MERGA

1994 Conference Proceedings

1994 Conference Proceedings

1994 Full Conference Proceedings

KEYNOTE ADDRESSES

Challenges and Constraints for Constructing Curriculum – Kaye Stacey

Radical Constructivism versus Piaget’s Operational Constructivism in Mathematics Education – Woo, Jeong-Ho

Research in Mathematics Education – Constraints on Construction? – Gilah C. Leder

 

RESEARCH PAPER

The Role of Learning Strategies in Mathematics: A Case Study of Failure to Learn – Glenda Anthony

Students’ Understandings of Pictographs and Bar Graphs – Gary Asp, John Dowsey and Hilary Hollingsworth

Representations and Strategies in Linear Equation Solutions Taught with Concrete Materials – B Atweh, G Boulton-Lewis and T Cooper

The Implementation of Calculators in Secondary Schools – Bill Barton, John Bullock, Anne Buzeika, Jill Ellis, Alan Graham & Matt Regan

Making Quality Count – A J C Begg

Constraints On the Intended Curriculum in Australia and Korea – Garry Bell & Kang Ok-Ki

Predictions Of Gender Differences in Performances of Years 5 and 6 Children on Pencil-And-Paper Mathematics Items – Fred Bishop & M. A. (Ken) Clements

Institutional And Pedagogical Support for Mathematics Teachers Working with NESB Students – Alan J. Bishop and Chris Larkin

Teacher Education: A Watershed for Preservice Teachers’ Attitudes Toward Mathematics – Janette Bobis and Robyn Cusworth

Graphics Calculators in Undergraduate Mathematics Teaching – Sandra Britton

Teachers’ Cognitive Functioning in the Context of Questions Using the Arithmetic Mean – Rosemary A. Callingham

Why Do Some Primary Teacher Trainees Hate Maths? A Case Study – Jean Carroll

Use of Geometry Knowledge During Problem Solving: The Instructional Effect of Two Strategies – Mohan Chinnappan & Michael Lawson

Reconceptualising Teacher Change – David Clarke, Hillary Hollingsworth

The Consequences of Implementing an Inclusive Mathematics Curriculum – David Clarke, Will Morony, & Barry Schmitt

Problem Solving in Two Languages: A Longitudinal Study of Bilingual Students in Melbourne and Sydney – Phillip Clarkson & Lloyd Dawe

Tertiary Students’ Understanding of Second Order Relationships in Function Notation – Carmel Coady & John Pegg

Voices in the Dark: Making Sense of Talk in Mathematics Classes – Gary Ernest Davis, Arthur Jones & Catherine Pearn

The Use of Geometric Diagrams in the Primary School – Carmel Diezmann

Building Bridges Out of Walls – Mathematics Education and Technology Education – Roger Edwards

Reasoning by Analogy in Constructing Mathematical Ideas – Lyn D. English

The Interaction Between General Reasoning Processes and Achievement in Algebra and Novel Problem Solving – Lyn English & Elizabeth Warren

TAFE Students: The Affective Domain and Mathematics – Gail E. Fitzsimons

Teaching Thinking Through Constructing Mathematical Knowledge – Ho-Kheong Fong

Levels of Attainment in Number for Pupil Performance Profile in the Primary School – Foong Pui Yee

Affective Beliefs and Related Behaviours in the Mathematics Classroom: A Case Study of a Group of Four Students – Helen J. Forgasz

Negotiation of Meaning in Mathematics Classrooms: A Study of Two Year 5 Classes – Sandra Frid

Personal Reconstruction of Concept Definitions: Limits – Grace Furina

Transfer of Abstract Thinking in Mathematics – Lupe M.T. Gates

Recognition of Effective Group Discussion – Anne Gooding

Collaboration, Dialogue and Metacognition: The Mathematics Classroom as a “Community Of Practice” – Merrilyn Goos, Peter Galbraith & Peter Renshaw

The Situatedness of Adults’ Numerical Understandings – Stacey Grier

Are Textbooks Sinful? – K.M. Hart

Becoming More Positive with Negatives – Bob Hayes

Learning To Co-Operate: Small Group Interaction In New Zealand Elementary Mathematics Classrooms – Joanna Higgins

The Use of a Spreadsheet as an Algebraic Environment – Marj Horne

Mathematical Knowledge and the Intermediate School Teacher – Kathryn C. Irwin & Murray S. Britt

An Investigation into Knowledge Bases of Primary and Secondary Mathematics Teachers: Report on a Pilot Study – Clive Kanes and Steven Nisbet

“Constructivist” Pedagogical Practice in Pre-Service Teacher Education – The Constraints of Construction – Mary Klein

Identification of Student Characteristics Associated with Attempts at Solving Deductive Problems in Geometry – Christine Lawrie

Progress In Learning Algebra: Temporary and Persistent Difficulties – Mollie MacGregor & Kaye Stacey

Types of Mathematicians – Coralie Marshall

Mathematics and Mathematics Teaching: Changes in Pre-Service Student-Teachers’ Beliefs and Attitudes – Carol Mayers

Accessing Student Affect: Strategies and Concerns – Andrea McDonough & David Clarke

Abstraction as the Recognition of Deep Similarities: The Case of the Angle Concept – Michael Mitchelmore

