F. Skinner
2.
Cognitivism: ?
D. P. Auc'ibel et a].
3.
The Psychoanalytic Paradigm: Bruno Bettleheirn
IV. Sociological Contributions:
1.
The Critique of Liberalism: Bowles & Gintis
2.
schooling & Processes of Stratification: B. Bernstein,
Michael Young, et al.
3.
Education and Reproduction: Tierre Eourdieu
0
LIST OF INDICATIVE SOURCE : F:dicai ion 902
I.
Hard i e, C. D.:
?
Fall
Thcor
Hirst, P. If.: "Philosophy and Educational Theory'
Moore, T. W.: Educational The
ory
: An
_introduction.
TI.
?
Apple, M. A.: "Ivan I]iIch and dc-Schooling Society: The Politics
of a Slogan System: In Young & Whitley. Society. State and
Carnoy, M.: Education as Cultural Imperialism.
Crcriin, L. : The Transformation of the School.
Curtis, B. & Nays, W. (eds.): 'Phenomenol
ogy a
nd Education.
Dearden, R.: Philos op
hy
o
f Primary Education.
Flew, A.: Sucioloy,
-
E q u a
l iypdEducation.
Freire, P.: Pedagvof
t
he O p p
ressed.
Education
for
Critical
Consciousness.
Goodman, P.
?
Growing up Absurd/Compulsory isoducation.
Hirst, P. H.: 'liberal Education and the Nature of Knowledge" in
Knowled g
e and the Curriculum.
•
lllIch, I.: flo-schoolingSocie.
After De-school
ing : What?
Lloyd, D. I .(cd.): Philosopyand the Teacher.
Peters, R. S.: Ethics and Education.
Peters, R. S. (ed.): The Concept of Education.
Peters, R. S.: "The Justification of Education" in The Philosophy
of Education.
Van Cleve Norris: Existentialism in Education.
White, J.
?
Towards aCompulsary Curriculum.
111.
?
A"subel, D. P., Novak, J. D., 6 Hanesian, H.: Educational Psvcholog1:
A Cognitive
View (1978).
Bandura, A. Social Learning Theory (1977).
Cremin, L.: The Transformation of the School.
Chomsky, N.: "Review of Skinner's Verbal
_Behavior" (1955)
Flavéll, J.: The Developmental
_Theor y of_ Jean !.
Cagn,
R. 11.: The Conditions of Learning (1977).
.
.
.
I
S
1.dai I
?
)02
Klein, M.
?
The Psvc'hoin;ilyt
ic Stu
d
,
,
(
If
tilL ('hill.
Miller, G. A. Ca]mter, F.
?
Pribrnin, K. Plan nod Structure
of Behavior. (1960).
Meichenb3um, D. Co
g
nitive-Behavior Modification (1977).
Neisser, U. Cognition and ReàU. (1976).
Newall, A. & Simon, H. A. Human Problem Solving. (1972).
P lag
et,
J.: The Science of Education a
?
the Psychology of
the Child.
Skinner, B. F.: The
_TecnolOjyofTcchtng.
IV. ?
Bernstein, B.: Class, Codes and Control. Vols. I; II.
\
Bourdieu, P.: Reproduction: in Education, SoëJety and Culture.
Bowles& Cintis: 3,InInCapita]istAmer1ca.
Karabel, J. & Halsey, H.: Power and Ideology in Education.
•
?
Young, M. & Whitley, C.:
?
_i',StatenndScloojir.
Young, M. (ed.): Knowledge and Control.
0
T?''.N Y KAsER U1I\'E1?iTY
i
.
aduate
Course
Pi'o.;:;i1
un ?
:nr.
I N! OR VIA TIOL
Education
(uii:,.-
?
NtiTnIc-:
911.
:.Colloquium in Curriculum Theory _I
on:familiarizetuwh the most fundamental questions
which
need to
be
addressed if one wants to deal sensibly with the
curriculum,
-
and to introduce them to themjor answers traditio a)
?
dcurren'Z
J
-. ?
given to those questions.
Ci-ed ?
t
?
!'n:. :
?
3 ?
Vector :
rerqui
?
te( s )
?
if any
..LNkL;JM!;tIT :ND ;cF1EDULiNh
;sti1;:ai ed }rollrnent: ?
4-6
?
When will the course first ie offered;
?
1982-3
Ho
t
,
,
often w Ii the cour;e he offered :onceayear.
JUTiF1CAT12:
the area of curriculum are designed mainly
foc
?
level practitioner,wi
.
th only one couscproviding any introduction to
snwharhisticatedcurriculum theory. These are inadequate to support
?
oqram
for students intending to focus on curriculum theory and research at the Ph.D. level.
rF_ ?
•T
.iJ IV
mLd-er
will norin.2 17 1
each the four :D.Common_
?
. c,ihh_
S. Wassermann
?
-
?
!ud!'.'a'y
J1).J 1C ?
ion
?
ci mcun
-'yr.
the
See library
assessment
h-e-- ;ufxicicnt Library resources (append detiil.)
\ j
?
-.. ?
On I i ?
ri t he ieui'::t:
I) An .1 :id i cat ion
n
1
he
Colitj
'trie- e ei t
he :e:; I v member to
g
i ye
i -1
u v
IC:. I PC
\rpro v ec :
Lcpartrnental
Gr'adudte Studies Committee:
?
Date
r
:::
nate Graduate ?
udies Committee ?
Date
6Z'
;enate: - ?
.
?
Dite
.
.
EtIIJCAT 1(N
'ii.
Colloquium in Curriculum Thecry I
PURPOSE: ?
To familiarize students with the most fundamental questions tiich
need to be addressed if one wants to deal sensibly with the curric' a,
and to introduce than to the major answers traditionally and curreatly
given to those questions.
OLJTLTh'E:
A. Anay of Curriculum
What is curriculum? The nature of corn culn theory. The
influence on curri ctil tin decisions of prcuPr
?
i t ions about
111 311-111
nature, culture, values.
Socializing and educating: the
distinct
criteria which need to
be used in designing and coordinating these two major
functions
of the
school
curriculum.
.B.
What should
be taught/learned?
The legacy of Plato on current curricula.
. ?
The legacy of Rousseau on current curricula.
Initiation into "high" culture and its content, or participation
in local "cultures": the "classics" vs. "relevance".
Traditional (readings from M. Arnold, T.S. Eliot, M. Oakshott,
R.S. Peters,
P. Ilirst)
and Progressive (readings from T.H. Huxley,
B. Russell, J. Dewey, P. Goodman, J. Holt, W. Fricdenhurg) ideas
about curriculum content.
C.
When
should things be taught/ lea rid?
Structures of knowledge/realms of meaning and their influence
on the sequencing of curriculum content: hiirst, Piicnix.
The influence of dcvelopmuital theories on the sequencing and
design of curricula: Plato, Dewey, Piaget, Erikson.
D.
Ilcw should things be taught/learned?
The influence of instructional methods on the curriculum. The
connection between methodological concerns and presuppositions
about human nature, culture, values. The growth of the influence
of methodological concerns on the curriculum: Plato, Rousseau,
Pinel, Itard, Sequin, Montessori -Dewey and the Progressive movernt
in
North America, and Susan Isaac and the hlrewa* Primary
.
Schools in
Britain.
E.
Images of the Educated Person
The role of covert autobiography in
curriculum theory. An analysis
of some prominent images
of the kind
of person certain curricula
are p"-poscd to produce. Plato's, Rousseau's, Dewey's, Maritain's,
Whit
?
11s,
Peter's.
Ehicat
Ion -I j
?
Rihi ioiphy
Nat
thi:v
Arnold, Liter
ature
and Sc
i
en
c
Join Dewey, De
?
ac and
Ekicat
ion
T
ohn Dewey,
Expience and Education
f.S. Eliot,
Notes Towards
the
Def
i
nition
of
Culture
(Agar Fr ledcnhurg, C thZ ofe in America
Pul
Goodman,
qrowi
pR
Up
Paul Goodman, co
j
puisorMiseducafland the
Cojamun^^of Scholars
Paul ilirst,
Knowled
ge and
J.M.C. Itard,
Th
e
Wild-
R
.
S. Peters, Ethics and Education
R.S. Peters (Ed) T
h
e mcpt of
-
Edfl
Phil
ip
Phenix,
Realms
of Me
aniiig
Jean Pthget,
The
.
MornI,
Jiid$-
, t_
,
me.nt of the Child
Jean Piaget and Barbel Inhelder,
The
Psycholog
of
the Child
Plato, The
Republic
J.J. flousseau,
Emile
Bertrand Russell, On
Education
A.N. Whitehead, The
-
Aims
-
of Education
0
1 t(N
?
t.SER HNI V}.I
?
1 1'
N ?
r-
I ,
iU,_1 t
e
?
_C11(' ?
I r':
NrORMATION
Si)arumnt
Title: ?
:
?
Colloquium in
Education
Curriculum Theory II
Doscription: To familiarize students with current theory and research about curriculum,
and to consider the social contexts of curr.iuilumdecjujon-niakivj
Credit Hours :
?
Vector:
?
Pr'erequ ?
it
r( : )
j f :
fl
y :
-.
ENROLLMENT AND SCHEDULING:
Estimated Enrollment: ?
4-6
?
When will the cours: t irt be offered:
How often will the course be offered:
?
one a-
JUSTIFICATION:
The present course offerings in the area of
I
for mas
te
r's level
p ractitioner, with onl
y
one cope providingn Inti utionJQ_
sophisticated curriculum theory (Ed.823)._These re inadegte to upporxtuni.._
for students intending to focus on curriculum theord
.. RESOURCES:
Which Faculty member will normally teach the course:
?
blY)n,
S. Wt$ermaztfl
WLt are the budgetary implications cf mounting i.h courst
See Library assessment
Are there sufficient Library resources (append detail:_;):
?
Sec Library as_srnent
Appended: a) Outline of the Course
b)
An indication of the competence of the Faculty member to give the ceur:e
c)
ibrary resources
Approved: Departmental Graduate Studies Committee:
?
Date
I
Faculty Graduat
fr±
Senate Graduate Studies Committee:
_Da teC
Senate: ?
I)ate
a)
S
EDUCATION
912
Colloquium in Curriculum Theory II
PURPOSE; To familiarize students with current theory and research
about curriculum, and to consider the social contexts of
curriculum decision-making.
OUR INE:
A. Confllctinconce p
tsof curriculum
The main schools of curriculum theory and research; their
conflicting conceptions of the goals, content, and design
of the curriculum.
B. Influential theories In current curriculum inquiry
Focus on
those theories which are presently potent with
within the field of curriculum; the rationalists, the
humanists, the social reconstructionists; the neo-progressives;
the technologists; the reconceptualists. ?
0
C.
Research in Curriculum
What kinds of questions currently are the subject of most
research within the field of curriculum? What kind of
research from other areas Is most influential within the
field of curriculum? What kinds of research methodologies
are appropriate to the field?
D.
Decisions about the curriculum
Social and political influences on the curriculum. Who
determines curriculum ooals? Who have power over the
structure and content of the curriculum? Who should have
power to decide on what parts of the curriculum? A focus
on the provincial scene in B.C.
E.
Réccrncptuallzing the curriculum
What are the most prominent and potent trends evident In
the field of curriculum?
0
•(
fl
I hi ?
( )(.; ' , ,
it
')!Y
?
t
i on
?
I
Barrow, R.
?
The Canadian Curri ciiurri:
?
