MERGA

2011 Conference Proceedings

2011 Conference Proceedings

2011 Full Conference Proceedings

KEYNOTE ADDRESSES

Lessons Learned from The Center for the Mathematics Education of Latinos/as: Implications for Research with Non-Dominant, Marginalised Communities – Marta Civil

Mathematics Assessment: Everything old is new again? – Rosemary Callingham

 

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS AWARD

Learning Over Time: Pedagogical Change in Teaching Mathematical Inquiry – Katie Makar

 

RESEARCH PAPERS

Instructional Coherence: A Case Study of Lessons on Linear Equations – Glenda Anthony & Liping Ding

Teacher and Preservice Teacher Beliefs about Mathematics Teacher Education – Dianne Ashman & David McBain

Unscripted Maths: Emergence and Improvisation – Mike Askew

The Influence of Teachers on Student Engagement with Mathematics During the Middle Years – Catherine Attard

Teaching Practices for Effective Teacher-Student Relationships in Multiethnic Mathematics Classrooms – Robin Averill

Preservice Teacher Perceptions of Good Mathematics Teachers: What Matters? – Jo Balatti & Donna Rigano

Analysing Interview Data for Clusters and Themes – Lynda Ball

Children Solving Word Problems in an Imported Language: An Intervention Study – Debbie Bautista Verzosa

A Study of The Australian Tertiary Sector’s Portrayed View of the Relevance of Quantitative Skills in Science – Shaun Belward, Leanne Rylands, Kelly Matthews, Carmel Coady, Peter Adams, & Vilma Simbag

Interactive Whiteboards as Potential Catalysts of Pedagogic Change in Secondary Mathematics Teaching – Kim Beswick & Tracey Muir

Preparing for School Transition: Listening to The Student, Teacher, and Parent Voice – Brenda Bicknell & Roberta Hunter

Student Experiences of Making and Using Cheat Sheets in Mathematical Exams – David Butler & Nicholas Crouch

Teacher Knowledge Activated in the Context of Designing Problems – Barbara Butterfield & Mohan Chinnappan

Do Interested Students Learn More? Results from a Statistical Literacy Study in the Middle School – Colin Carmichael

Teaching Secondary Mathematics with an Online Learning System: Three Teachers’ Experiences – Michael Cavanagh & Michael Mitchelmore

Mathematics Anxiety: Scaffolding a New Construct Model – Rob Cavanagh & Len Sparrow

Investigating Children’s Understanding of the Measurement of Mass – Jill Cheesman, Andrea McDonough, & Doug Clarke

Teachers’ Strategies for Demonstrating Fraction and Percentage Equivalence – Helen Chick & Wendy Baratta

A Less Partial Vision: Theoretical Inclusivity and Critical Synthesis in Mathematics Classroom Research – David Clarke

Mastering Basic Facts? I don’t need to learn them because I can work them out! – Simon Clarke & Marilyn Holmes

Supporting Young Children’s Mathematics Learning as they Transition to School – Ngaire Davies

Locating the Learner: Indigenous Language and Mathematics Education – Cris Edmonds-Wathen

Data Modelling in the Beginning School Years – Lyn English

Mathematics Preservice Teachers Learning about English Language Learners Through Task-Based Interviews – Anthony Fernandes

Promoting an Understanding of Mathematical Structure in Students with High Functioning Autism – Maureen Finnane

Graph Creation and Interpretation: Putting Skills and Context Together – Noleine Fitzallen & Jane Watson

Two Avatars of Teachers’ Content Knowledge of Mathematics – Tricia Forrester & Mohan Chinnappan

Formative Assessment Tools for Inquiry Mathematics – Kym Fry

Models of Modelling: Is there a First Among Equals? – Peter Galbraith

Measuring Academic Numeracy: Beyond Competence Testing – Linda Galligan

Teacher Professional Learning in Numeracy: Trajectories through a Model for Numeracy in the 21st Century – Vince Geiger, Merrilyn Goos, & Shelley Dole

Insights about Children’s Understanding of 2-Digit and 3-Digit Numbers – Ann Gervasoni, Linda Parish, Teresa Hadden, Kathie Turkenburg, Kate Bevan, Carole Livesey, Melissa Croswell

