MERGA

2018 Conference Proceedings

2018 Conference Proceedings

2018 Full Conference Proceedings

KEYNOTE ADDRESSES

Examining Historical Pedagogies Towards Opening Spaces for Teaching all Mathematics Learners in Culturally Responsive Ways – Robin Averill

Looking for Structure: Moving Out of the Realm of Computation to Explore the Nature of the Operations – Deborah Schifter

 

BETH SOUTWELL PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS AWARD

From Research to Practice: The Case of Mathematical Reasoning – Dianne Siemon, Rosemary Callingham, Lorraine Day, Marj Horne, Rebecca Seah, Max Stephens, Jane Watson

 

SYMPOSIUM

Stimulating Proportional Reasoning through Engaging Contexts – Shelley Dole, Ann Downton, Jill Cheeseman, Carly Sawatzki, Merrilyn Goos, Annette Hilton, Geoff Hilton, Kerry Giumelli, Barbara McHugh

Multiplicative Thinking: Enhancing the Capacity of Teachers to Teach and Students to Learn – Chris Hurst, Chris Linsell, Marilyn Holmes, Bilinda Offen, Naomi Ingram

CHOOSEMATHS – an Australian Approach to Increasing Participation of Women in Mathematics – Inge Koch, Ning Li, Gilah Leder

Young Children’s Transition to Mathematical Drawing – Jennifer Way, Sarah Ferguson, Joanne Mulligan, Amy MacDonald, Jill Cheeseman, Andrea McDonough, Steve Murphy

 

RESEARCH PAPERS

Preparedness to teach: The perspective of Saudi female pre-service mathematics teachers – Fatimah Alsaleh, Glenda Anthony

Dialogic Practices in the Mathematics Classroom – Catherine Attard, Christine Edwards-Groves, Peter Grootenboer

The R in the ELR Process: Reflection and the Emotions of Pre-Service Teachers. A Case Study – Taryn Axelsen, Linda Galligan, Geoff Woolcott

Beginning teachers learning to teach mathematics through problem-solving – Judy Bailey

Using Technology in Mathematics: Professional Development for Teachers – Isaac Benning, Chris Linsell, Naomi Ingram

Identifying Practices that Promote Engagement with Mathematics Among Students from Disadvantaged Backgrounds – Anne Bennison, Merrilyn Goos, Dominika Bielinski

Pre-Service Teachers’ Difficulties with Problem Solving – Adrian Berenger

Changes in Students’ Mathematical Discourse When Describing a Square – Adrian Berenger

What can be learned from teachers assessing mathematical reasoning: A case study – Leicha A. Bragg, Sandra Herbert

Conspiracy in senior school mathematics – Paul Brown

Using apps for teaching and learning mathematics: A socio-technological assemblage – Nigel Calder, Carol Murphy

Exploring mathematical fluency: teachers’ conceptions and descriptions of students – Katherin Cartwright

Teachers’ Perceptions of Obstacles to Incorporating a Problem Solving Style of Mathematics into their Teaching – Jill Cheeseman

“Plot 1 is All Spread Out and Plot 2 is All Squished Together”: Exemplifying Statistical Variation with Young Students – Helen Chick, Jane M. Watson, Noleine Fitzallen

Solution of word problems by Malaysian students: Insights from analysis of representations – Mohan Chinnappan, Munirah Ghazali

Orchestrating Mathematics Lessons: Beyond the Use of a Single Rich Task – Ban Heng Choy, Jaguthsing Dindyal

An argument to engage really young children in mathematics – Audrey Cooke

Verification and Validation: What do we mean? – Jennifer Czocher, Gloria Stillman, Jill Brown

Different worlds: Looking deeply at context in the sustainability of PD for collaborative problem-solving mathematics – Lisa Darragh

Fluency with number facts – Responding to the Australian Curriculum: Mathematics – Shelley Dole, Peter Carmichael, Catherine Thiele, Jenny Simpson, Christine O’Toole