It
Iir;ona1 View.
?
itni.Ic>n: ?
iii.) VL
i.it
?
of Western Ontario, 1979.
Beauchamp, G. The Curriculum of the E]cmcutdiy School. Allyn and
Bacon,
Inc., 1964.
Ecauchamp, G. Curriculum Theory. Wilmette, Illinois: The
Kajy Pi
.1975.
?
,
Beauchamp, C. & Beauchamp, K.
?
Ccnpa ra Li vu Iuial y:
L:
of Cu r i(:iiltimy';r
Wilmette: The Kagq Press, 1972.
Bellack, A. & Kliebard, M. Curriculum and Evaluation. B'rkuley:
?
c'CuLu1iar,
Publishing Corporation, 1977.
Brent, A. Philosophical Foundations for the Curriculum. Lon don: Goryc
Allen & Unwin, 1978.
Bussis, A. et al. Beyond Surface Cuticu1.um. Boulder: Westvi.cw Pru:;s., 1916.
Connelly, F. M., Dukacz, A. S., & Quinlan, F. Curri.c
.
ultun PLann iriq for the
Classroom. Toronto: The Ontario Institute for t he Study of i.lucati on,
1980.
Doll, R. .Curriculum Improvement-Decision Making arid Process. Poston
Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1978.
Eisner, E. The Educational Imagination. New York: MacMillan 1'ublihiny
Co., 1979.
Eisner, E. & Valiance, E. Conflicting Conceptions of _curriculum. Erkicy:
McCutchan, 1974.
Ganley, R. & Wood, R. Technology and Chanqe: The Crisis in Canadian
Education. Toronto: McClelland and Steward Limited, 1975.
Gayfer, M. An Overview of Canadian Education. Toronto: The L'wiadian
Education Association, 1978.
?
-
Goodlad, J. School, Curriculum, and the Individual. Waltham, Mass.:
Blaisdell Publishing Company, 1966.
Goodlad, J. & Maurice N. Richter, Jr. The Development of a Conceptual
System for Dealing with Problems of Curriculum and Instruction.
Los Angeles': Institute for Development of Educational Activities,
University of California, 1966.
0
Educ:31. ion 912
2.
Gress, J.R.
?
& ?
Purpel, ?
D. ?
curriculum. ?
Berkeley: ?
rcCutchan Publishing
Corporation, ?
1978.
Hamilton, ?
D. et al. ?
Beyond the Numbers Game.
?
Berkeley: ?
McCutchan
Publishing Corporation,
W7i.
Hass, G.
?
Boston: ?
Allyn and Bacon,
Inc., T17.
Kelly, A.V.
?
The Curriculum.
?
London: ?
Harper & Row,
?
1977.
Levit, M.
?
Curriculum. ?
Urbana:
?
University of
?
Illinois Press, ?
1971.
Manning, D. ?
Toward A Humanistic Curriculum.
?
New York: ?
Harper & Row
PublishersT7'I.
Michaelis, ?
U., ?
Grossman, ?
R.H. ?
& Scott, L.F. ?
New Designs for Elementary
Curriculum and
?
Instruction. ?
2nd edition. ?
New York: ?
McGraw-Hill
Book Company, ?
1975.
Molnar,A. ?
& Zahorik, ?
J. ?
Curriculum Theory.
?
Washington, ?
D.C.: ?
Associaitn
for Supervision and CurFTTum Development, 1977.
Nicholls, ?
A. ?
& Nicholls, H.
?
Deve
j
pjnjaCurriculum: ?
A Practical ?
Guide.
London: ?
George Allen & Unin,178.
McNeil, J. D. Curriculum: ACopehensive Introduction. Boston: Little,
Brown and ComT77.
Parker, C. and L. J. Rubin. Process as Content: Curriculum Design and the
?
pp]ication ofKnowledge. Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1966.
Pinar, W. Curriculum Theorizing: The Reconjptualists. Berkeley:
McCutchan Publishing Company, 1975.
Pinar, W. Heightened Consciousness, Cultural Revolution, and Curriculum
Theory. Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Corporation, 1974.
Pratt, 0. Curriculum Desin and Development. New York: Harcourt, Brace,
JovanoTEh Inc.,W8O
Purpel, D. & Belan
g
er, M. curriculum and the Cultural Revolution.
Berkeley: McCutchan PuETfhing Corporation, 1972.
Reeder,
K. and Wilson, D.C. Language, Culture and Curriculum. Vancouver:
The University of British Columbia, Centre for the Study of Curriculum
and Instruction, 1979.
Rowntree, D. Educational Technology in Curriculum Development. London:
Harper & Row, Publishers, 1974..
•
?
:
Rubin, L.
?
Curriculum Handbook.
?
Boston: ?
Allyn and Bacon,
?
Inc., ?
19/7.
Saylor,
?
J., ?
and William M.
?
Alexander. ?
Planning
?
Curriculum
?
for ?
SCj(J(1S.
New York: ?
Holt, ?
Rinehart and Winston,
?
Inc.,
1914.
Stenhouse, L.
?
An ?
Introduction to Curriculum Research and DevPlopmer.t.
New York: ?
HT
?
leTer PublT?hers, ?
Inc., 1976.
Stevenson, ?
H. ?
& Wilson, ?
J.D.
on Contem orary Canadian Education.
?
London: ?
7Texander, Blake
Associates, ?
77.
Stub, H.
?
TheSociolyOfEducation.
?
Homewood:
?
The Dorsey Press, ?
1
975.
Thba, H.
?
Curriculum Development:
?
TheoryançPrç. ?
New York: ?
Harcourt ,
Brace and World Inc., 1962.
Tanner, P
. ?
& Tanner, L. ?
curriculum Development. ?
New York: ?
Macmillan
Publishing ?
Co., ?
Inc., ?
1975.
Tyler, R.
?
Basic ?
Principles of Curriculum and
--
Ins
tru c
tion.
?
Chicago: ?
The
University of Chicago Press, 1950.
• Unruh, G.
?
Responsive Curriculum Development:
?
Theory and Action.
?
Berkeley:
McCutchan Publishing Company, 1975.
Van Til, W.
?
Curriculum: ?
Quest for Relevance.
?
Boston: ?
Houghton Mifflin
Company,-1574.
Werner, W.
?
Curriculum Canada.
?
Canadian Association for Curriculum studies
and Centre for the Study of Curriculum and Instruction, University of
British Columbia, ?
1979.
Wiles, ?
J.
?
& Bondi, ?
J. ?
Curric'lumDeve1opuient. ?
Columbus: ?
Charles ?
[.
?
Merrill
Publishing Company, 1979
Zais, Robert S.
?
Curriculum: ?
Principles and Foundations.
?
New York:
Thomas V. Crowell Company, 1976.
Date
Date
Date
is
.1 ;N FRASFR UNIVERSITY
ti
PM/i 1C
Eii%iCit
I
01) ?
on r ; ?
Nuiii ?
92
1
'I le:
?
Colloquium in Educational _Governance I
C
:rip t. .i on: _The
?
licqUiunwiUoncemtselL.with fc,iir inaj or tjcjrith
•cd -t
?
: ?
3 ?
Vector
?
Prcetui
::ite(c)
if any:
?
Courses
in
Orqanizat iona 1 Theory and Pr oqrani_and Personnel Syjrvision or Equivalents.
I NROL1 Ml NT AND LCUI1bUIINL
L2
fl ?
il
L
1
1
: olimer.
L: --
?
When wi .11
t he course I I
is
t ic oil er'ed
11 ib ?
ours€
?
e oi ierei:
-
Annually
_
JUTJ I 'CAT
This uourc ?
and its c pan ion COLL. II, will constitute the basic course work in
Educational Governance.To it will be added Directed Readings 4nd other
gr__
courses frca this and other faculties and other universities. as needed by individual
s
tu
dents.
Ri,1ftJI-) 112.
Wb fth Facu1t member will normally teach the course :Drs.Co1emnMafli
ji.RQpsOn
Wts ?
a
?
ti'-.
bud
•
tary i nj .1 I cat i on:; of mount n' rhe course
?
- --
fcjlities urealready available.
Are there su fficierit Library resources (append details):
resource. All major journals are available.
r41e4i :
?
)
(
ut I ru of the 1'crse
b) An indication of the competence of
the
Faculty member
1:0
give th
) Library resources
Rpproved: Lepartmental Graduate Studies Committee:
I culty Graduate St1di.7CT/iAtt4e:
i'.culty:
b'uiate Lraduate
Stu
d/Jes Committee:
?
te4 ?
&/
Senate: ?
Date
l(1tl'' I
COLLOQUIUM IN EDUCATiONAL GOVERNANCE (I)
Outline of the Course
The colloquium will Concern itself
with
four major topics in the area of
Educational Governance:
1.
Decision-making in educational organizations;
2.
Policy-development and implementation, including models of policy
evaluation.
3.
Authority and control within educational organizations, Including the i:.;ua
of lay control, and the interactions between the general public,
prufcs;i01111c,
and politicians;
4.
Organizational behavior, including Communications and morale issues.
Consideration of these topics will focus on their implications for school districts,
provincial Ministries of Education, and colleges and universities.
BASIC READINGS ( I llustrative
H. Mintzberg, The
Structuring of Organizations
P. Cistone, Understanding
School
Boards
J. Scribner,
The Politics of Education
NCCE, Public Testimony on Public
Schools
C. Jencks D. Riasman, The Academic Revolution
C.
Benson, The Economics
of Public Education
M. Kogan, Educational Policy-Making
J. H.
Burns, Leadership
D. J.
McCarty C. Ramsey, The School Managers
L.
Zeigler
E M.K.
Jennings,
Governing American Schools
CSSE, The
Politics of
Canadian Education
D. Mann,
The
Politics ?
Representation
A.
Cresswell H. Murphy, Teachers Unions; Collective Bargaining
b
1k:; tc Cur
?
' ?
:
xy.!
Education ?
•'•.
?
922
Tii ::
?
ci]uiumjn Educational Governance IT.
Dncript i (
fl:
This course isdesiqpçd to provide a forum for the_anysisof acLion
the
inore formal couI
?
f19fiQ inL
Governance .1 -
Veutoi:
?
Prerequisite(s) if any: Courses
2at
i onal Theory
and Prcqrn and Per sonne 1Supervision or Equivalents.
.;NRC)LLMENT AND SCiIEDULI NC
Estimated Enrollment:
?
4)
?
When will
the course first be offered:
January 1982
oft en w ii the courne be offered:_.
?
A nn ua l
CQu j
in
Ed tpal_ -
ionc. ?
J ?
tv.hccurse is
i q ned .L Provide anaction
research I
cit
stu
?
)l
?
to the more f
oflpi
course
stu
dy _ in
?
llocruium I.
Wb
ich
F-ui '; member w.i.ii normally
teach the
course Drs. Coleman. iay-Casi
mi
r,Pobinson
it a ?
tn.-- budgcnry implications of riounting the
course:
None
_
Ade
q uate tndjp_
and facilities exist.
Are there :Ifl I tc:iertt I,ilnar'
?
r:cUtces tanpeil detaii):
journals
;u
avii.lab.le in the library.
ciided :
?