Insights from Aboriginal Teaching Assistants about the Impact of the Bridging the Numeracy Gap Project In a Kimberley Catholic School – Ann Gervasoni, Alis Hart, Melissa Croswell, Lesley Hodges, & Linda Parish

Teaching Linear Algebra: One Lecturer’s Engagement with Students – John Hannah, Sepideh Stewart, & Mike Thomas

Challenging and Extending a Student Teacher’s Concepts of Fractions Using an Elastic Strip – Roger Harvey

Maori Medium Children’s Views about Learning Mathematics: Possibilities for Future Directions – Ngarewa Hawera & Merilyn Taylor

How Inclusive is Year 12 Mathematics? – Sue Helme & Richard Teese

Challenging Traditional Sequence of Teaching Introductory Calculus – Sandra Herbert

Gender Differences in NAPLAN Mathematics Performance – Janelle C. Hill

Secondary Student Perceptions of what Teaching and Learning Approaches are Useful for them in Learning Mathematics – Bruce White

Making A Difference for Indigenous Children – Chris Hurst, Tracey Armstrong, & Maranne Young

Language-Related Misconceptions in the Study of Limits – Syed Mansoor Jaffar & Jaguthsing Dindyal

Early Years Swimming as New Sites for Early Mathematical Learning – Robyn Jorgensen & Peter Grootenboer

Digital Games: Creating New Opportunities for Mathematics Learning – Robyn Jorgensen & Tom Lowrie

Learning Experiences of Singapore’s Low Attainers in Primary Mathematics – Berinderjeet Kaur & Masura Ghani

Mathematical Identity, Leadership, and Professional Development: Hidden Influences that Affect Mathematical Practices – Stephen Kendall-Jones

Reform In Mathematics: The Principal’s Zone of Promoted Action – Janeen Lamb

Preservice Teachers Learning Mathematics from the Internet – Troels Lange & Tamsin Meaney

The Public’s Views on Gender and the Learning of Mathematics: Does Age Matter? – Gilah C. Leder & Helen J. Forgasz

We can Order by Rote but Can’t Partition: We Didn’t Learn a Rule – Sharyn Livy

Assessment of Secondary Students’ Number Strategies: The Development of a Written Numeracy Assessment Tool – Gregor Lomas & Peter Hughes

Young Children’s Representations of their Developing Measurement Understandings – Amy MacDonald

From Classroom to Campus: The Perceptions of Mathematics and Primary Teachers on their Transition from Teacher-to-Teacher Educator – Nicole Maher

Engaging the Middle Years in Mathematics – Margaret Marshman, Donna Pendergas, & Fiona Brimmer

Building Preservice Teacher Capacity for Effective Mathematics Teaching Through Partnerships with Teacher Educators and Primary School Communities – Andrea McDonough & Matthew Sexton

Listening to Children’s Explanations of Fraction Pair Tasks: When More than an Answer and an Initial Explanation are Needed – Annie Mitchell & Marj Horne

Victorian Indigenous Children’s Responses to Mathematics NAPLAN Items – Patricia Morley

Join the Club: Engaging Parents in Mathematics Education – Tracey Muir

Teaching Mathematics in the Papua New Guinea Highlands: A Complex Multilingual Context – Charly Muke & Philip Clarkson

An Evaluation of the Pattern and Structure Mathematics Awareness Program in the Early School Years – Joanne T. Mulligan, Lyn D. English, Michael C. Mitchelmore, Sara M. Welsby, Nathan Crevensten

Reviewing the Effectiveness of Mathematical Tasks in Encouraging Collaborative Talk with Young Children – Carol Murphy

The Use of Problem Categorisation in the Learning of Ratio – Norhuda Musa & John Malone

National Testing of Probability in Years 3, 5, 7, & 9 in Australia: A Critical Analysis – Steven Nisbet

A Popperian Consilience: Modelling Mathematical Knowledge and Understanding – David Nutchey

What Aspects of Quality do Students Focus on When Evaluating Oral and Written Mathematical Presentations? – Magnus ÖSterholm

Promoting Powerful Positive Affect: Using Stages of Concern and Activity Theory to Understand Teachers’ Practice in Mathematics – Shaileigh Page & Trudy Sweeney

Identifying Mathematics in Children’s Literature: Year Seven Student’s Results – Pamela Perger

