MERGA

1992 Conference Proceedings

1992 Conference Proceedings

KEYNOTE ADDRESSES

Australian Space – Pushing Back the Frontiers – Pam Harris

Bringing Theory into The Classroom: The School as a Learning Environment for Teachers – Richard R. Skemp

Doing and Construing Mathematics in Screenspace – John Mason

Students’ Understanding of Geometry: Theoretical Perspectives – John Pegg

The Australian Research Council and its Role in Supporting Education Research – M H Brennan

 

RESEARCH PAPERS

Images and Definitions of Functions in Australian Schools and Universities – Stephen Arnold

Technology Enriched Instruction in Year 9 Algebra – Gary Asp, John Dowsey & Kaye Stacey

The Structured Classroom Interactions Schedule (SCIS): A Validation Study – Bill Atweh, Clare Christensen and Tom Cooper

A Philosophical Justification for Ethnomathematics and Some Implications for Education – Bill Barton

Gaining Insights by Comparing Processes – Andy Begg

Students’ Manipulation of Algebra Symbols and their Awareness of the Corresponding Conceptual Relationships – Alan Bell and John Malone

Challenging Primary Student Teachers’ Views about Mathematics Education – Fred Biddulph

Acquisition of Concept of Variable in a Traditional and Computer Intensive Algebra Curriculum – Monique A. M. Boers

The Graphics Calculator in Tertiary Mathematics – Monique A.M. Boers and Peter L. Jones

Constructivism, Learning and Cognitive Representation; The Case of Fraction Ideas – George Booker

Mathematics Education in First Year Pre-Service Primary Teachers – Elizabeth Buckingham

Sensitising Primary Student Teachers to Young Children’s Mathematical Ideas – Ken Carr

Guided Problem Solving for First Year Tertiary Students – Rodney Carr

Professional Development and the Secondary Mathematics Teacher: A Case Study – David Clarke, Paul Carlin, & Andrea Peter

Student Response Characteristics to Open-Ended Tasks in Mathematical and Other Academic Contexts – David Clarke, Peter Sullivan and Ursula Spandel

The Other Consequences of a Problem-Based Mathematics Curriculum – David Clarke, Margarita Wallbridge & Sherry Fraser

Multimodal Functioning in Novel Mathematical Problem Solving – Kevin F. Collis, Jane M. Watson & K. Jennifer Campbell

Students’ Certainty and Checking Behaviour During Mathematical Problem Solving – Cecilia Del Beato and Kaye Stacey

Letting Children Design the Curriculum – Brian Doig and John Lindsey

Implications of Newman Research for the Issue of “What is Basic in School Mathematics?” – Nerida Ellerton and M.A. (Ken) Clements

Some Pluses and Minuses of Radical Constructivism in Mathematics Education – Nerida Ellerton And M.A. (Ken) Clements

Gender and Perceptions of Mathematics Achievement Amongst Year 2 Students – Helen J Forgasz

Calculus Students’ Sources of Conviction – Sandra D Frid

Assessment in Mathematics – Some Alternatives – Lindsay Grimison

From Procedural Analogy to Understanding – Neil Hall

Mathematics, Computers and “At-Risk” Preschoolers – Neil Hall & Alison Elliott

Teachers’ Attitudes Towards the Student Use of Calculators in K-6 Mathematics Classes – Peter Howard

Teachers Making Meaning in Maths Or: What Does it Mean to Learn Maths? – Betty Johnston

Knowing and Meaning in Mathematics Classrooms: Perspectives Drawn from Wittgenstein’s Philosophy of Language – Clive Kanes

Comparison of Pattern-Based and Equation-Solving Approaches to Algebra – Mollie MacGregor and Kaye Stacey

Learning Environments in Mathematics: Exploring Pupil Perceptions – Andrea McDonough

Bridging Mathematics Students: Attitudes, Autonomous Learning Behaviours, and Problem Solving – Lex Milne

Why Children Do Not Draw Parallels – Michael Mitchelmore

Constructivism: Epistemology to Practice – Judith A. Mousley

Children’s Solutions to Partition Problems – Joanne Mulligan

Factors Pertinent to Children’s Responsiveness in Spatial Problem-Solving Activities – Kay Owens