• out 1
iie
01 ?
the
b An indication of the competence of the Faculty member to give the c:urse
C)
Library resources
Approved: Departmental Graduate Studies Committee:
Faculty Graduate Stu
IV/Y
t
rate Graduate
Stu(jfles
Committee:
I
Date
Da
Date
flat
.
q:2
COLLOQUIUM IN F.DUCATI ONAL OV :RNTtNCE I I
Outline of the Course
This course is designed to provide a forum for the analysis
of action
research to caiipieinettt
the
mori I o ma I ;' i r;e
w ri'. cI'
in Colloquium in Educational Governance 1.
The course will be offered annually and will be
focu;ed
on a
particular area of study in educational cyvrnance
?
The &Jr)up of ?
udn
enrolled in the course will be involved in a
syst':matic
and corn reimsive
field study of a significant topic
or
problem in educational govern mce.
For example, students may be involved one year in a major study of
community college governance in B.C.; and in another year, they may
•
?
be involved in a major study of interc5t-qrotlp behavior in cclucaticn in
B.C.
The bibliography for the course will vary depending on the spec'ic
semester focus. However, readings are expected to he from advanced
texts in the field and to include major academic journals in
adiniin ;t:rat ion
and educational governance.
0
SIMON FRASER tINIVEESITY
IJe. Grad uateCourseProjosalFori:
?
Fox 'I;: ?
:• 8
1
LENDA INFORMATION:
epartment:
?
Education
?
Course Number:
?
971
Title:
?
Advanced Topics in Instructional Psycho1y
Description: intensive analysis of theory and research p_
j
a1i
zed
_are a
_
of _..
instructional psychology. Topical emphasis will vary depending on the instructor and
a
nnounced during the semester prior to the course
Credit Hours:
?
3 ?
Vector: ?
Prerequisite(s) if any: Eiuç. 860
. ENROLLMENT AND SCHEDULING:
Estimated Enrollment :4-6
?
When will the course first ic offered
How often will the course be offered:
?
orice eveiy 2-4 semeters
3. JUTIFJCATJ)N
udénts_yho will becxne hi
g
h quali ty
researchers and practitionerhibit.upexiQr
command of at least onospec.ializc.axa within thjriscipline.
This cour-sewiil
provide students with the opportunity to ex
p
lore intensively
during their period of doctoral-studies.
.
RESOURCES:
Which Facuiy member will normally tedcb the course: Drs. Winne, Marx, Martin Gehlbach,
Wong and Kendall.
Whi are th
.
budgetary implications of mounting the course: none
Are there sfficient Library resources (append details) :_
Appended: ?
) Outline of the Course
An indication of the competence of the Faculty member to give the course
Library resources
.
Approved: Departmental Graduate Studies
Faculty Graduate t
?
es C
Faculty:
•
Com ittee: ?
Date______________
itt e : (
?
Dat4
Date______________
Senate Graduate
?
i es Committee:
?
-
Date
Senate:
?
Date
.
outline of an
illustrative
course: ?
for Ed 971 ?
111,, t.
ruct or :
?
J.
?
;irt in
'Cognition and Behavior Chnn'
Students in this course will thoroughly analyze three distinct psyc1i01091cal
paradigms which attempt to explain the specific role of cognition in behavior
change--B.F. Skinner's radical behaviorism, A. Bandura's reciprocal detc:rminiTfl,
and U. Neisser's cognitive/perceptual schemata theory. Through a series of
structured paper presentations, discussions, and debates, the class will. clarify
the essential relationships among environment, behavior, and cognition advocated
by each of these positions. These understandings will then be applied
10
existing
experimental literature on self-reinforcement and cognitive behavior modification
to determine which of the three paradigms, if any, best accounts for the empirical
findings in these latter areas. Educational applications for the teaching of
self-control in both classroom and counselling settings will be highlighted
throughout the course.
I ?
Theories of Cognition and Behavior Change.
A.
Radical Behaviorism
B.
Reciprocal Determinism-Socia
l
Learning
C.
Cognitive/Perceptual Schemata Theory
II ?
Instructional- Self-control Programs.
A.
Self-reinforcement
B.
Cognitive Behavior Modification
iii Comparative Analyses of Theories and Piog rams.
IV
Educational Implications
A.
Classroom Strategies
B.
Counselling Strategies
Required Texts for the course will be:
Bandura, A. Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-
Hall, 1977.
Neisser, U. Cognition and reality. San Francisco: w.u. Freeman, 1976.
Skinner, B.F. LOt1t behaviorism. New York: Knopf, 1974.
Rosenthal & Zimmerman. Social Learni
n
g and
C
o gnit
ion. New York:
Academic Press, 1978.
Additional Readings will be selected from the following list:
Bandura, A. Self-reinforcement.- Theoretical and Methodologica
l
con-
siderations. Behaviorism, 1976, 4, 134-155.
Bandura, A. The self system in reciprocal determinism. American
Ps
ychologist, 19i8; in press.
Ne Graduate Courr.e 1-ono i Form
?
Form
CS.8
3 CALENDAI INFORMATION:
Department :
?
Euucation
?
Cours Niwuur :972
Title:
?
Colloquium in
Descript
_PreSefltatiOfls
ion:
by faculty and advanced doctoral students abouttheir recent_
research in instructional psychology for critical analysis by coljuium partic
ipants
.
Cred-it 'lour's:
?
3 ?
Vector:
?
________F'reequisite(s) if any:
?
971
7.
ENROLLMENT AND SCHEDULING
Ftimated Enrollment:
?
4-6 ?
When will the course first he offered: 19B23
how
cli
n will the course be offered :
?
Once every 4-meters__
?
-
3. JIJST1F] CATION:
An essential- element of doctoral tr
p
in1flg2s
j
arflfl
therJ±1cLaaJy-sLs- and
Syn
tha. s
of research and the presentation QfebtcQ11ague s1n an cppn ndi for-rn azive
manner. This course
j
?
44
bo
t
h
J 9°1Qt tUdcflts_axid_
thP
i r 9 i rc±p rt i
r
i ppt
in this process, plus expandtheir su
,
bstantlygetJ
.
o1ogica1
nxprt ise
ilnr
?
hair
area of specialization.
.
-RESOURCES:
Which Faculty member will normally teach the course:Drs. Winne.rx, Marc
Wang and Kendall.
Wl1t
ae the budgetary implications of mounting the course:--none
Are there sufficient Library resources (append details): yes - papers pri.ided by p-esnfers
Appended: a) Outline of the Course N/A
b)
An indication of the competence of the Faculty member to give the course
c)
Library resources
Approved: Departmental Graduate Studies Committee:
?
Date
Faculty
Faculty: ?
Graduate S\e( omm ttee:L
Date
Da
?
•
Senate Graduate ?
dies Conrnittee1 ?
Date
Senate
?
Date
cc
1P/1/71
a ?
-
- 2 -
?
Education 971
Catania, C.A.
?
The myth of self -reinforcemen
t .
?
!1vloL,
?
1975, ?
3,
192-199.
Catania, ?
C.A. ?
Self-reinforcement
?
revicited.
?
ivr1s, ?
3976,
?
4,
?
I57162.
Cautela, J.R.
?
Behavior therapy and self control:
?
Techniques and im-
plications.
?
In C.M.
?
Franks (Ed.),
and status. ?
New York:
?
McGraw-Bill, 1969.
Goldiarnond,
?
I. ?
Self-reinforcement.
?
Journal of Applied Bel)av-ior
1976,
?
9,
?
509-514.
?
(a)
GoldiatiOfld, I.
?
Fables, ArmadylliCS, and self_reillfOrcemenit.
?
Journ3lf
Applied Behavior AnalysIS, 1976, 9, 521-525.
?
(b)
Jones, R.T., Nelson, R.E., & Kazdln, A.E.
?
The role of external variables
j j dlficatiOfl, 1977,
19
in self -reinforcement:
?
A review.
?
Behavior
147-178.
Kanfer, F.M.
?
Self-regulation:
?
Research issues and speculations.
?
In
in clinica)
C. Neuringer & J.L. Michael (Eds.), Behavior modificatio
n
1970.
New York:Appleton_CenturY-Crts
Kanfer, F.H.
?
The maintenance of behavior by self-generated stimuli and
e_py2gY2J..
•
reinforcement.
?
In A. Jacobs & L.B. Sacs
events: ?
Perspectiv
?
on covert response systems.
?
New York:
private
Academic Press, 1971.
Kanfer, F.M.,
?
& Goldstein, A.P.
?
Helpnp_ople change.
?
New York:
Pergamon, 1975.
Kanfer, F.M., & Karoby, P.
?
Self-regulation and its clinical application:
Dokecki,
Some additional conceptualizatio
n
s . ?
In R.C. Johnson, P.
and 0. llowrer (Eds.), ConscieflcecOfltra
st
and social reality.
New York: ?
Molt, Rinehart and Winston, 1972.
Ledwidge, B.
?
Cognitive behavior modification:
?
A step in the wrong
19 78 ,
?
85, ?
353375.
direction?
?
Psychological Bulletin,
Martin,
?
J.
?
Laboratory ?
studies of
?
self
.rflf0rC11ut.
?
.101jiflal.91?1'.
1979, ?
in press.
Martin, J.
?
Critical comments on contemporary self-reinforcement paradigms.
Behavior Therapist, 1979, in press.
Meichenbautu, D.H.
?
Cognitive_beh ?
___ ?
t10fl
Tp
New York:
?
Plenum, 1977.
premack, D., & Anglin, B.
?
On the possibilities of self-control in man and
animals. ?
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1973, 81, 137-151.
Thoresen, C.E., & Mahoney, N.J.
?
Behavioral self-control.
?
New York: ?
Bolt
Rinehart and Winston, 1974.
Date: ?
15
October 1980
?
.
SFtJ LIBRARY COLLECTION EVALUATION ?
(To be completed only
for new
course or program proposals.)
1.
Course No. and Name or Program: EDUCATION 900 LEVEL Phi)
?
Programme
Date to be offered: ?
Sept.
1
9
81 - S
ept.
1982
2.
Resources currently in collection:
Reading lists. No. and 2 of titles available:
?
55 ?
+80__%
Related materials in general collection:
Monographs: ?
300-500
titles
Serials Subscriptions: Over
95
available 7n library
Backfiles:
Other:
3. Recommended additions to collection:
(Indicate approx. no. of titles, vols.,
date, as appropriate)
Monographs:
New serials subscriptions:
?
2
Serials backfiles: ?
2
Other (specify):
ESTIMATED COSTI
?
.
40.00
125.00
Total ?
.185.00
4. ?
Comments:
The library holdings are more than adequate to support this
PhD programme. Additional items can be readily picked up
through the BNA Approval Plan.
?
The library can provide
computer searches for any additional materials which are
required.
•
?
/
- - For
Library
For Faculty
"(!parcrrL*nC_-_4
0
Ei
W
.4)
U)
>,
H
U)
ii
H
w
0
U)
'-I
w
t4.4
0
(1)
>1
U)
C)
U
U
4-,
0
4-,
C-)
0
U
4-,
U
C)
I
4
'
-r
(
?
f'
('
('
o
0
0
0
C)
C
0
C
U,
-1
oc
o
?
•'-i
-CU
U)
?
-4
o
H
D
Lfl
-
Z
H
H
N
0
¼c
c
o
C
C)
m
CJ
H
H
(')
H
C'J
4)4-,
-.4
4 )
?
En ?
4J
U)
-.4
U)
C)
--4
C)
CN
0
.-4
D
N
'0
ot
Z
H
H
H
c,
H
H
C
e
m
U)
dP
•
.
