Thesis (M.Ed.)--Kutztown State College, 1963. / Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 45-06, page: 2770. Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves [30]-33)

The Utah State University has had a university controlled elementary teacher education laboratory school since 1928. In that year, the University, then the Utah Agricultural College, leased the Whittier School from the Logan City Board of Education. The Whittier continued to be used until the summer of 1957 when the newly constructed Edith Bowen Laboratory School became the center of elementary teacher education.

This dissertation explores the early influence of science on Dewey's educational theory and practice. Science was, unquestionably, a dominant ideal, concept, subject, and/or method during the late nineteenth century when Dewey entered his academic career. Realizing the significance of science in education, Dewey sought an answer to the questions of why we teach, what we teach, and how we teach, based on science. Dewey's effort to find a scientific basis of education was frequently misunderstood as “scientism,” which means unjustified or excessive reliance on positivistic science. Unlike the supporters of positivistic science in education such as Thorndike, however, Dewey sought a non-scientistic approach in pursuing the theory of educational purposes, substance and practices. Exploring the development of Dewey’s view on science in education, this study provides a detailed explanation on the transformation of his ideas in five stages: formative, developmental, preparation, experimental, and post-experimental. To provide an overview of issues involved in the problem of scientism, Chapter II deals with a conceptual geography of scientism and its influence on early twentieth century American education. The development of Dewey’s view on the science of education is provided in chronological order in Chapters III, IV, and V. Chapter III explores Dewey’s separation from the Neo-Hegelian tradition, an encounter with new science, and re-interpretation of scientific ethics. Chapter IV elaborates Dewey’s conception of scientific curriculum, a preparation for experiment in the Laboratory School, and science subject-matter and scientific method in the school. Chapter V provides a detailed exposition on the role of subject-matter and method in Dewey’s scientific curriculum and a brief explanation on his thought about subject-matter and method after he left the Laboratory School. Conclusions and reflections are offered in Chapter VI. / text

The primary purpose of the study was to investigate stakeholders' opinions concerning campus laboratory school program quality in three areas: (1) quality of teacher education, (2) research, and (3) childcare. There were 653 participants in the study: 246 parents whose children were enrolled in laboratory schools, 200 pre-service students who were taking early childhood or child development classes, and 207 faculty who were associated with campus laboratory schools. The study participants came from 122 campus children centers in the United States. These campus centers were members of either the National Coalition for Campus Children's Centers (NCCCC) or the National Organization of Laboratory Schools (NOLS). The first three research questions investigated whether parents, students, and faculty were satisfied with program quality. A one-way analysis of variance indicated a statistically significant mean difference between the three groups. The parents had a higher mean level of program quality satisfaction than students and faculty. The last three research questions investigated whether parents, students, and faculty supported the ongoing existence of campus laboratory school programs. Opinions were scaled from 1=not ever to 5=definitely. The overall mean ratings for Parents (4.54), students (4.18), and faculty (4.07) indicated that they supported the ongoing existence of campus laboratory programs. Future research should investigate cross-cultural issues related to campus laboratory school programs. It would also be important to study the effectiveness of Pell Grants that could provide funding of campus laboratory schools for a diverse group of children. A study could also be conducted that would explore differences in campus laboratory school programs and determine whether they respond differently to childcare demands.

Thesis (Ed. D.)--Illinois State University, 1995. / Title from title page screen, viewed April 25, 2006. Dissertation Committee: Larry D. Kennedy (chair), John V. Godbold, John T. Goeldi, Barbara S. Heyl. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 129-136) and abstract. Also available in print.

Excerpt: "Scholars have documented that when John Dewey formed an experimental university-based school in Chicago in 1896, he intended that research be a component of laboratory schools (Camp-Mayhew et al., 1936; Durst, 2010). However, the realities of teaching and the bureaucratic structures of higher education present obstacles to engaging in meaningful empirical work. Additionally, the majority of laboratory schools have converted from their original form as public, university-based institutions of innovative teaching and research to private, tuition-based institutions or to public facilities attended primarily by the children of university faculty (Whitman, 2020). However, there are examples of laboratory schools that still engage in research activities (e.g. Cutler, 2012; Weih & Ensworth, 2006; Wilcox- Herzog & McLaren, 2006) and all contemporary laboratory schools still list research among their missions and purposes, though the level and definition of research differs across institutions (Jozwiak & Vera, 2016)" [...]