ASU Electronic Theses and Dissertations
This collection includes most of the ASU Theses and Dissertations from 2011 to present. ASU Theses and Dissertations are available in downloadable PDF format; however, a small percentage of items are under embargo. Information about the dissertations/theses includes degree information, committee members, an abstract, supporting data or media.
In addition to the electronic theses found in the ASU Digital Repository, ASU Theses and Dissertations can be found in the ASU Library Catalog.
Dissertations and Theses granted by Arizona State University are archived and made available through a joint effort of the ASU Graduate College and the ASU Libraries. For more information or questions about this collection contact or visit the Digital Repository ETD Library Guide or contact the ASU Graduate College at gradformat@asu.edu.
Displaying 1 - 10 of 190
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Education Policy
- All Subjects: philosophy
Description
This study reports on research that explores local manifestations of Arizona's English-only language education policy by investigating the experiences of selected English language learners (ELLs) with reclassification into mainstream classrooms and four of their classroom teachers. In this study, I employed ethnographic methods (participant observation, document collection, interviewing, and focus groups) to investigate what practices emerge after ELLs are reclassified as "Fluent English Proficient" (FEP) students and moved from "the four-hour English Language Development (ELD) block" into mainstream classrooms. With a focus on the perspectives and experiences of twelve 5th and 6th grade elementary school students and four of their teachers, I examined how students and teachers viewed and responded to restrictive language policies and the practices that accompany them. One finding from this study is that students and teachers believed that the four-hour ELD block helped prepare students to learn English, but "proficiency" in English as determined by the Arizona English Language Learner Assessment (AZELLA) did not always indicate a solid understanding of the language used in the mainstream classrooms. A second finding from this study is that ideologies of language that position English over multilingualism are robust and further strengthened by language policies that prohibit the use of languages other than English in ELD and mainstream classrooms. A third finding from this study is that, in part because of the language restrictive policies in place, particular groups of students continued to engage in practices that enact ideologies of language that devalue multilingualism (e.g., "language policing"). At the same time, however, a close examination of student-to-student interaction indicates that these same students use their multiple linguistic and communicative resources in a variety of creative and purposeful ways (e.g., through language crossing and language sharing). The close examination of policy as practice in a restrictive educational language policy context conducted here has implications for debates about English-only as a method and medium of instruction, about how the ideologies of language operate in situated interactional contexts, and about how youth might use existing resources to challenge restrictive ideologies and policies.
ContributorsFredricks, Daisy Ellen (Author) / Warriner, Doris S. (Thesis advisor) / Arias, M. Bea (Committee member) / Warhol, Larisa (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
Description
This philosophical inquiry explores the work of philosophers Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari and posits applications to music education. Through the concepts of multiplicities, becoming, bodies without organs, smooth spaces, maps, and nomads, Deleuze and Guattari challenge prior and current understandings of existence. In their writings on art, education, and how might one live, they assert a world consisting of variability and motion. Drawing on Deleuze and Guattari's emphasis on time and difference, I posit the following questions: Who and when are we? Where are we? When is music? When is education? Throughout this document, their philosophical figuration of a rhizome serves as a recurring theme, highlighting the possibilities of complexity, diverse connections, and continual processes. I explore the question "When and where are we?" by combining the work of Deleuze and Guattari with that of other authors. Drawing on these ideas, I posit an ontology of humans as inseparably cognitive, embodied, emotional, social, and striving multiplicities. Investigating the question "Where are we?" using Deleuze and Guattari's writings as well as that of contemporary place philosophers and other writers reveals that humans exist at the continually changing confluence of local and global places. In order to engage with the questions "When is music?" and "When is education?" I inquire into how humans as cognitive, embodied, emotional, social, and striving multiplicities emplaced in a glocalized world experience music and education. In the final chapters, a philosophy of music education consisting of the ongoing, interconnected processes of complicating, considering, and connecting is proposed. Complicating involves continually questioning how humans' multiple inseparable qualities and places integrate during musical and educative experiences. Considering includes imagining the multiple directions in which connections might occur as well as contemplating the quality of potential connections. Connecting involves assisting students in forming variegated connections between themselves, their multiple qualities, and their glocal environments. Considering a rhizomatic philosophy of music education includes continually engaging in the integrated processes of complicating, considering, and connecting. Through such ongoing practices, music educators can promote flourishing in the lives of students and the experiences of their multiple communities.