4)
H
N
N
(N
(N
C')
(N
m
in
H
1U-t,
HC)
ft .-4
4)
0 0 C
4:C)
U)
0
U)
c'-,
m
m
H
z
dp
)
It)
U)
U)
C)
0)
N
U)
.
.
4)
H
m
'
r
C)
-i
H
,
, t, ?
C)
H
H4
ftC
.i ?
C)'O
.-4
?
C)
?
4)
C
40
P
C
O Kc ?
C)
U)
0
H
(N
(N
(N
C
H
H
(N
Z
0
()
0
Qi
coo
in
co
S
(3)
N
It)
0)
0
N
H
H
H
.-4
H
4-)
U)
C
z
0
U)
H
co
N
Kr
m
H
Z
H
H
C)
co
N
U)
U)
r)
(N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
ON
01%
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
0)
•
1
H
H
H
H
H
H
H
U
.4-,
o
44.4
of-.
U)
U
.4
?
•n
.4.4
(1)
.-1 .4J
.-4
?
C)
.1
(J)ft
00
C) C
C)
???
II)
Ci
S-4
0
4J
r1
1 ?
In
o
(1)
C)
C)
C.)
Li
0
co
iEDlX Viii
B UT)GET
The accompanying budget for the proposed new Ph. Li. Program
projects costs over
..a
five fiscal year period commencing with the
1983/1984 fiscal year. In addition, it segregates costs Of each
• program stream as well as providing total costs.
Please note that;
1. All costs are in 1980/61 fiscal
:.r
dollars.
• ?
2. Parenthetical figures are FTEs.
3.
Facul tv salaries are at the j\:;socjate 'rofes;nr
($36,100). Benefits are 13% of salaries.
4.
Secretarial salaries are at AliCE Grade 5 start, April 1,
1980 scale ($14,551.05). Benefits are 14% of salaries.
5.
Recruitment costs are calculated at $2,500 per position.
6. Moving expenses are calculated at $5,000 per position.
7. Office equipment is calculated at $1,500 per faculty and
$2,500 per secretarial position or fraction.
8.
Enrolment figures are calculated as follows:
Number of students x number of credit hours
3. semesters
?
30 = FTE.
$ .0
•
791 (1)
5,290 (.S)
V5
-.
$
A$, 7:w
5
?
f'OO
0
0
0
$ ?
600
sh, 300
$ 40. 793 (1)
8,290 (.5)
--
3 s/,133
26 j67
5
85,700
300
0
0
0
S
?
100
0
(5
0
((C:
10
5 ?
.),793 (1,
5,290 (.5)
$
-
57,8)3
a 1710
$
28
917
$6,150
$
?
600
0
.0
0
$ 40,793 (1)
8,290 (A)
$ 17,833
T
$
-66,750
8 6 . 750
$
?
300
0
0
0
1(10
0
0
0
S ?
(((0
$122.179 (5)
24,570 (1.5)
_17 750
$114,699
8 7, 7 50
511,1
,759
0
0
0
$ ?
1,(,1)0
749
(23)
¶ 40,793 (1)
6,290 (.51
$ 57,833
S 86,750
$ ?
(3
0
0
0
S
?
(I
I 60,743 (1)
8,293 (.5)
i,833
T-8
,6.7511.
$ ?
0
0
0
0
S ?
0
11 5),
750
S 40,793 ()
8,290 (.5,
$ 58,832
ii
S 88,250
$
?
I)
(3
0
(1
.. ?
0
r 1,9,250
5122,3)9 (3)
26,870 (1.5
5114,499
?
8/ 250
?
521,1 • 749
5 ?
(2
0
0
(5.
$ ?
0
769
(34)
$ 4(3,79) (1)
s,:'9) (.5)
-
S ?
,4()
-
28,2i 7
S 84,1.5))
$
0
1)
0
$ 40,793 (1)
5,290 (.5)
$ 56,433
28,217
$ 8, 1,50
S ?
600
0
0
(5
S ?
1,00
2S0
5
4n. 70t
(II
11,29(1 (A)
--.
S 57,4))
?
)
?
$
.,I 'U
5
?
2(10
0
• 51, ,
(
SIt
$122,09 (3)
24,t)7
fl
(1.5)
Si 70,799
85,1 5))
S
?
2.00')
0
(1
0 ?
1, 00"
IM
5 ?
, .'l,79) ?
(
I
S ?
40,191
?
(1>
11,250 ?
e . ?
,
8,290
?
1.
_,75O
SS, I))
$ ?
58,811
2j,,417
S
?
M1,2
$88,250
S 27,190 (.0)
5,530 (.3)
3 37,761 ?
18 pal
?
S 5.t"2
$
?
1,81)0
2,500
5,000
$ 13,300
$ 27,196 (.6)
5,530 (.3)
-i
5 37,#6l
S 5L,1,42
$ ?
900
2 • 500
5,000
S 12.400
S 27,19' tI')
5,5)0 (.3'
S ($9cn?
I9'75
?
$ 5,42'i
S ?
1(O
2,500
5,000
4,000
S 11,8O'
S 51,588 (2)
lb,590 (1-)
16 ,294
$114.472
- 57,2)6
$171.708
$ 3.000
7,500
15.00()
12.000
$ 37,500
(4)
,I,.'2, 179 (3)
24,870 (1,5)
SI 72,399
Afi 200
5,' ', • 599
S (.000
(3
0
U
1,00"
(18)
s,y(4rL'..i-'
?
1vvR2l: ?
FMs.r, t? 1 I' A3 .P
?
r,nrocr erw
.
r":±- pws,.s
.
C(lkRl Ct.tUW nCV!L0?€1T
I.ecurriflldi,•Ct operstifli
costs-
Fsrulty salaries (thct.dtag benefits
Secretari al (including benefits)
supplies & services
subtotal
Overhead
Total
(SOZ)
recurring direct operating r.st.
Nonr.CUrriflI cst5
L1brsry/)fl0$t5Pbe
Imcruitent expenses
moving expanses
Equipment
Total nonrecurring cost,
Total Coats
A.'EINISTSATIVt LLPIZRSHTP
Recurring direct operating costs
Vacuity salaries (including benefits)
Secretarial (including benefits)
Supplies & services
Subtotal
overhead (508)
Total recurring direct operating costs
$onrecurrtn&
Costs
Librsry/14.flO$raphs
I.cruitt
expenses
Moving expenses
tquIpI
Total Dour.currt'g coats
iot.J
Costs
i %STPUCT1 OWAI. p,'fO4OLOC
..currtng
acuity
drcCt
a.lsries
operating
(Including
costs
beet ttr.)
Secretarial ttncludi.np benet1t.
Supplies i erVtC5S
Subtotal
Overhead (502)
Total recurring direct operating costs
%.,nrccurt Ing costs
Librar) IM..nogrephs
Recruitment expenses
)'cvthg expenses
Equipment
Total r..nrecirring costs
1.a1 Costs
TOT
Kecurrlfl4
Facu l ty
direct
salaries
upxcstIJg
(including
costs
benefits
Secretarial (including benefits)
Supplies 4 services
Subtätal
Overhead (508)
Total recurring dltect operating costs
Nonrecurring costs
lAb, srv/7t1flOgrsPh'
Recruitment espe. see
Moving expenses
Equipsent
Total noarecurr
In5 cost.
Total Costs
All costs in SO/11I dollars.
'hR,)UNfl
1
.r,nth.tItaI Igut5$ ars
T'Tts.
.June 1, 1911
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY I IBRARY
'S
LIBRARY CAPABILITY TO SUPPORT A
?
PhD. PROPOSAL
in
the
FACULTY OF EDUCATION
Submitted by:
Gail Tesch
Education Librarian
4 June 1981
0
.
The purpose of this report is to analyze those areas of the library
collection which relate directly to
the
l'liD.
programme
proposed by the
Faculty of Education. The content of the programme consists of three
fields: educational governance, instructional psychology and curriculum
theory
and implementation.
Reading of the first draft paper and consultation with faculty
members revealed that the programme, as constituted, is of an inter-
disciplinary nature. It was necessary to check resources in disparate
classifications of the library in order to discover what was readily
available in the collection. Some topics in the three content areas
were organizational behaviour and management, change, counselling, psy-
chology of learning, cognition and perception. it is significant to
note that Simon Fraser University Library has adequate monograph and
serial holdings as well as, loose-leaf services, reference works and
?
' ?
indexes in Economics, Commerce and Psychology. The advent of the MBA
programme in 1968 added immeasurably to the library's ability to purchase
material and the Applied/Clinical programme in Psychology also provided
the opportunity to add to library resources, it is not within the scope
of this paper to give a detailed outline of the quality and quantity of
materials In these disciplines.
However, in the field of business related subjects (exclusive of
economic theory) the library has a book collection of 50,621 volumes,
with good periodical support of 3,500 serial titles.1
(See attached bibliographies of library resources and library report for
Applied/Clinical Psychology.)
Monogr _^! p hs
?
-
?
The library has a good collection of in-print education monographs
numbering 21,756titles.
2
The .Library of Congress classification schedule
as follows: ?
-
1
January 8, 1981- -.--
2
Collection Analysis report for Social Sciences, Aug. 8, 1980.
I ?
•1•
-2-
Current
Current
Class
Class
No.
?
of
No.
?
of
From
To
---
--------
Name of Category
-- ?
- ?
--
Volumes
Titles
L
Education (General)
21,756
16,531
LA
History of Education
2,876
2,399
LB
Theory of Practice of Education
13,859
9,851
LB
1025
LB
1050
Teaching (Principles and Practice)
3,249
2,207
LB
1028
LB
1028
Education Research and Programmed
Instruction ?
.
451
411
LB 1029
LB
1032
Special Kinds of Instruction
(Individual, Ungraded, etc.)
577
290
LB
1043
LB
1044
Audio-Visual Education
381
313
LB 1051
LB
1091
Educational Psychology
1,140
683
LB
1101
LB
1139
Child Study
730.
553
LB
1140
LB
1499
Preschool, Kindergarten
330
218
LB
1501
LB
1547
Primary Education
220
148
0
LB
1555
LB
1601
Elementary Education
1,650
985
LB
1555
LB
1569
General Works.
?
Outlines. ?
Courses
of Study, etc.
221
123
LB
1570
LB
1601
Curriculum
1,429
862-
LB
1603
LB
1695
Secondary Education
487
359
LB
1603
LB
1627
General Works. ?
Outlines. ?
Manuals
of Instruction, etc.
248
194
LB
1628
LB
1695
Curriculum
239
165
LB
1705
LB
2285
Education and Training of Teachers
634
509
LB
2300
LB
2411
Higher Education ?
.
1,236
1,105
LB
2801
LB
3095
School Administration and
Organization ?
-•
1,903
1,538
-3-
Several hundred titles have been added to the collection since LhC
last analysis was done.
Bibliographies and reading lists submitted by the Faculty of Edu-
cation were checked against library holdings and showed that the library
held 93.6% of the required texts and journals, it should be noted that
the reading lists were brief and should be viewed as indicators of the
starting point of the programme. One can assume that as the programme
develops into other areas, additional funds will be required to purchase
related materials. Several reference works were checked to ascertain
whether the library collection included the standard works published in
the field. The library held 90% of reference material cited. Coverage
in the form of indexes and abstracts is more than adequate.
Costs
- ?
The unit cost per title of monograph increases yearly. The increases
are reflected in the following figures for education monographs.3
Year ?
Price
1978 ?
$ US 16.95
1979 ?
US 18.69
1980 ?