The Analysis of Teaching: Constraints on Lesson Description and Critique – Judith A. Mousley, Peter Sullivan & Ann Gervasoni

Politics, Power, Action Research and the Social Constructivist Curriculum – Jim Neyland

Encouraging Visual Imagery in Concept Construction: Overcoming Constraints – Kay Owens

A Connection Between Mathematics and Language Development in Early Mathematics – Catherine Pearn

An Investigation of Strategies Used to Solve a Simple Deductive Exercise in Geometry – John Pegg & Susan Woolley

Interactive Constitution of Mathematics by Teacher Education Students – Bob Perry, Noel Geoghegan, Peter Howe, Kay Owens

Manipulatives – Constraints on Construction? – Bob Perry And Peter Howard

Four Levels of Cognitive Functioning in Algebra: An Empirical Verification of Kuchemann’s Hypothesis – B S Prasad

Preservice Teachers’ Construction of Decimal Numbers – Ian John Putt

Comparison of Teaching Methods in Early Algebra – Cyril Quinlan

Providing an Overview of Qualitative Data Sets: Log-Linear Modelling – Ted Redden

Profiles of Some Non-Routine Problem-Solving Episodes – Nick Scott

Analysis of Student Performance in Statistics – Narelle F. Smith, Leigh N. Wood, Roslyn K. Gillies & Gillian Perrett

A Comparison of the Mathematical Understandings of Primary Teacher Education Entrants – Beth Southwell

Affective Constraints on Construction in Mathematics Education – Beth Southwell and Mon Khamis

Arithmetic with a Calculator: What do Children Need to Learn? – Kaye Stacey

Policy to Practice: High Stakes Assessment as a Catalyst for Classroom Change – Max Stephens, David Clarke, Margarita Pavlou

The Use of Mapping Techniques to Investigate Mathematical Processing and Cognitive Demand in Problem Solving – Gloria Stillman

Evaluating a Training Procedure for Problem Solving – Margaret Taplin

A Process-Oriented Preference in The Writing of Algebraic Equations – Michael O. J. Thomas

Dynamic Imagery in Children’s Representations of Number – Noel Thomas & Joanne Mulligan

The Development of a Typology for Describing Mathematics Assessment Items – Joanne E. Tims

Curriculum Innovation and the Teaching of Probability in South Australia – Colonial Echo, Mature Development or Muddling Through? – John Truran

Diagnosing Children’s Probabilistic Understanding – John Truran

Higher Order Thinking and Mathematics – Gurudeo Anand Tularam

Sex Differences in Mathematical Performance Among Chinese Middle School Students – Rodney Turner

Drawing Diagrams and Solving Word Problems: A Study of a Sample of Bruneian Primary and Secondary School Children – Palanisamy K. Veloo & Francis Lopez-Real

Assessing Statistical Understanding in Grades 3, 6 and 9 Using a Short-Answer Questionnaire – Jane M. Watson, Kevin F. Collis and Jonathan B. Moritz

Developing a Clinical Interview Protocol to Assess Children’s Understanding of Probability – Jenni Way

A Description of Student Responses to Restrictions on Assumed Knowledge – Paul White & John Pegg

A Proposal for Investigating Students’ Knowledge of Hypothesis Testing – Anne Williams

The Mathematics Recovery Project – A Progress Report: Specialist Teachers Working with Low-Attaining First-Graders – Robert Wright, Margaret Cowper, Ann Stafford, Garry Stanger, Rita Stewart

Psychologising Educational Difference – Robyn Zevenbergen

***************

Assessing the Impact of Graphics Calculators on Mathematics Examinations – Peter Jones & Barry McCrae (pdf 1996, confirmed by subsequent author citation!)

Investigating the Use of Language and Mathematics in a Workplace Context – Clive Kanes (1996?, unconfirmed by subsequent author citations)

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

Submissions not exceeding one page are required for short communications and round tables. The submissions must be prepared using the conference template, and can include essential references. They will be reviewed by the Editorial Team and, if accepted, will be published in the conference proceedings as one-page abstracts (not as papers). Presenters are invited to prepare a paper for distribution at the conference, but these papers will not be included in the proceedings.

Short communications are suitable for reports on research in mathematics education 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.

Short communications are presented by author(s) only, allocated half of the time for research reports (in past, this was 20 minutes). At least 5 minutes is to be allocated for audience questions and open discussion.

Round tables are suitable for presenters seeking involved interaction with the audience in relation to their research or topic of interest in mathematics education, and for those sharing their insights and advice with the early career colleagues. These might include discussion of an emerging topic, co-analysis of provided student work, solving a mathematical task, or discussing the demands and benefits of reviewing for high quality journals. Round tables allow finding peers with similar research interests, exploration of new research avenues, and building the capacity of MERGA community.

Round tables are led by author(s) only, allocated the same time as research reports (in past, this was 40 minutes). The abstracts should make clear the interactive element of the proposed activity, with no more than 15 min of the session time in a presentation mode.

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. 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 as a Short Communication, with a 1-page abstract (which they will be invited to provide) being published in the proceedings. Papers may be rejected outright, with no opportunity for presentation at the conference in an alternative form.

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.