The Use of the Representativeness and Availability Heuristic in Probabilistic Reasoning by Students in the Graduate Diploma of Education QUT, 1992 – R. Peard

Transition From Senior Secondary to University Mathematics: A Case Study Introduction – Yachai Pongboriboon

Cognitive Difficulties in Early Algebra – Cyril Quinlan

Pre-Service Primary Teachers’ Attitudes to Teaching Mathematics: A Reappraisal of a Recently Developed Instrument – Joe Relich and Jenni Way

Towards a Professional Development Ethos – Mary Rice

Integrating Computers into the Teaching of Calculus: Differentiating Student Needs – Julie Ryan

Children’s Approaches to Mathematical Problem Solving – Dianne Siemon

Beliefs About Mathematics and Mathematics Education – Beth Southwell and Mon Khamis

Using Open Questions for Teaching: A Classroom Experiment – Peter Sullivan

An Analysis of Children’s Understanding of Numeration – Noel Thomas

Children’s Understanding of the Independence of Random Generators – John Truran

Perceptions of Chance Events Among R-7 Children – Kath Truran

What Research is Needed in Probability and Statistics Education in Australia in the 1990s? – Jane M Watson

To What Extent Do Grades 3 and 4 Children Make Spontaneous Use of Calculators for Computation? – Ron Welsh

Abstract Thinking in Rates of Change and Derivative – Paul White & Michael Mitchelmore

What Do Young Children Know About Linear Measurement and is it Related to Conservation? – Annette Willis

The Design of a Hypercard Stack on Introductory Calculus – Khoon Yoong Wong

The Construction of Spatial Meaning and Social Disadvantage – Robyn Zevenbergen

Short Communications & Round Tables

The following documents are essential to read and complete when considering submitting a short communication or round table to the MERGA conference (available in the Submission section of this website).

  • MERGA Paper Template – to be used to write the abstracts which are then submitted to the MERGA conference website
  • MERGA Publication Agreement – to be submitted on the MERGA conference website at the time of the abstract submission

Short communications are suitable for reports that do not fully meet the requirements for published papers. These might include works in preliminary stages, reports of pilot projects, initial reviews of literature, ideas or suggestions for future study, and briefer discussions of particular issues. Short communications allow new researchers to obtain feedback on projects in a constructive and supportive environment, and foster the building of links between researchers with similar interests.

Abstracts are required for short communications and round tables. They must be prepared using the conference template. The abstracts will be reviewed by the Editorial Team and, if accepted, will be published in the conference proceedings. Presenters are invited to prepare a paper for distribution at the conference, but these papers will not be included in the proceedings.

Presentation of short communications – Short communications are presented by author(s) only. At least 5 minutes is to be allocated for audience questions and open discussion.

Beth Southwell Practical Implications Award

The Beth Southwell Practical Implications Award (BSPIA) recognises high-quality mathematics education that produces insights for the teaching profession and/or student learning.

The award consists of $500 and a plaque to be presented at the Conference.

Nomination process 

There are two ways a paper can be nominated for the BSPIA:

  • Self-nomination: When you submit your conference paper, check the box that asks if you would like to apply for the BSPIA.
  • Nomination via peer-review: Anyone who submits a Conference paper for peer-review will be considered for nomination by the reviewers. 

Single and co-authored papers are eligible for consideration.

When you write your paper, please ensure that you observe all general paper submission requirements including the maximum page length.

Judging process

Submissions must be deemed eligible for publication in the Conference proceedings by the initial reviewing panel. Submissions accepted for presentation only will be excluded from consideration.

The judging panel will consist of two MERGA members and two AAMT nominees and will be chaired by the VP Development.

The judging criteria are:

  • Identification of a persistent and significant research problem
  • Synthesis of recent research literature and relevant policy initiatives
  • Robust methodology producing valid, reliable findings
  • Insightful discussion of practical implications for the teaching profession and/or student learning
  • Clear, succinct style of academic writing

Winners are notified four weeks prior to the Conference and are invited to present a keynote at the annual conference.