US 20.31
Expenditures - Education
705 k
725
1980/81
$ 3,417.40
$ 7,653.46
1979/80
306.45
7,766.43
1978/79
1,160.64
6,674.63
1977/78
2,413.70
7,298.17
1976/77
767.98
4,701.66
3publishers Weekly
4
Retrospective line account
r
-4-
Serials
The serials collection in Education, including education related
titles published by provincial government departments, district school
areas and research institutes numbers 665. (March 26, 1981). Several
jo'irnal titles recommended by faculty, such as Instructional Science,
v.1, 1972- ; Cognitive Therapy and Research, v.1, 1977- ; and Behaviour
Modificiation, v.4, 1980 -
?
were found to be in the library. Discussions?
with faculty would seem to indicate that we have the most frequently cited
journals, however, we do lack some hackfiles and government sponsored
serials.
There will be a need, in time, to fill in gaps as the programme
develops. The Current Index to Journals in Education is a monthly guide
to current periodical literature, covering articles published in approxi-
mately 780 education and education related journals. A sampling of 456
t:itles, checked against library holdings revealed that the library sub-
scribed to 301 journals, or 70.6%.
The library has a subscription to Education Administration Abstracts,
v.1, 1966-
?
and of the most frequently cited journals, the library holds?
over 70%.
Psychological Abstracts, v.1,1927-
?
scans and abstracts over 900
periodicals, 1500 books, technical reports, dissertations and monographs
each year. The serials collection has subscriptions to roughly 52% of
the journals cited in P.A. Journals we do not have are esoteric in nature
and are generally not applicable to courses taught at SFU.
It must be pointed out that additional funds will be required to
keep current with new titles published in the areas relating to the PhD.
programme. The cost of purchasing new titles has been exceeded by growing
inflation and budget restraint.
0
-5-
Costs
Subscription costs for serials increase yearly. These increases
are reflected in the following figures for serials published in the United
States
Business and Economics
year
price
1976
$ US
16.98
1977-1979
US
20.91
(averaged out)
1980
US
25.42
Education
1976
$US
16.00
1977-1979
US
19.59
(averaged out)
1980
US
25.42
Psychology
1976
$ US
29.39
1977-1979
US
34.76
(averaged out).
1980
US
41.95
The survey indicated that the average subscription price of an
American journal in 1980 was $34.54. The average annual percentage in-
crease over the-ten-year period, 1970-1979 was 13.4%. There is no reason
to expect that the rate of increase will diminish.
The costs for serials renewals and new subscriptions for the past
three years are as follows:
?
.
Year
?
Renewal ?
New Subscriptions
?
1979-1980
?
$ 9,503.50 ?
$ 91.48
?
1980-1981
?
11,614.09 ?
801.01
Regarding backfiles, these are usually purchased from reprint houses
such as Kraus and ANS. The average cost per volume of backfile is $25-$30
(exclusive of science materials).-
.---
-
..
Price varies from-title
to
t±tie and .within eachdiscip1ine. Micro-
film is less costly, usually less than half the cost per reel, and much
5
Library Journal July 1980
I
-6-
easier to store. Therefore, if a title is available on microfilm it is
to the advantage of the library to purchase that format.
Government Documents
The purchase of government documents in the field of education has
not been stressed, as the demands of the Faculty of Education for such
materials has been minimal.
However, the library has purchased government documents from the
standpoint of economics, commerce and communication. Emphasis has been
placed on areas such as public policy, education in underdeveloped coun-
tries, effects of television on literacy and federal-provincial relations
as it relates to constitutional issues vis-a-vis education.
Government document holdings include all Statistics Canada material,
all Canadian Tax Foundation material and selected items.from the Associ-
- ai:ion of Mayors and Municipalities, the Bureau of Municipal Research and
the Council of Ministers of Education.
?
41
The library subscribes to very little material from the ten provin-
cial education departments; nor does the library have extensive holdings
from the lower levels of government (ie. School Districts, Boards of
Trustees, Boards of Education). Materials issuing from these levels of
government, municipal and civic, are inexpensive. However, we suggest
that provision be made for purchase in these areas.
CoiputerizedInformation Retrieval Services (CIRS)
Computerized Information Retrieval (CIR), as it applies to the library
environment, is the art and science of searching and accessing readable
data bases and retrieving bibliographical and textual information.
Use of this service facilitates the continuation, extension, and
improvement of Library Reference and Information Services, .to support
faculty teaching, -education,..-and research byenchanc.thgLandd. roving •-. -
-- -. - ?
-
-7-.
U
access, availability and scope of informaL ion resource.; in this .1 ibr. ry
At the moment, this service is of f-:red to all members of the univer-
sity community on a cost recovery basis.
The data bases vary considerably in content, torn, subject, size a&
cost per connect hour. Their use
cannot
be overestimated, part:icu.1-irL.y
for those persons involved in complex, definitive research.
Some examples of Bibliographic Databases which are or
value to t:io:
persons who will ultimately enrol in
this
programme are:
ERIC (Research in Education and
Current Index
IL'
Journals
in Education)
•
?
•
Psychological abstracts
?
?
Social Science citation index
Sociological abstracts
Dissertation abstracts
Canadian News Index
• ?
Exceptional Child
Education Resources
ABI/ Inform
Considering the interdisciplinary
nature of the
prgrnmme, ic psy-
ehology, education, organizational behav
ow, sohoo I 1:mw
etc. this rusou
ree
is of intrinsic value to advanced
study and shoLir v mseNrch.
CONCLUSION
Estimate of costs
(1)
Monographs
(2)
Current serials subscriptions
(3)
Backfiies for serials currently subscribed
to as well
as backfiles for new subscriptions
(4)
Government documents
IOTA!.
$
3,50U.D0
800.00
2
,500.00
1,200.00
$ 8,000.00
The
library cannot
provide
everything
for 5-6 students
?
in
tO.
first year of a programme
of this magnitude.
Each project should
b'
-8-
I
on
US
own merits w Lr:h a view to what the library can adequately sustain
and it should he recognized also, the limitations of cerlai ii areas nnd
certain types
of material in time cull ect ion.
It is the opinion of the library that extra funding is required
and that such funds be pr
-Nit
od over a period of 4 years.
?
If this is
done,
time
library will he able to purchase rclevant material as the
need
a rftes . One example
where this activity would prove useful is in
the
field of instructional
science. This is a
relatively new area of stud'
in North America. Articles are appearing
in journals,
new journals are
Ln
time pmu cut
st
;mco
and
one can reasonably
uxpot.
more monographs
to
he published.
.
0
lu
0
1
-<
?
?
C
I-S.
.
J
"
i-•
C:j
<
C)
HH
W
C
I<
?
H
iD
c
'1
w
ol
1
J
0<
U)
C/lCD
H
i
H•
CD
i
z:i
L'i
1j
?
I-'
CD
P.
.i')
c
CD
n
C
if)
H
I.)) ?
L)
1
0
'')
J)
(1
C)) ?
i .
UI
C) ?
•
U)
H ?
F-'
rt
(,t
i-t
H
C
3
Hrt
H
C
C)rt
H
r+
H
H
rt
?
(I
H
(j)<
'1
-
CD ?
CD
C
CD
-"
0 <
3
7"<
CD
<
_;-•
. ?
,•
((I
:1
rt
3
(Ii ?
C.
(I.
(1)
3. ?
0
Ci.
. ?
Cl
C)
C)'
C
P .
?
i
0
CD
Pi
((I
C/i ?
h
,
H
CD
.- ?
<
'1
3
h-..
3
H
C)
.-
CD
,I)
C)
'-
-7
C)
N
I-.
to
C,.
C
0
0
0
'Ii
i
N)
?
N.) ?
H ?
H ?
.- ?
N
?
N)
?
C.)
?
Ci
?
hi
11
1
.C'
?
.-n'Ji ?
1
?
.\ - ?
..-C•
?
w\P.)
6
o
ç; 7 Ct
3
?
CU
C)
Cu
(-I
P.
CI
3
I ?
I-- ' ? I
I ?
I-
?
I ?
I ? I
I ?
I ?
I
?
I
?
I ?
I
I ?
I ? I
?
,'' ?
I ?
.\p...
I ?
I ?
I
?
H ?
h') ?
F-' ?
$
?
7) ?
7-i)
?
N2
- ?
-- ?
u-'
?
1.r
I_
?
N) ?
C-'
?
H ?
t.) ?
I
?
I
?
i'
?
N.) ?
I ?
1-'
t..r 3
Cu -C
I ?
I-.'
?
NX, ?
C ?
I ?
I
?
I
?
IN '-)
(U
C-.
C')
C.
01
7)
C-)
C-'
01
H
C)
CCI
-I,
H.
2
C)
I)
'-C
(-I
I--
3
It.
-r
C-'
3
'/
I'
A)
0)
A,
C)-)
t'l
(V
ITj
0
C
C)
A)
0
1
Cl.
•
-
:
L- -
c-f
CD.
U)
P .
0
-3
0
'1
H
C)
.
r
A,
i
00
0
o
H
0
(f
t-1
'-P1
0.
I-
pi
(I)
H
C)
A)
:i
A,
-
ct•
H.
0
r.
A,
Cl.
0'
0)
r,.c
•-
H ?
h-i.
to ?
P
rt
I-..
0
I-•
A,
0.
H
0)
Z
-4
to
?
H
Al
0
H
-4
C)
0)
.
H
Co
*
0
ç
C)
c
C)
I- i
A)
rf
1-'
c-f
A)
(0
-3
0)
P.
(TI
.4
•
H
Al
Cl)
0
0)
A'
H
Z
0
th
I-'
UD
--4
H
Al
Cl
Co
(TI.
Cl
CD
0)
0)
0)
t-'
CD
C)
A)
CD
A'
Cl
Al
- Cl
c-f
F-"
P1
()
P
.
0
A)
oq
A)
I, ?
•'
•- ?
.- ?
.
?
..
?
. ? I
c
c
x
c
c
c
C
CO
0
C.:
1
ç
(TI
i
I-
•
(TI
I-"
Z
H
0 H
H
H
CO rf
*-.
<
CD
<
(DO
<
<
<
0
rtA'
<
Ct
CD
c,+ ?
(D
CD
f-'(D
r.
CD
- .
1 1
I-h
?
I
•
•
'l
A'1
i
'
(fl
0)
U)
OQI
U)
Cfl
0)
P
H
H
P. " .
H
I-' .
H H
•
H
r+
-.rt
I-I
rP
'+
a \
C
ti
'-<r4
0, a
<rf
0
•'<
r
1-4
A''c
u
CD
C
<
0
PJI-.
0
0
0
0
1
ZI
?
r+
0
CD
CD
<
P-fe
)-$
It
H
P1)
'1
C.(D
C
t'r
co
()
-i
-
0
P.
C))
U)
0
(TI
Fl-
I-.
rt
)
c-f
115
U)
C)
H
.
OCD
c-f
(70
r*
.
0
c-f
rt
c-f
w
(TI
A)
<
(i
(0
0
r+
"I
iD
c-f
U)
(I)
P.
I-.0
0j
A,
H
0.0
P)
c-f
'-I
Al
C)
H ?
H ?
N)
?
() ?
t.) ?
.
Ci
l
?
00
-r
P-
?
c
??
CO ?
Q ?
N) ?
U)
Y.
r ?
—
?
cncn ?
r.\.-.
I . ?
I
?
4
H
I
H
I
I ?
I ?
I
H H
H
I ?