Pilot Study on the Impact of In Situ Spaced Professional Learning on Teachers’ Mathematical Knowledge of Multiplicative Thinking – Ann Downton, Kerry Giumelli, Barbara McHugh, Tammy Roosen, Nadine Meredith, Geraldine Caleta, Paul Stenning

Opening classroom practice to challenge: The role of trust in mathematics teachers’ collaborative inquiry involving co-teaching – Raewyn Eden

Senior Secondary Probability Curriculum: What has changed? – Heather Ernst

A Comparison of STEM and non-STEM Teachers’ Confidence in and Attitudes towards Numeracy – Elizabeth Ferme

The explicitness of teaching in guided inquiry – Kym Fry, Judith Hillman

Generating Ideas for Numeracy Tasks across the Curriculum – Vince Geiger

The practice of using NAPLAN numeracy test results: A review of the literature – Seyum Getenet, Melissa Fanshawe

Making Mathematics Accessible for All: A Classroom Inquiry – Bronwyn Gibbs, Roberta Hunter

Zooming-in on Decimals – Amelia Gorman, Jennifer Way

Unexpected Outcomes of a Family Mathematics Story-Time Program – Mellony Graven, Robyn Jorgensen

How do Students Create Algorithms? Exploring a Group’s Attempt to Maximise Happiness – John Griffith Moala

Disciplinary Literacy in the Mathematics Classroom – Gail Hager

Maintaining Productive Patterns of Teacher-Student Interactions in Mathematics Classrooms – Sara Haghighi Siahgorabi

The Distinction Between Mathematics and Spatial Reasoning in Assessment: Do STEM Educators and Cognitive Psychologists Agree? – Danielle Harris, Tom Lowrie

What do Culturally Diverse Students in New Zealand Value Most for their Mathematics Learning? – Julia L Hill

Readiness to Teach Secondary Mathematics: A Study of Pre-Service Mathematics Teachers’ Self-Perceptions – Gregory Hine, Thuan Thai

Free-Response Tasks in Primary Mathematics: A Window on Students’ Thinking – Jodie Hunter, Ian Jones

Using a Contextual Pāsifika Patterning Task to Support Generalisation – Jodie Hunter, Jodie Miller

Preparing for the Final Examination in Abstract Algebra: Student Perspectives and Modus Operandi – Marios Ioannou

The Role of Executive Function and Visual-Spatial Working Memory in the Development of Mathematics Skill – Siti Baizura Jamil, Munirah Ghazali

Improvising in the Primary Mathematics Classroom – Dan Jazby

Speaking Spatially: Implications for Remote Indigenous Learners – Robyn Jorgensen, Tom Lowrie

Effectiveness of Applying Conceptual Change Approaches in Challenging Mathematics Tasks for Low-Performing Students – Tierney Kennedy

Issues of Equity in a Mathematical Inquiry Classroom – Christopher King

What Can We Learn about Students’ Mathematical Understanding from their Writing? – Igor’ Kontorovich

Designing Data Collection Instruments to Research Engagement in Mathematics – Alexandra Laird, Peter Grootenboer

The Five Question Approach: Disrupting the Linear Approach to Mathematics Teaching – John Ley, Catherine Attard, Kathryn Holmes

Insights into a Year 4 Student’s Spatial Reasoning and Conceptual Knowledge of Rectangular Prisms – Sharyn Livy, Ann Downton, Simone Reinhold, Susanne Wöller

Proposed Structural Refinements to the Interconnected Model of Teacher Professional Growth – Laurinda Lomas

Developing a Rubric for Assessing Mathematical Reasoning: A Design-Based Research Study in Primary Classrooms – Esther Loong, Colleen Vale, Wanty Widjaja, Sandra Herbert, Leicha A. Bragg, Aylie Davidson

Variations on a Theme: Pre-service Mathematics Teacher Reflections Using an Affect-based Critical Moment Protocol – Margaret Marshman, Linda Galligan, Taryn Axelsen, Geoff Woolcott, Robert Whannell

The Beliefs about Mathematics, its Teaching and Learning of those Involved in Secondary Mathematics Pre-Service Teacher Education – Margaret Marshman, Merrilyn Goos

