The Engagement Model of Opinion Leadership: Testing Validity Within a European Context

Explicating and measuring opinion leadership continues to bean important theoretical topic, as personal influence and interpersonaldiscussion are widely recognized as shaping public opinion andpolitical behavior. However, the concept of opinion leadershiparose out of empirical research conducted primarily within theUSA. Whether it may be applied to other national contexts remainsto be fully explicated. Furthermore, media information-seekingbehaviors of opinion leaders, such as newspaper use or televisionexposure, seem to be culturally contingent based upon the scantcross-national research to date. This paper examines the ecologicaland constructive validity of the engagement model of the opinionleadership developed within the USA. Employing the EuropeanSocial Survey, I apply this model to fifteen European nationsto assess its validity and explore how media information-seekingbehaviors of opinion leaders may vary across national contexts.The findings suggest that the model may be most valid in WesternEuropean nations. Furthermore, the media use and behaviors ofopinion leaders vary greatly across nations in Europe, thoughlevels of interpersonal political discussion and specific individualsocio-psychological traits do not.     

The Thinking Curriculum

Over the past 20 years there has been growing interest in the idea of teaching thinking. This paper reviews the development of the idea worldwide, the supporting arguments and scepticism, the underlying constructivist psychological theories and the variety of methods and programmes used. A main distinction in approach is between those who advocate specific programmes, often based on skills analysis, and those who favour the infusion of thinking throughout the conventional subjects of the school or college curriculum. The balance of opinion supports the ‘thinking curriculum'; but this raises issues of domain‐specific knowledge and transfer. Recent work recognises the importance of social and affective, as well as cognitive, aspects in teaching thinking.     

Mathematics‐teachers’ Knowledge Bases: implications for teacher education

Understanding the knowledge bases of mathematics teachers is an important task in working towards the construction of adequate models for: (i) teacher education and development, and (ii) teacher operations in the classroom. To date, little systematic attention has been focused on this task. The primary aim of this study is to obtain a view from the field of mathematics teacher knowledge with respect to content knowledge in mathematics, content‐specific pedagogical knowledge in mathematics and curriculum knowledge relevant to teaching tasks. This study has used data obtained from a survey of primary teachers and secondary mathematics teachers. Analysis of the results has indicated that less than half of the teachers in the study believed that they were sufficiently prepared in mathematics content, and that almost two‐thirds of the teachers in the sample believed that their level of knowledge in contemporary teaching methodologies in mathematics is not sufficient for their role as school teachers. Key differences emerge between the primary and secondary sectors and also within the secondary sector. Implications for preservice and in‐service mathematics teacher education are drawn.     

Who's Responsible for the Digital Divide? Public Perceptions and Policy Implications

Addressing the reasons for—and the solutions to—the “digital divide” has been on the public agenda since the emergence of the Internet. However, the term has meant quite different things, depending on the audience and the context, and these competing interpretations may in fact orient toward different policy outcomes. The goals of this article are twofold. First, the authors unpack the term “digital divide” and examine how it has been deployed and interpreted across a range of academic and policy discourses. Second, through a framing experiment embedded within a nationally representative survey, the authors demonstrate how presenting respondents with two different conceptual frames of the digital divide may lead to different perceptions of who is most accountable for addressing the issue. From this, they discuss the dynamic relationship between the construction and communication of policy discourse and the public understanding of the digital divide, as well as implications for effective communication about the digital divide and information and communication technology policy to the general public.