Early Childhood Numeracy Leaders and Powerful Mathematics Ideas – Bob Perry

Playing with Mathematics: Implications from the Early Years Learning Framework and the Australian Curriculum – Bob Perry & Sue Dockett

Reacting to Quantitative Data: Teachers’ Perceptions of Student Achievement Reports – Robyn Pierce & Helen Chick

Students’ Emerging Inferential Reasoning about Samples and Sampling – Theodosia Prodromou

Reflecting on Participation in Research Communities of Practice: Situating Change in the Development of Mathematics Teaching – Trevor Redmond, Raymond Brown & Joanne Sheehy

Some Lessons Learned from The Experience Of Assessing Teacher Pedagogical Content Knowledge In Mathematics – Anne Roche & Doug Clarke

Value of Written Reflections in Understanding Student Thinking: The Case of Incorrect Simplification of a Rational Expression – Karen Ruhl, Jo Balatti & Shaun Belward

Improving Self-Confidence and Abilities: A Problem-Based Learning Approach for Beginning Mathematics Teachers – Martin Schmude, Penelope Serow & Stephen Tobias

Students’ Attitudes Towards Handheld Computer Algebra Systems (CAS) in Mathematics: Gender and School Setting Issues – Edison Shamoail & Tasos Barkatsas

Effects of Using History of Mathematics on Junior College Students’ Attitudes and Achievement – Siew Yee, Lim

Metaphors Used by Year 5 and 6 Children to Depict their Beliefs about Maths – Catherine Solomon & Michael Grimley

Teacher Capacity as a Key Element of National Curriculum Reform in Mathematics: An Exploratory Comparative Study Between Australia and China – Max Stephens & Zhang Qinqiong

A Strategy for Supporting Students Who Have Fallen Behind in the Learning of Mathematics – Peter Sullivan & Sue Gunningham

Students’ Ways of Using Handheld Calculators in Singapore and Australia: Technology as Master, Servant, Partner and Extension of Self – Hazel Tan & Helen Forgasz

Implementing a Mathematical Thinking Assessment Framework: Cross Cultural Perspectives – Tee Yong, Hwa & Max Stephens

Using Assessment Data: Does Gender Make a Difference? – Colleen Vale, Kristy Davidson, Anne Davies, Neil Hooley, Daniel Loton, & Mary Weaven

Learning From a Professional Development Design Experiment: Institutional Context of Teaching – Jana Visnovska & Qing Zhao

An Exploration of Young Students’ Ability to Generalise Function Tasks – Elizabeth Warren, Jodie Miller & Tom J. Cooper

Teacher Change in a Changing Educational Environment – Jane Watson, Kim Beswick, Natalie Brown & Suzie Wright

Teachers’ Use of National Test Data to Focus Numeracy Instruction – Paul White & Judy Anderson

Concerned about their Learning: What Matters to Mathematics Students Seeking to Study Despite Absence from School Owing to Chronic Illness – Karina J. Wilkie

“My Self-Esteem has Risen Dramatically”: A Case-Study of Pre-Service Teacher Action Research Using Bibliotherapy to Address Mathematics Anxiety – Sue Wilson & Shannon Gurney

Developing Algebraic Thinking: Using A Problem-Solving Approach in a Primary School Context – Will Windsor & Stephen Norton

Adapting Assessment Instruments for an Alaskan Context – Monica Wong & Jerry Lipka

Mathematics and Giftedness: Insights from Educational Neuroscience – Geoff Woolcott

The Big Ideas in Two Large First Level Courses of Undergraduate Mathematics – Susan Rachel Worsley

Meta-Rules of Discursive Practice in Mathematics Classrooms from Seoul, Shanghai and Tokyo – Lihua Xu

Professional Development of Mathematics and Science Teachers in Communities of Practice: Perceptions of “Who is my Community” – Connie H. Yarema, Allan E. Yarema, Elizabeth Powers & Samuel H. Smith

Young Children’s Understandings about “Square” in 3D Virtual Reality Microworlds – Andy Yeh & Jennifer Hallam

Teachers’ Interactions with Students Learning the “Equal Additions” Strategy: Discourse Patterns – Jenny Young-Loveridge & Judith Mills

***********

‘Get Down and Get Dirty in the Mathematics’: Technology and Mathematical Modelling in Senior Secondary – Stillman, G., & Brown, J.

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.