The Beth Southwell Practical Implications Award page on this website provides further information, including the history of the award and recent winners.  

Research Papers

The following documents are essential to read and complete when considering submitting a research paper to the MERGA conference (available in the Submission section of this website).

  • MERGA Paper Template – to be used to write the papers which are then submitted to the MERGA conference website
  • MERGA Publication Agreement – to be submitted on the MERGA conference website at the time of the paper submission

Research papers can take two major forms: 

1. Reports of empirical investigations 

When empirical investigations are reported (such as in an experimental intervention, confirmatory study, or action research, etc.), the paper should also include

  • a statement of rationale for methodologies used in collecting and analysing data;
  • a critical discussion of data findings in the light of the research literature; and
  • in the literature review, prior work in the area should be acknowledged and an explanation of how the work reported in the paper builds on that earlier work should be included.

2. Reports that are not based on empirical research including:

  • a theoretical discussion;
  • a position paper;
  • a report of scholarly enquiry in progress;
  • a literature review, a meta-study;
  • an account of a new initiative;
  • a reflective critique of practice; or
  • any mixture of these or other recognised scholarly forms.

When the work is a theoretical discussion, a position paper, a report of scholarly inquiry in progress, a review of literature, a theoretical study, a meta-study, an account of a new initiative, a reflective critique of practice or any mixture of these or other recognised scholarly forms, the material presented must be discussed critically, and alternative points of view relating to themes presented should be appropriately argued.
It is expected that presenting authors will have 40 minutes to present their work at the conference. At least 10 minutes must be allowed to field questions and comments from the audience.

Structure of research papers – All papers for publication in the conference proceedings should contain the following:

  • a statement of the problem/issue and a discussion of its significance;
  • a critical analysis of the research literature as it relates to the topic of the paper; and
  • conclusions and implications for mathematics education derived from the study.

All papers must respect MERGA’s ethical guidelines relating to research work. Papers should not be more than the set length. (Formatting details and WORD template are available from the submissions). In addition, papers must be: readable; free of grammatical, spelling and typographical errors; and adhere strictly to style requirements advertised by the conference proceedings Editorial Team.

Originality – Only research papers that are substantially different from work that has been published previously will be considered for publication in the conference proceedings and/or presentation at the conference.

Reviewing of research papers – Research papers will be blind reviewed by a panel of peers approved by the conference committee. The main purpose of the refereeing process is to contribute to the growth and development of quality practice in mathematics education research. Thus reviewers are asked to assist authors by providing helpful feedback and to comment on the suitability of papers for presentation at the conference. Accordingly, it will not be assumed that published papers presented at the conference will be as polished as articles in scholarly journals. Referees will be asked to assess papers being reviewed against the accepted norms for scholarly works presented at MERGA conferences, as set out above.

Each conference proceedings’ Editorial Team will exercise discretion over the reviewing process.

Reviewers’ comments will be returned to the authors. Authors whose papers are not accepted for publication may be invited by the editorial panel to present their paper at the conference, with an abstract (only) being published in the proceedings. Papers may be rejected outright, with no opportunity for presentation at the conference in an alternative form.

The MERGA website has detailed advice about criteria for reviewing of MERGA papers, review forms, and examples of strong and poor reviews of different types.

Presentation of research papers – Research papers are presented by author(s) only. A maximum of 30 minutes may be used for presenting the paper, and at least 10 minutes is then used for audience questions and open discussion.

Research Symposia

The following documents are essential to read and complete when considering submitting a research symposium to the MERGA conference (available in the Submission section of this website).

  • MERGA Paper Template (to be used to write the papers which are then submitted to the MERGA conference website)
  • MERGA Publication Agreement (to be submitted on the MERGA conference website at the time of the paper submission)

Presentation of groups of published papers related by theme in the form of a research symposium is encouraged. The symposium forum will be particularly suitable for presentations relating to a single large project or presentations that explore topical themes from different and/or related perspectives. Special Interest Groups [SIGs] are encouraged to consider the symposium option as a means for sharing and discussing current research.