ContributorsRicherme, Lauren Kapalka (Author) / Stauffer, Sandra (Thesis advisor) / Gould, Elizabeth (Committee member) / Schmidt, Margaret (Committee member) / Sullivan, Jill (Committee member) / Tobias, Evan (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
Description
There is a documented gap between research-based recommendations produced by university-based scholars in the field of education in the United States and the evidence that U.S. politicians' use when deciding which educational policies to implement or amend. This is a problem because university-based education scholars produce vast quantities of research each year, some of which could, and more importantly should, be useful to politicians in their decision-making processes and yet, politicians continue to make policy decisions about education without the benefit of much of the knowledge that has been gained through scholarly research. I refer to the small fraction of university-based education scholars who are demonstrably successful at getting scholarly research into the hands of politicians to be used for decision-making purposes as "university-based bipartisan scholarship brokers". They are distinct from other university-based education scholars in that they engage with politicians from both political parties around research and, as such, are able to use scholarly research to influence the education policymaking process. The problem that this dissertation addresses is the lack of use, by U.S. politicians, of scholarly research produced by United States university-based education scholars as input in education policy decisions. The way in which this problem is explored is through studying university-based bipartisan scholarship brokers. I focused on three areas for exploration: the methods university-based bipartisan scholarship brokers use to successfully get U.S. politicians to consider scholarly research as an input in their decision-making processes around education policy, how these scholars are different than the majority of university-based education policy scholars, and how they conceive of the education policy-setting agenda. What I uncovered in this dissertation is that university-based bipartisan scholarship brokers are a complete sub-group of university-based education scholars. They work above the rigorous promotion and tenure requirements of their home universities in order to use scholarly research to help serve the research needs of politicians. Their engagement is distinct among university-based education scholars and through this dissertation their perspective is presented in participants' own authentic language.
ContributorsAckman, Emily Rydel (Author) / Garcia, David R. (Thesis advisor) / Powers, Jeanne (Committee member) / Fischman, Gustavo E (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
Description
This study sought to analyze the messages being conveyed through the discourse utilized in presenting the public face of The Arizona Early Childhood Development and Health Board, popularly known as First Things First (FTF) and to reveal how the different discourses and ideologies within FTF have been in the past and currently are "contending and struggling for dominance (Wodak, 2007)." FTF is located within the policy realm of Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC). The people and the system have been very influential in guiding the course and policies set forth in Arizona since the citizen initiative, Proposition 203, passed in 2006, which allowed for the creation of the Early Childhood Development and Health Board. Lakoff's techniques for analyzing frames of discourse were utilized in conjunction with critical discourse analysis in order to tease out frames of reference, shifts in both discourse and frames, specific modes of messaging, and consistencies and inconsistencies within the public face presented by FTF.
ContributorsMiller, Lisa (Author) / Swadener, Elizabeth B (Thesis advisor) / Nakagawa, Kathy (Committee member) / Romero, Mary (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
Description
ABSTRACT In this work, I provide two novel pieces of evidence in favor of the view that there is pragmatic encroachment on knowledge. First, I present an empirical case via the results of a series of recent experiments to show that folk-knowledge attributions may be sensitive to time constraints even when the latter are construed in a non-truth relevant manner. Along the way, I consider some comments made by Jonathan Schaffer (2006) as it pertains to interpreting time constraints-sensitivity in a manner that supports contextualism, before offering reasons to resist such a treatment. I proceed by applying interest relative invariantism to adjudicate a conflict in the epistemology of testimony namely, the positive reasons requirement a la, reductionism vs. non-reductionism. In particular, I highlight how whether an epistemic subject H needs positive non-testimonial reasons to be justified in accepting S's testimony that p, depends on what is at stake for H in believing that p and how much time H has in deliberating about p.