-I
.
-I
I-
(.)
I
I
H ?
H
I ?
N) ?
NJ
?
N) ?
ar ?
I
?
I ?
I
?
(-
?
I'- ?
-I ?
I
I ?
I ?
I ?
.1 ?
I--b ?
I.J
C)
I ?
'-4
?
I--' ?
N.) ?
H
'.,)'N) ?
C)' \IJI ?
p
H H H
H ?
... ?
-L ?
F-' ?
- ?
- ?
H ?
() ?
N) ?
-4
Co\
I-..
(70
C)
ç
0ç0
tF r-f
H
c-f F-"
C)
A)
I-"
0
*
ti
C-'
tri
Ell
:tI
Cl
Fo
(.4
C)
C-
I ?
(.) ?
N.) ?
(..) ?
N.) ?
-A ?
I_fl
?
H
C) I-I
=_ :j
Ai r-f
o q
11
CD
H
C)
Al
c-f
P.
0
C)
0
c-f
(I)
I-"
(0
Al
C)
C..4
0
A,
I
?
,-I ?
'-4 ?
I
?
I
?
I
?
I
?
C1
?
.-i ?
.-) ?
I
I ?
I
?
I ?
IV..)( ?
I
?
.
'z' \ ' ?
.-
a)
C-)
r4
(U
o ?
'-
C)
(U
U) ?
p.,
(I)
4.1
0
C-)
o
4-' ?
.-
(U
C)
'-4
c.
A.
0
0
'-4
(U
C)
0
bO
0
'-4
4-.
C)
(U
I ?
I ?
I
?
I' ?
I
?
I ?
I ?
('A
I ?
I
I
I
I ?
I
I I
?
I I
'
I
?
''. I
I
I ?
I
I
I
I
I
?
I ?
I
I ?
I I
I'
("4
I
.-4
?
1
.1,
I
I ?
I
I ?
I
I
?
I ?
I
?
•I_
?
'I ?
I
?
I ?
I
C'J ?
.-
?
.e' ?
,.X'
?
.
?
'(N ?
C'm ?
C' ?
-- ?
-'4
a,
l ?
(U
?
''.
?
_J ?
4-' ?
.,
?
rU
• .-f' . .'4 ?
4..'
?
r-
4
1-
?
. ?
(Uf4,
?
'I))
W
?
--I ?
•.-I
-"4 ?
4.)
?
4-.I. ?
w ?
-
?
(,) ?
bi)
) ?
U) ?
0) ?
4.. ?
'rI,'
?
4-' ?
0) ?
0)
?
U)
4-'
?
c4 ?
.e,
?
0 ?
. ?
•r4
?
>
?
>
..-4 ?
a)
?
.
(U' ?
0)
?
'--4 ?
•-4
?
)'•
U)
?
)' ?
>
?
'. ?
.4
?
4-
'4 ?
-4
?
.0' ?
0
? a
?
D
?
' ?
0 ?
0
(,
?
,,U)1J'
?
.
?
•'
? U)
"
?
. ?
>-.. ?
'.*'
?
'r4 ?
.r4
?
U)
?
0 ?
>
-4 ??
4-' ?
'4-.'Q q ): ?
- ?
(U
to
?
4-.'
0
?
•ei
?
•,-$;,,
?
. ? "'4 ?
. ?
"4 ?
"'4
0 ?
'0) ?
-
?
t. .. (U•0).'. ?
.i ?
4..J ?
'
?
(1) ?
D
4-' ?
..4 ?
: ?
's',' ?
(U ?
(U
?
0
• ,g ??
a, ?
.' ?
.
?
. .. ?
-4
0
?
0
?
(1) ?
41
o
?
r•4 ?
': ?
94 ?
u
?
>
?
o
O ?
'4r4':..:)''IU
?
• ?
•r'I ?
U)
ni ?
•0': 44-() ?
4-' ?
(U ?
0 ?
0
g o ?
0 ?
'i''.•< ?
-
?
o ?
:i ?
F-'
:.'
A ?
t ?
____-
L.
(:1
Il-Al
00
P.)
-l
?
0 ?
1,
a) ?
l-.J ?
Z ?
-, ?
-
(.-I
a)
CL ?
Li ?
-i
ct; ?
oa ?
U)
(U
?
C-.'-,
•4 £:
?
0 ?
0
C ?
LI ?
ai
4-4
I
?
''
Al
• ?
0
?
0
0 E
•
?
.-
r ?
-I
?
C) ?
.J ?
If)
•
?
P. ?
1 ?
(U ?
4 ?
0.,
: 'r, ?
o ?
-i- ?
0
• ?
o ?
0
?
C)
U)
0
•0
• ?
I_fl
lj
4.1
0
C)
-'--I
a)
-4
rM
'C
0
(11
a,
If)
:1
?
)-
0
• ?
' ?
,i:
?
3
c.:
?
L ?
'-'-I
;••, ?
r ?
0 ?
C) ?
C
(U
?
C
?
If. ?
_.,"-'
- ?
C.) ?
Ui ?
':' ?
&) ?
41
Ct) ?
U, ?
rL: ?
0. ?
II
--1 ?
3
• ?
'-1 ?
IU:I ?
(UI:,.
• ?
00
IJI_;
?
?
•"i
000
- ?
.0'-.-i ?
41f7.JQ
•.-4
?
I-' ?
i
4
1 ?
Ct) ?
(1 ?
0
?
0
?
U ?
-I
(I, ?
U
?
04 ?
1 ?
'),I ?
3 ?
11)
•
?
-. ?
r) ?
(U w
?
,) ?
1.
(F) ?
'rj ?
d ?
.0 ?
'-I ?
3 ?
-.
(U
0.004-
. '
?
0
o
4:_I
?
?
(U
0
?
?
0)11.)
g•)
4----4-l0'-
?
C
?
M
'U ?
i
I1P'
:•, ?
-.-
?
,-. ?
i ?
4:4
•
?
•a'-
?
3;: ?
..iQ ?
t..
E
?
).c ?
0-i ?
0-i,
o
0
Q)-
bo
?
17)
U
r.) ?
)..) ?
C)
?
Li.) ?
C ?
Lii
.,. ?
0 ?
.1. ?
•') ? Li ?
') ?
(.1
'p
4
APPENDIX X
2'
Contributions to the Leading Association ?
of Educational Researchers
T.bf.I
Top 100
AERA Program
Contributions
by
University
0'
College
1915-1979
Compared with Earlier Rasinqs
9leu
and
Guba and
Ladd and
-
W,41b410
Marqul',r
Certres
West"
Clark
Lipsot
Library'
w'dCoees
4ERA
'972)
(1974.1)
(1977)
(7979)
(1978)
(1979)
(mil.ior')
I.
StsnfoEdUr'.dsity
417
1
1
I
3
X
I
398
2.
University of Itinois
388
2
8
A
I
X
4
508
at Urbana
3. tinivrsltyofCaii$urnia
356
6
12
4
95
X
9
391
SI Los
Angeles
&
Unvereftyo(Texas
327
13
X
'4 10
at Aus*in
5.
UrversflyoIPittabuigh
280
8.
UrW.'exsityof Wisconsin
278
4
7
0
4
x
5
320
at Madison
7.
Puiwisylvanla
State
Univer'ssty
277
8
X
14
1.47.
S.
University of Minnesota
249
9
9
11
S
X
400
9.
Midigan State University
246
Ii
12
X
12
2.00
10. CofumblaUnsversit
1%
1 '
2
/
175
X
8
473
11
Indiana University
195
9
4
12
X'
3
324
12.
Ohio State University
157
3
8
X
2
291
12
Syracuse Univet sity
IS?
164
14
Purdu.Urwversity
1.115
14
.
1
27
15.
State University o! New Yor
150
168
at
Buffalo
*16
Onta,10 Institute lot
14-
.
.36
Studies
in Education
17.
Rutgers Ur,iversity
I3
20
18.
University otMáchyan
135
11
6
8
11
492
19.
UniversityotChicago
13'
4
3
X
7
389
20.
University of California
130
5
6
X
10
492
at Berkeley
21
University of Massachusetts
128
-
X
I 20
22
Florida State University .
127
15 5
X
1 10
23
University of Illinois
1,-)4
20
at
Chicago Circle
23
University ofKansas
1?4
'
I
80
23
'kgin" Polytechnic
14
so
26
Untvrsa y of
Neb r aska
?
.
122
.
132
27.
Arizona State Universily
119
1
2
9
28,
Unrversityo4Georgia
116
X
152
29.
G.orgLa State University
110
55
30
City University of New
Vii'
ii
109
324
31
University of North Carolina
105
227
at Chapel I-lilt
32.
Northwes*ern Uniersily
lOt
300
33.
Cornell
University
100
9 5
400
34.
University of Houston
98
1.09
35. Harvard University
96
3
2
155
X
6
900
35.
University olCak for ia
96
1
24
at
Santa
Barbara
35.
University of Oregon
96
ii
X
13
1
34
38.
Ucweras1y of Arizona ?
.
95
.
90
39.
Lk*ersityofConnecticut
93
1 33
39.
University
of
Iowa
'13
13
X
I 96
41.
UrWversftyofRocheter
89
160
42.
New York University
87
X
.
246
42.
Soue*rn Illinois University
87
.
17 5
1
42
44.
Wsing1on University
85
1.50
45.
8nam Young University
81
130
46
University of Virginia
79
2
14
47.
Johns Hopkins University '
78
7
I 98
48.
UnlversJtyof South Carolina
77
115
49.
Slat. University of New York
7
6
90
at Albany
50. University of Florida ?
.
75
.
X
1.85
51.
Un.v.rsityofMaryland
67
.
X
,
I 47
*Canadjan universities are underlined
.
.
Source: Richards, 'James
M. "The Human Ecology of the American Educational
Research Association." Educational
Researcher, Vol. 8 (July-August
1979): 14-15.
u
and
?
- ?
1ub5
and ?
Ladd and
Lkss
Wa/berg ?
Maigiires ?
Ca,twr ?
West" ?
CInrt ?
Upset
tJb'ar).
b'IdCO.tkQIS
?
AERA
?
(7972) ?
(1974
51 ?
t19771 ?
(t')PPi
?
(79181 ?
(7979)
(mgfhQi
52.
Un.v.rs4y
o
f
Permn.s4vwie
66
250
53,
Wayne StaleUwirslty
64
1.66
54.
Tiropl. University
63 ?
1 ?
.
1
00
54.
University of Tennessee
63
1 29
56.
Kerd State tkwrsity
59
1
?
13
51.
Iowa State Unl,
q
Vty
57 ?
.
t
?
to
56.
Simon FrarUvversily
55
87
!jq. University of Colorado
52
1
53
59.
Unsity01Wisconsifl
52
100 ?
-
at
Milwaukee
61.
University of Delaware
49
9')
62.
lUinois State
University
48
71
62.
Weeem Michigan Uivenul
48
64.
Memphis Stain University
47
67
64.
Univerafty
,
04
Southern
$7 ?
.
775
California
66.
BoeIonUrWelsRy
46
1.82
67.
Fort.m University
45 ?
.
66
67.
UniversIty of California
45
88
at
Riverside
67.
UniversIty 04 Kentucky
45
1 20
67.
University of
Oklahoma
45
1.88
71.
UniversttyOlRhod.Island
44
65
72.
Cvn.gle-Mslon
University
,
42
53
72.
Urw.r.ilyolloisdo
42
74.
lfriverilly of Bdb,sti Columbia
40
T4.
