No description available.

No description available.

Online disinformation is a complicated and controversial phenomenon that is proving to be a large challenge for governments, private sector bodies, and civil society groups in a variety of different contexts around the globe. Foreign influence operations conducted through online disinformation campaigns have been implemented in various contexts with the intention to create political instability within these targeted nations. This thesis examines the question: What education policy initiatives are being implemented and/or already exist in the United States and Finland in an effort to make themselves more resilient to transnational online disinformation campaigns? Various policy documents that concern education legislation are analyzed through Bacchi’s (2009) ‘What’s the Problem Represented to be?’ approach. Concepts associated with the Securitization theory and Buzan’s (1998) security analysis framework were applied to the content of these documents in order assess whether the reasoning or discourse associated with the introduction of critical media literacy programs was related to counteracting the threat of one foreign disinformation. Results indicated that there were many differences in how and why the United States and Finland implemented media literacy programs. There are indications that the perceived threat of foreign disinformation campaigns is one of the main justifications for the United States and Finland to introduce or improve national media literacy policies. This work allows other researchers to see these differences in approaches and how they relate to the international communities’ efforts toward utilizing media literacy as a security measure against disinformation.

Abstract A WATERSHED MOMENT: IMPLEMENTING STATE ENVIRONMENTAL LITERACY POLICY INTO A CENTRAL VIRGINIA SCHOOL DISTRICT By Melinda J. VanDevelder, Ph.D. A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Virginia Commonwealth University. Virginia Commonwealth University, 2018 Director: Charol Shakeshaft, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Educational Leadership Policy goals may be impossible to achieve at the classroom level (Ravitch, 2014), as policy depends on those who implement it (Lipsky, 1980). The purpose of this research was to investigate how the voluntary environmental educational executive order, EO42, was implemented and executed in a Central Virginia Public School district. The requirements of EO42 were former Virginia Governor MacAuliffe’s response to a multi-state policy he signed called the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement, which called for all Virginia public education schools to implement Meaningful Watershed Educational Experiences (MWEEs) with students at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. Interviews of state educational and environmental policy-makers indicated EO42 was a hurried process that came without funding and which was done, in large part, to make a political statement. An interview of the Central County Public School’s science specialist portrays the practices used with local environmental outreach educators in order to prepare 64 middle and high school science teachers to implement MWEE lessons required by EO42 for the 2015-2016 school year. A 2 x 2 Chi-squared analysis done on data collected from teacher surveys indicated a statistically significant difference [Chi-squared (1 d.f.) = 4.17, p < 0.05] between teachers’ professional development attendance and teachers’ perceived ability to complete a MWEE lesson with their students. Analyzed teacher survey data also indicates that teachers who had attempted MWEEs in prior years were more likely to attempt a MWEE with their students [t (61) = -2.846, p = 0.006] than were teachers who had not. Though 83% of teachers reported completing a MWEE with the majority of their students, analysis of teacher-reported lessons indicated that only 22% of teachers completed the four components required of a MWEE (environmental issue definition, an outdoor field experience, an action project, and project synthesis and conclusion). Results indicate that there is much work to be done when introducing new policy into secondary schools (Ball, Maguire, & Braun, 2012).

This thesis presents a study of the production of literacy practices in Year 10 English lessons in a culturally diverse secondary school in a low socio-economic area. The study explored the everyday interactional work of the teacher and students in accomplishing the literacy knowledge and practices that count for subject English. This study provides knowledge about the learning opportunities and literacy knowledge made available through the interactional work in English lessons. An understanding of the dynamics of the interactional work and what that produces opens up teaching practice to change and potentially to improve student learning outcomes. This study drew on audio-recorded data of classroom interactions between the teacher and students in four mainstream Year 10 English lessons with a culturally diverse class in a disadvantaged school, and three audio-recorded interviews with the teacher. This study employed two perspectives: ethnomethodological resources and Bernsteinian theory. The analyses of the interactional work using both perspectives showed how students might be positioned to access the literacy learning on offer. In addition, using both perspectives provided a way to associate the literacy knowledge and practices produced at the classroom level to the knowledge that counted for subject English. The analyses of the lesson data revealed the institutional and moral work necessary for the assembly of knowledge about literacy practices and for constructing student-teacher relations and identities. Documenting the ongoing interactional work of teacher and students showed what was accomplished through the talk-in-interaction and how the literacy knowledge and practices were constructed and constituted. The detailed descriptions of the ongoing interactional work showed how the literacy knowledge was modified appropriate for student learning needs, advantageously positioning the students for potential acquisition. The study produced three major findings. First, the literacy practices and knowledge produced in the classroom lessons were derived from the social and functional view of language and text in the English syllabus in use at that time. Students were not given the opportunity to use their learning beyond what was required for the forthcoming assessment task. The focus seemed to be on access to school literacies, providing students with opportunities to learn the literacy practices necessary for assessment or future schooling. Second, the teacher’s version of literacy knowledge was dominant. The teacher’s monologues and elaborations produced the literacy knowledge and practices that counted and the teacher monitored what counted as relevant knowledge and resources for the lessons. The teacher determined which texts were critiqued, thus taking a critical perspective could be seen as a topic rather than an everyday practice. Third, the teacher’s pedagogical competence was displayed through her knowledge about English, her responsibility and her inclusive teaching practice. The teacher’s interactional work encouraged positive student-teacher relations. The teacher spoke about students positively and constructed them as capable. Rather than marking student ethnic or cultural background, the teacher responded to students’ learning needs in an ongoing way, making the learning explicit and providing access to school literacies. This study’s significance lies in its detailed descriptions of teacher and student work in lessons and what that work produced. It documented which resources were considered relevant to produce literacy knowledge. Further, this study showed how two theoretical approaches can be used to provide richer descriptions of the teacher and student work, and literacy knowledge and practices that counted in English lessons and for subject English.