ContributorsShin, Joseph Ellis (Author) / Pinillos, N. Angel (Thesis advisor) / Reynolds, Steven L (Committee member) / White, Michael J. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
Description
Emergentism offers a promising compromise in the philosophy of mind between Cartesian substance dualism and reductivistic physicalism. The ontological emergentist holds that conscious mental phenomena supervene on physical phenomena, but that they have a nature over and above the physical. However, emergentist views have been subjected to a variety of powerful objections: they are alleged to be self-contradictory, incompatible with mental causation, justified by unreliable intuitions, and in conflict with our contemporary scientific understanding of the world. I defend the emergentist position against these objections. I clarify the concepts of supervenience and of ontological novelty in a way that ensures the emergentist position is coherent, while remaining distinct from physicalism and traditional dualism. Making note of the equivocal way in which the concept of sufficiency is used in Jaegwon Kim's arguments against emergent mental causation, I argue that downward causation does not entail widespread overdetermination. I argue that considerations of ideal a priori deducibility from some physical base, or "Cosmic Hermeneutics", will not themselves provide answers to where the cuts in the structure of nature lie. Instead, I propose reconsidering the question of Cosmic Hermeneutics in terms of which cognitive resources would be required for the ideal reasoner to perform the deduction. Lastly, I respond to the objection that emergence in the philosophy of mind is in conflict with our contemporary scientific understanding of the world. I suggest that a kind of weak ontological emergence is a viable form of explanation in many fields, and discuss current applications of emergence in biology, sociology, and the study of complex systems.
ContributorsWatson, Jeffrey (Author) / Kobes, Bernard W (Thesis advisor) / Pinillos, Nestor (Committee member) / Horgan, Terence (Committee member) / Reynolds, Steven (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
Description
This thesis explores the conceptual span and plausibility of emergence and its applicability to the problem of mental causation. The early parts of the project explicate a distinction between weak and strong emergence as described by Jaegwon Kim. They also consider Kim's objections regarding the conceptual incoherence of strong emergence and the otiose nature of weak emergence. The paper then explores Mark Bedau's in-between conception of emergence and ultimately finds that middle conception to be both coherent and useful. With these three emergence distinctions in hand, the thesis goes on to explore Evan Thompson's recent work - Mind in Life (2010). In that work, Thompson advances a strong emergence approach to mind, whereby he concludes the incipient stages of cognition are found at the most basic levels of life, namely - biologic cells. Along the way, Thompson embraces holism and a nonfundamental
onhierarchical physics in order to counter Jaegwon Kim's objections to the notion of downward causation needed for strong emergence. The thesis presents arguments against Thompson's holism and nonfundamental physics, while supporting his assertion regarding the incipient stages of cognition. It then combines an important distinction between mental causation and the experience of mental causation with Thompson's notion of incipient cognition to arrive at a dual realms approach to understanding mental causation.
onhierarchical physics in order to counter Jaegwon Kim's objections to the notion of downward causation needed for strong emergence. The thesis presents arguments against Thompson's holism and nonfundamental physics, while supporting his assertion regarding the incipient stages of cognition. It then combines an important distinction between mental causation and the experience of mental causation with Thompson's notion of incipient cognition to arrive at a dual realms approach to understanding mental causation.