University of
Ciicaniiati
40 ?
.
?
,
?
.
1
20
74.
UvWrsityolWashington
40
'
'2.19
77
University
01
Missouri
39
1
84
78
McGl6Univers4y
37 ?
.
3.50
78.
University of New Mexft
37
?
.
1 00
80.
Do" College
36
81.
Noilfl Texas
Slats Unlv.tsity
35
?
.
?
.
1.03
82
Gallaudilil Collor
34
14
62.
UniversIty oiNortPiCaroNna
34 ?
.
98
it
Greensboro
54.
UnIversity 04
South Florida
33 ?
.
,
64.
Unerel?yolWeei.rnOnlario
33 ?
.
1.00
86
8udcne5
Uriivsrvty
32
40
86.
State Ui*srsity
of
New York
32
at Stoneybroolt
88.
Howard University
30
89
89.
Miami
University
29
89
Oklahoma State Univsrsty
29
1.20
91
Roosevelt Uiiversit'j
28 ?
'
.30
91.
Texas A&MUnrv.rsity
28 ?
.
1.10
91
Virginia Conwnon*eatth
University
2e
.38
91.
Wichita
Slate
Urwersity
28
.52
95
UniversityolCatifornie
27
1.38
at Davis
9
University olSen Francisco
27
?
.
?
.
97.
Texas Christian Universtty
26
98
Case Western Rserve
24 ?
,
1.57
96.
Claremont Graduate School
24
90
98.
Northern Itlinoil Univer'vty
24
82
98
Un.versityolAbatis
24
1.77
George Peabody College tisd for twelfth
in
the
Luau and Margulies study but was not listed in the top 100 AERA Contributors.
West
included non
.
iaiiversfly institutions
in
his rankings.
therefore.
it
is noted that the Educational Testing
Service rar' d
a.00nd It his sltidy.
Gi and Chit provided an
alphabetical
list
rather
than
a rank order. Therelors, those that they rated as high producers are
indicated
with
an
X.
0
Utt*I'y holdings information
is
taken from:
SnlannicarSoc*
01 the
Y•ir
-1978.
-
Chicago:
Encyclopedia Britannica. ft., 1978
E&lor'4nChisI,
James
Eifel),
pp.
517
.
519. and from
The
college blue
book.
16th Volume on Tabular Data. New York
Macmillan. 1977.
a ?
S
:,
j
.
I I'fli)II
•b ?
S
Dr. K. George Ped.'rst.
President,
Simon Fraser
11 i
Vt
ri;
II
Dr.
?
Douglas
T.
?
Keuy,
Preeldent,
0
7
C. rl
* 1980
Simon Fraser
?
UIl(vtrNIty
Dr.
?
Howard E.
?
Pet ch,
PROG''
Pres [dent, ?
0
0
-
tversity of
?
Victoria
-
?
--
St r8:
In response to a June 26, 1980 reisesL of you by the Chairman
Of
the Universities' council of British Columb
ia
,
we
wish LO
Indicate
that the three of us wt are Deans of Edivat ion of the three major
universities of British Columbia met at length on September 23 and 25,
1980 to discuss our respective proposals for Ph.D. progruma. This
letter describes the conclusions u4tich resulted from that collaboration.
I. The need exists, and will continue for some time in the foreseeable
future, for graduates from each of thepr2PO8
e
d
a
ro
g.
I
M-
There are not
sufficient coapetint
candidates with doctoral
?
0
degrees to meet
Canadian and British Columbia demands in the areas of
?
0
study proposed, vii. , curriculum development, educational
adininistra-
tion, and educational psychology.
Our own experiences
with university
faculty recruitment highlight this circumstance. As well, responses
from sister organizations. field-oriented associations, and hiring
agencies -- appended to
proposal. -- confirm
this conclusion.
?
0
2. The need exists for British Colisnbla'8 market requirements to be
?
0
met, at
least in reasonable measure,
by
British Columbia prgrams.
?
0 ?
0
The overwhelming majority of recruits who held doctorates and
are employed by British Columbia's school districts, universities,
educationally-oriented associations, and
the
Ministry of Education either
came from outside British Columbia
and/orsecured their degrees outside
the province or the country. This province, as indicated by the
external ?
0
- 2 -
I . ?
kit. ?
It
1i'
I
?
i
evaluators for
the thIlversitY
of Yhi"' I:i'
?
''
?
i
.i''
ihi I I
behind
states
and provinces of coarahi
e ?
i ?
iii i
?
.,
avail
?
t
in promoting doctoral programs in eduisi
ion
in ?
II
14 iiii'I ?
1)11 W(t11
Alberta and British Columbia
in this resi"-''
?
iii I lug.
tluw wi
discover that C,onzaga ihi Ivera ity
?
liii or-I I
?
o'
?
hi r
u •1Jd it i
?
i%:II ?
1
delivery in British columbIa.
?
We
tieal
IV n..
tugt
dl"' ii
this level,
offered to British
Columbia
catid
lit o,
hi Rr l
?
sit tii 41mb!!
inst itut ions, and wi thin t
lie
contexi of br I i di ( I timb
1 ?
edit' at tonal
?
problems and needs.
:i. ?
--
?
I .!!!---JY
propos
ed
Ph.D. yrJj&!a
rnS
aie.
?
Each quality
program proposed
i
epic'
o'iI (
?
•
fl$
I(k
tt nV° Iowa
rd
?
I
?
i
easing the needs of the British olubl mark'I I ;'t.
?
Eu ro intent. s w it
?
s?
I imited by the capae it h's of current resol' lie
ni
i
he
threk. i:ampU84
together with modest tncr&efltal gr.ow( it
?
Re
?
iiroilti;II .
?
ul t log gradeI
L
aild ?
l
will ease the demand, but not alleviat
e
it .
?
ii t!r
new
1,14
rams
exteflSiDt of existing
oflOB
will be needed li
tin'
future. ( ttt inuthg
coil abotat ton among the three inst Ito t
bits
Will
he
iteeded to address
t he
8
ituat inn.
s.
Each of the three Faculties vii
.-have adiijti;i
ic md
.-
- -----
to address tha to rants as ro osed.
-
to ?
le iat
C
corps
of
seltol ;irh
i moot.
t pro gram i
?
to
ge
t
it(
r
?
ii
?
ri spei t , lacul
I
I esof
iy s lea-i
tCOO
reN t
it ron
ova in
at or
R.
.
Inter-!
a S u R
Y .
I iai tn ,
?
ctrcus!'S'-
?
the effrL*u
three Faculties has been and
will
coot
ittue to
he,
oncourated and
cajio1ed.
- ?
. ..- ..-----
The three Facul t :s of Educat tout coOl
tuue o
lot ens
if
y thet r
efforts with respect to
collaboration regard bug
program
i
i..
velOtteflt out'l
s notable examPl° of col laburat ion have
occurred
implementation.
with respect to the
t
raining
During
of Native md
recent
tan teachers,
year
the
stewardsh
ip
of the David Thompson University Centre, and graduate programs
at the
Master's level.
In fact,
one
Master's dogrec program in Edticati0flal
Administratio
n
in the Kamloops area was delivered by Stnifl Fraser Univer-
sity to a clientele
developed
by the UniversitY of British Columbia.
This document reflects the three-way dialogue which has occurred
with respect to the proposed Ph.D. programs. FurthermOte, as programs are
operatiOnaliZe& every opportunity will be taken to
lve
candidates engaged
in seminars and workshops which have a tri_U%Vt'rsttY flavour.
.
?
.3
(fl
.
We
a re
convinced each Faculty lia
with national and International teputat louts
with modest resource proposals -suhaitted.
?
iii
Graduate Studies ensure credibUttY of human
vigorous assessments and by teams of external
4
•
? -3-
6.
?
The cusL
?
ed itcti
?
the
Po
ttit
Iit.1 I'l
l
. IL
?
•"iitt.
?
H ?
Iii
?
•. .1
progrs
am
wi II itt
be....!jni_
I
It: ant ly dii Iti
iI I ii
?
wli.i ?
I
would
?
k I
I
Indeed
?
Ii were
posi; ible to accoaodiitt'
1
Iii-i
ll
illui;
?
;.sui:i
;till.
?
! ?
tiit .
?
the
total ?
of
instruct_lonl liii
r ii awl II a hI.
?
1 tuc ?
111
would be markedly moreexpenHive.
Lii)ugt4 ?
iman ri.'isrceS nr
?
ava l
: tlaI& ?
Ill
?
ii
II
?
aiiti
I
y 10 Iti un
?
the baa ic
core
10
mount I he proposed proi am';.
th
I
v
nilno
.
11;11
F add I -
t tons and ex Ira ;tippOrt
sirv ices are b
y
.)
I v
i.-d
.
ii.)V
jilt
I II( MIUC 1I1 R4
of opport.;inLl t
?
In mic hiNt Itutlon wiuiibil 1)4
7.
?
The
ajpr')aPI'
three-Hite
to est alit I hIi.;
?
Ii. II.
?
iiyI tin
?
(a) iJlf(I
diversity of
?
pproach auj whIerpjiurIi I I
?
i'I • I
' i ?
for taUd Id;it
(b) employs a wide ran
j ?
of uujqj ?
'i I
Iv $
.tIiiit, (.) YI1attzu
?
Ii: Ii
duate and under raduateprograflus at carti tin Ivir iiy, and
?
Ii'
the search
capU1t
It's Of each Faculty
.
ol .
I'4uiiaI
Ion.
We
respect Iii) by
Nt)
tic It ynlir iu,ls hlrn I ion of tilt-He
(4NII
I
114 I('I).
We Ivo takeii t he 1 1 he rt y to append a ''
p
y
,
'
I ti
l
via
to
('UI rt pec I
I
Vt'
I' -' po sa
B. •
I Eli
I v
7
/
.1. 41orge Ivaily,
Deall
fit
?
II
ii .0
I
to;; ,
Simon brain
I
lini versity
•
?
Roy lktitIey,
?
• ?
Dean of Education,
•
?
tlniversity of British Columbi3
urrazma
Dean of Education,
Universit y
of Victoria
hcc Dr. J. Tuiniiijri
El
•
THE ONTARIO INSTITUTE FOR EIIJI.)1E5 IN EDUCATION—
252 BLOOR STREET WEST, TORONTO, ONTARIO, CANADA MS I V6
?
TELEPHONE: q23-6641
TELEX Uü-217720
February 23, 1981
Dean Bryan P. Beirne
Office of Graduate Studies
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C.
V5A 1S6
Dear Dean Beirne:
I have reviewed the Ph.D. program proposal prepared by the
SFU Faculty of Education as well as the c.v.'s and calendar
copy which your office provided. What follows is my
response to these materials in the light of the specific
questions which you posed in your letter of 18 February 1981.
1.
There is considerable academic expertise represented
. ?
'in the Faculty, but it is quite unevenly distributed.
Relative to the proposed program, the general strength
of the Curriculum Theory and Implementation group is
certainly less impressive (relative to doctoral programs)
than is the case in Educational Governance of Instruc-
tional Psychology. I received thirty-two curriculum
vitae, and I would esimate that of these, fourteen
would be eligible for membership in the Graduate
School at the University of Toronto, 10 would not be
'eligible, and the remaining might or might not be,
depending on additional information.*
I would, therefore, suggest that although there is
enough expertise to mount the proposed program, (a)
participation in the program should be limited to
faculty with established research programs, and (b)
enrolment should be limited--as is suggested in the
proposal--to five or
six
a year.