A symposium should consist of no more than four presentations of about 15 minutes duration each. The written papers should be half the length of research papers as described for research papers. Both research report types – empirical or non-empirical – are acceptable as published symposium papers.

A brief overview of the symposium (limit one page), including a symposium title, an introduction to the theme/project, and a short introduction to each of the 3-4 contributions, must be submitted with the set of short papers. Please list the symposium convenors as the authors on the first page, and name the paper authors in the text description.

The symposium proposer will also nominate a person to chair the symposium, and a discussant can also be named if desired. This information should accompany the collection of papers submitted for review.

The set of symposium papers (and the overview) will be blind reviewed by a review panel. The main purpose of the reviews is the same as for published papers, and the same criteria are used. The reviewers will be asked to consider the cohesiveness of the set of symposium papers. They will indicate whether the symposium as a whole, and each paper within it, should be “accepted”, “rejected” or if it “requires revision”. If it is deemed that one, some or all of the papers are in need of revision, the reviewers will outline which papers need to be revised and provide suggestions for the required changes. When the revisions are made, the symposium papers will be re-submitted and the set of papers will be sent to the same review panel for further consideration. As with research papers, the final decision about which symposium papers will be published is at the discretion of the Editorial Team.

The date for submission of the collection of symposium papers is the same as for Early Bird papers. This date has been set for the benefit of the group of authors of symposia papers. Should the symposium papers require revision, the authors will have the time to make the corrections and resubmit the set of symposium papers to be re-reviewed by the original reviewers.

Presentation of symposia: Symposia are presented by author(s) only, usually within a 90 min block. At least 10 minutes must be allocated for audience questions and open discussion.

Early Career Research Award

In order to encourage new researchers in mathematics education, MERGA sponsors an award to an author in the early part of her/his career. The award, for excellence in writing and presenting a piece of mathematics education research, consists of a plaque and a prize of $500 and is presented at the annual conference. 

Applying for the award

Entry for the Early Career Research Award is by submission of a written paper for presentation at the conference through the Early Bird process. Conditions of eligibility, information about the judging process, and the criteria judges will observe are indicated below. If you are applying for the Early Career Research Award, please ensure that when you upload your paper on the conference website, you also send an email to the Conference Secretariat indicating that you are an entrant for the Early Career Research Award. Note that at some MERGA conferences there is also a form to complete or a box to tick on the registration form, so check the conference website carefully. Please note that co-authored papers ARE NOT eligible for entry into the Early Career Research Award, nor are Round Table or Symposium papers.

Rules and eligibility for the Early Career Award

The Early Career Research Award page on this website provides further information about this award, including a list of recent winners.

Early Bird Review Process

The Early Bird review process is a form of mentoring, principally for new researchers. However, anyone is eligible to make use of it. Research papers submitted through the Early Bird process must be received by the Early Bird due date (i.e., the closing date in January). They must meet the requirements as set out for MERGA Research Papers. Early Bird papers should be uploaded following a link on the conference website. Authors will be asked to create a login into Oxford Abstracts (our conference management system) and submit the blinded file (anonymised) in the correct template for review.

Early Bird papers undergo a double-blind MERGA reviewing process. There are three possible outcomes of the review, and actions the authors need to follow.

  1. When the paper is accepted (for presentation at the conference and publication in the proceedings), the authors will be asked to provide their full unblinded manuscript and publication agreement.
  2. When small revisions are required, the revised papers will need to be resubmitted by the main submission deadline in March. The changes are considered by the editors, and the papers are not usually sent out for review again. The editors decide whether the paper is accepted for publication as well as presentation at the conference.
  3. When more major revisions are required, the reviewers will provide the author/s with feedback on how to how to strengthen the paper. The paper will need to be resubmitted by the main submission deadline in March, and it will be sent out for a new double-blind review.

Authors are notified of the outcome as soon as possible (usually within a few weeks, and in time for resubmission). Letters are sent to authors to indicate (a) accepted for publication, (b) small revisions required, (c) or major rewriting required.