ContributorsFournier, Thomas (Author) / Kobes, Bernard W (Thesis advisor) / Reynolds, Steven L (Committee member) / Armendt, Brad (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
Description
Saying, "if Mary had watered Sam's plant, it wouldn't have died," is an ordinary way to identify Mary not watering Sam's plant as the cause of its death. But there are problems with this statement. If we identify Mary's omitted action as the cause, we seemingly admit an inordinate number of omissions as causes. For any counterfactual statement containing the omitted action is true (e.g. if Hillary Clinton had watered Sam's plant, it wouldn't have died). The statement, moreover, is mysterious because it is not clear why one protasis is more salient than any alternatives such as "if Sam hadn't gone to Bismarck." In the burgeoning field of experimental metaphysics, some theorists have tried to account for these intuitions about omissive causes. By synthesizing this data and providing a few experiments, I will suggest that judgments - and maybe metaphysics - about omissive causes necessarily have a normative feature. This understanding of omissive causes may be able to adequately resolve the problems above.
ContributorsHenne, Paul (Author) / Kobes, Bernard W (Thesis advisor) / Pinillos, Nestor A (Thesis advisor) / Reynolds, Steven (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
Description
With the number of internationally-run clinical drug trials increasing, the double standards between those in developed nations and those in developing nations are being scrutinized under the ethical microscope. Many argue that several pharmaceutical companies and researchers are exploiting developing nation participants. Two issues of concern are the use of a placebo control when an effective alternative treatment exists and the lack of drug availability to the country that hosted the clinical trial should the experimental drug prove effective. Though intuitively this seems like an instance of exploitation, philosophically, exploitation theories cannot adequately account for the wrongdoing in these cases. My project has two parts. First, after explaining why the theories of Alan Wertheimer, John Lawrence Hill, and Ruth Sample fail to explain the exploitation in clinical drug research, I provide an alternative account of exploitation that can explain why the double standard in clinical research is harmful. Rather than craft a single theory encompassing all instances of exploitation, I offer an account of a type, or subset, of exploitation that I refer to as comparative exploitation. The double standards in clinical research fall under the category of comparative exploitation. Furthermore, while many critics maintain that cases of comparative exploitation, including clinical research, are mutually beneficial, they are actually harmful to its victims. I explain the harm of comparative exploitation using Ben Bradley's counterfactual account of harm and Larry May's theory of sharing responsibility. The second part of my project focuses on the "standard of care" argument, which most defenders use to justify the double standard in clinical research. I elaborate on Ruth Macklin's position that advocates of the "standard of care" position make three faulty assumptions: placebo-controlled trials are the gold standard, the only relevant question responsive to the host country's health needs is "Is the experimental product being studied better than the 'nothing' now available to the population?", and the only way of obtaining affordable products is to test cheap alternatives to replace the expensive ones. In the end, I advocate moving towards a universalizing of standards in order to avoid exploitation.
ContributorsFundora, Danielle (Author) / McGregor, Joan (Thesis advisor) / Brake, Elizabeth (Committee member) / Portmore, Douglas (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
Description
This study examined the experiences of first-generation college students who were enrolled in online degree programs at a traditional brick-and-mortar university located in the western United States. These students were viewed as "double first-generation" because they were not only the first in their family to pursue a bachelor's degree, but were also among the first generation in the history of American higher education to pursue public, postsecondary education in an entirely online format. The research was designed as a multiple methods case study that emphasized qualitative methods. Being exploratory in nature, the study focused on participant characteristics and the ways that they responded to and persisted in online degree programs. Data was collected through research that was conducted entirely online; it included an e-survey, two asynchronous focus groups, and individual interviews that were conducted via Skype. Grounded theory served as the primary method for data analysis, while quantitative descriptive statistics contextualized the case. The results of this study provide a window into the micro- and macro-level tensions at play in public, online postsecondary education. The findings indicate that these pioneering and traditionally underserved students drew from their diverse backgrounds to persist toward degree completion, overcoming challenges associated with time and finances, in hopes that their efforts would bring career and social mobility. As one of the first studies to critically examine the case of double first-generation college students, this study extends the literature in meaningful ways to provide valuable insights for policymakers, administrators, faculty, and staff who are involved with this population.
ContributorsShea, Jennifer Dawn (Author) / Fischman, Gustavo E. (Thesis advisor) / De Los Santos Jr, Alfredo G. (Committee member) / Ewing, Kris (Committee member) / Archambault, Leanna (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013