2.
I very much like the "apprenticeship" model as it is
proposed by the Faculty of Education. It assumes,
however, that the'M.A. required for admission is
closely related to the particular field to be pursued
*At the
University of Toronto,
there are two general criteria
for membership in the Graduate School. These are (a) achieve-
ment
in
scholarship, and' (b) creative professional' achievement.
In making the above estimates,
I focussed on the former since
it seemed more relevant to the kind of program being proposed.
TIE ONTARIO INSTITUTE FO SI UUIIS IN [DUCA1I0N
-2-
0
by any given doctoral candidate. Otherwise, the
candidate is simply not ready for the kind of
apprenticeship implied by the proposal. Therefore,
particular care will have to be taken
in
the
evaluation of admission applications. Given such
care, however, I would estimate that the program
graduates will be of a quality comparable to those
produced at the leading Canadian institutions in
the field.
If the Faculty is really serious about research
apprenticeship, it might offer its doctoral students
some incentives. Perhaps, one of the comprehensive
examinations could be waived for each article
accepted in a refereed publication prior to the
examinations themselves?
3. . I think that there will be a continuing demand for
the five or six students who will graduate from this
program each year. I should add (a) that the present
distribution of "foreign" doctorates is not evidence
of future demand for "native" ones,. and (b) that the
increasing demand for doctoral qualifactions at the
colleges and in the schools is partly a self-fulfilling
prophecy.
I believe that B.C. should offer a doctoral program of
this type. Nevertheless.. I think that in the long run,
the SFU Faculty would be well-served if they explicitly
distinguished the present proposal (and the intended
outcomes of the proposed program) from the Ed.D.
offering at UBC. The different degree designation
is not self-explanatory, and no case is made in the
present material that the "demand" is related specifically
to the kind of program proposed.
4 ?
I think that the proposed program will meet the stated
objectives given my reservations about size and admission.
The supervision and dissertation arrangements seem
most satisfactory as do the
areas
for comprehensive
examination. It is, of course, difficult to infer much
from course descriptions, but those included in the new •
program certainly offer the possibility of significant
intellectual experience.
I do have a few other comments to make. First, although the
proposal stresses the need for Canadian or, indeed, British
Columbian programs, it is not made clear how the "local"
context is incorporated into the program itself. Second, I
/3
THE ONTARIO INSTITUTE roR STtJL)EE IN EDUCATION
-3-
would have liked to learn the extent to which the SFU Faculty
resources outside the Faculty of Education could be brought
to bear on this new program. Such a relationship is difficult
to achieve, but it might be worth some consideration at this
time. Needless to add, the value of the Faculty in Education
to other SFU doctoral programs should also not be under-
estimated. Finally, I wonder whether or not this is an
opportunity for a joint program between UBC and SFU? Given
that such a program might be based at SFU--in order to avoid
the crush due to sheer size--, British Columbia might then
become a model for the more rational use of scarce academic
resources. I recognize that such an arrangement is very
difficult to realize in practice, but, again, I do think
it is worth at least some consideration.
I hope that the above is of some assistance to you and your
colleagues. I have tried to keep this letter brief, but I
would be glad to supplement it with further details if you
think that such additions would be useful to you. Looking
•
?
forward to the excitement which this new program will bring
to SFU, I remain,
Cordiall4,
,:
Bernard 3.piro
Director
BJS:km
0
4
STANFORJ) tJNI\'ERSIFY
.
?
SIANIORI). (A1 TI()KNI,\
144fl
SCI 1001. OF FUOCA1 ION
2 March 1981
Dean Bryan P. Bierne
Graduate Studies
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C.
CANADA V5A 1S6
Dear Dean Beirne:
I think I may have acted hastily in agreeing to review the proposed
Ph.D. program in Education for Simon Fraser.
As I
read the material you
sent, I began to note the strong emphasis on meeting local need. My
knowledge of the Canadian scene is limited to say the least. Therefore
my overall judgment of the proposal is likely to be insufficiently
attentive to at least one of your major goals; in particular, I am
unable to comment on those aspects of the proposal that emphasize the
importance of "preservation of a distinctive Canadian cultural identity"
(On the other hand, it doesn't seem to me that the proposal addresses
the question of meeting local requirements, except by potentially edu-
cating more people from the neighborhood. It isn't clear how the nature
of their education is uniquely Canadian.)
Nevertheless,
for
whatever limited value they may have, here are some of
my impressions:
(a)
The program of courses for doctoral study seems sound.
(b)
It appears that a sensitive assessment has been made of
current strengths within the faculty. In particular, Appendix
F represents a thoughtful delineation of areas in which the
faculty would ne....d to be strengthened to provide a program of
appropriate scope.
(c)
I find the new course outlines, in general, to reflect current
scholarship in the fields I know best, curriculum and governance.
The work on "educational thought" seems also to be carefully
and well prepared.
(d)
I have more questions about instructional psychology, but this
field is also the one in which I am least knowledgeable. However,
Lt is my impression that there have been major advances in
what has come to
be
called cognitive psychology, represented
by the work of Greeno,
Cole,
and, most particularly, Simon and
Estes. These perspectives seem absent from the outline.
.
0
L
•.
(c
?
Now for the most sensitive and perhaps the most negative
aspect of
my
commentary: The education faculty at Simon
Fraser seems to be well prepared academically and reasonably
productive, at least in a quantitative sense. However, as I
look at the list and study faculty resumes, I do not
find
that
many of the professors are making strong and current contributions
to their respective fields. They do not seem to be charting
new territory or highlighting fundamental issues that are
commanding the attention of their peers. One gets the impression
(and it may be quite unfair from this distance) of an industrious
group of highly committed people, few, if any, however, among
the top half-dozen scholars internationally in their various
fields of specialization.
To the extent that such a judgment is accurate, and to the
extent that it is considered important in possibly approving
the new degree, you may find it advisable to check this opinion
by reviewing your own appointment and promotions files for the
conuients of external referees in the various specialties.
Alternatively, you may wish to initiate a review to ascertain
how each person ranks
in his
or her field. I consider the
criterion of international preeminence to be of considerable
significance in approving a new doctoral-level program and
would hesitate to proceed without satisfying myself that at
least, say, one fifth of the faculty is outstanding by this
yardstick.
Sincerely,
J. Myron Atkin
Dean
dv
..
&e^-
Office of the President
The
University
o(A!berta
Edmonton,
Aflerta
ToG 2 J9
Telephone:
403 433212
403 4-562O
MM 0 2 1'3'
. -p
'
. t ':
?
i•'
5: J.
February 26, 1981
Dean Bryan P. Beirne
Faculty of Graduate Studies
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C.
•V5A 1S6
Dear Dean Beirne:
Re: Proposed Ph.D. Program in Education
.
?
?
Thank you for your letter and for forwarding to me copies of the
proposal and supporting documentation.
This has been an enjoyable and a relatively easy assignment because
(unlike my reaction on some other occasions when I have played a similar
role at a number of other Canadian institutions) my conclusion is that the
Faculty of Graduate Studies at Simon Fraser should endorse the proposal and
that the Ph.D. Program in Education should begin as soon as possible.
I do have some observations and suggestions, but first I shall
answer the questions you raised in your letter.
1.
Yes. The members of the academic staff compare very well with
my colleagues here who are involved in doctoral studies and
with those I have met at OISE. I base this conclusion not only
on a review of the curriculum vitaes which you sent but also on
what I have heard about the people whose names are listed on
page 12 of the proposal and on my personal contacts with a
good number of them.
2.
Yes. In my view the graduate students will be receiving thorough
preparation very comparable to what occurs at the leading
institutions in these fields.
3.
There is .a very serious shortage at the present time of highly
•
?
trained specialists in Education. Clearly, the need for Ph.D.
graduates in the various programs is there and 'I predict that
this need will continue. Also, the point must be made that in
Education, asin -other- flelds, there should be greater choice of --
graduate programs and at the present time the choice is limited.
.
?
4 ?
•j
A
Dean
. Bryan P. Beirne
?
-2-
?
February 26, 1981
?
0
4. ?
I think so. The aim to integrate theory and practice is an
important one but I suspect it will be a difficult one. to
accomplish.
As you can see am very supportive of this proposal. May I offer
some suggestions?
1.
The concern for an interdisciplinary perspective should be
reflected to a greater extent thRn,7 believe is the case in
the proposed program. For examâ shouldn't students be
required to take some course work outside of Educations Don't
make the mistake of trying to cover all of the program needs,
especially in the foundations, in the Faculty of Education. Also
I strongly recommend that at least for the first five years one
member of each thesis supervisory committee should be from a
faculty other than Education. Others have much to contribute and
this is a good way of keeping interested parties outside of
Education informed.
2.
I think you will have to consider additional financial support
for graduate students in the form of assistantships.
3.
lain surprised that the library needs are minimal but I have never
visited the library at Simon Fraser. What I know is that even at
universities where the libraries are well established (e.g.,
University of Alberta and McGill) the introduction of a new program
at the doctoral level 'inevitably results in substantial expenditures
(therefore investment in the library).
4.
having a relatively small rn.nnber of students will enable your
faculty to exert a continuous
check
on the performance of the
students. Do you really require comprehensive examinations which
can sometimes be unnecessarily traumatic?
I hope this report is useful to you and to the decision making bodies
at Simon Fraser.
Yours, sincerely,
Myer Horowitz
President
MM/f b
.
0
. ?
. .., %.
?
.
.
0
SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY
MEMORANDUM
Dr...Munro
?
?
.From
.......1iW?fl,.Pjr.c.c1Qr
........................
?
Graduate Programs
1?.cn,..dcadc.mic..................... ?
..F.act*jty.oLEduction........................
S
ubject
......................................................
?
Date ........
.
.
Ufl
?
2.,,
I have studied the comments of the three external referees for the
purpose of deciding whether further modifications of the Ph.D.
program proposed by us are in order.
The purpose of this memorandum is to apprise you of my assessment
of the referees' evaluation and subsequent changes in the proposal.
The referees are without exception individuals of eminent stature
in
the field. Their comments, therefore, cannot be taken lightly. I
am heartened by their general support of the proposal. Some of their
specific questions and Criticisms have been dealt with as follows:
I.. In the Calendar Description (Appendix IV) added emphasis has been
placed on the fact that inclusion of a member of another faculty
on the Supervising Committees will be strongly encouraged.
2.
Appendix 11 has been added to the document, providing specific
details on the interdisciplinary nature of the proposed degree
and outlining the various ways in which other departments across
campus are expected to be involved.
3.
A policy statement has been added to the overview of members of
the Faculty of Education specifying conditions under-which
members of faculty can be expected to be involved with .Supervisory
Committees (Appendix III). Similarly, the new course proposals.
(Appendix V), list the faculty members who are expected to teach
the courses to be taught in the Proposed programs.
I categorically, but without prejudice, reject the concept that Ph.D.
programs can only exist where faculty meet the "top international 6"
criterion. Moreover, S.F.U. does not know the concept of Graduate
Faculty. Nevertheless, as a faculty we are aware that some of us are
more suited to and interested in guiding the studies of Ph.D. students
than are others.
Perhaps this was not communicated clearly enough to the external referees.
I trust that this matter now has been dealt with satisfactorily.
I am grateful for the aid given by the external referees iii strengthening
the proposal. •Itrust that the above comments clarify how we have taken
advantage of their advice.