Engaging Pre-Service Non-Specialist Teachers in Teaching Mathematics Using Embodied Technology Tools – Sarah Matthews, Marie Boden, Jana Visnovska

Noticing Mathematical Pattern and Structure Embodied in Young Children’s Play – Catherine McCluskey, Joanne Mulligan, Penny Van Bergen

Experimenting with Reform-Orientated Approaches: Difficulties and Advantages Experienced by Primary Mathematics Teachers – Melody McCormick

Principals’ Perceptions and Expectations of Primary Teachers with a Specialisation in Mathematics – Heather McMaster, Jennifer Way, Janette Bobis, Kim Beswick

Defining the Characteristics of Critical Mathematical Thinking – Chrissy Monteleone, Paul White, Vince Geiger

It’s More Than the Videos: Examining the Factors That Impact Upon Students’ Uptake of the Flipped Classroom Approach in a Senior Secondary Mathematics Classroom – Tracey Muir

Determinants of Success in Learning Mathematics: A Study of Post-Secondary Students in New Zealand – Priscilla Murphy

School location and socio-economic status and patterns of participation and achievement in Year 12 enabling mathematics – Steve Murphy

Examining a teacher’s use of multiple representations in the teaching of percentages: A commognitive perspective – Chia Su Ngin

Middle School Pre-Service Teachers’ Mathematics Content Knowledge and Mathematical Pedagogy Content Knowledge: Assessing and Relating – Stephen Norton

Mathematics Anxiety: Year 7 and 8 Student Perceptions – Lisa O’Keeffe, Bruce White, Debra Panizzon, Katrina Elliott, Alex Semmens

Investigating Mathematics Students’ Motivational Beliefs and Perceptions: An Exploratory Study – Claudia Orellana, Tasos Barkatsas

Characteristics of Spatial Visualisation: Perspectives from Area of Composite Shapes – Sitti Patahuddin, Tracy Logan, Ajay Ramful

Diagram Effective or Diagram Dependent? – Catherine Pearn, Max Stephens, Robyn Pierce

The Effects of Mathematics Anxiety on Primary Students – Theodosia Prodromou, Nick Frederiksen

The experiences of homeschooling parents when teaching mathematics – Robyn Reaburn, Janine Roberts

Examining Nondominant Student and Teacher Agency in a U.S. High School Mathematics Classroom – Rachel Restani

Measuring Mental Computational Fluency with Addition: A Novel Approach – James Russo, Sarah Hopkins

Sense-Making in Mathematics: Towards a Dialogical Framing – Thorsten Scheiner

Perceiving and Reasoning about Geometric Objects in the Middle Years – Rebecca Seah, Marj Horne

Contribution to the Development of Self-Regulated Learning Through Merging Music and Mathematics – Carolyn Stevenson-Milln

Preservice Teacher Mathematics Education: Online vs. Blended vs. Face to Face! Is this the whole story? – Rebekah Strang, Kevin Larkin

Aligning Online Mathematical Problem Solving with the Australian Curriculum – Duncan Symons, Robyn Pierce

Participatory Task Science: The reSolve story – Kristen Tripet, Ruqiyah Patel, Steve Thornton, Nadia Walker

The Role of the Story in Enabling Meaningful Mathematical Engagement in the Classroom – Jana Visnovska, Jose Luis Cortina, Pamela Vale, Mellony Graven

 

SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

Supporting Inquiry-Base Teaching in Qatari Mathematics Classrooms – Nigel Calder, Carol Murphy, Abdullah Abu-Tineh, Nasser Mansour

A Test to Test Test-Readiness – Improving Teacher Education Students’ Numeracy Skills Development – Adelle Colbourn, Kate Hartup, Thuan Thai, Amanda Yeung

Using Mobile Technology Applications (Apps) when Teaching and Learning Geometry in Junior Secondary School Mathematics Education in Sri Lanka – Meegasdeniya Edirisinghe, Nigel Calder

Analysing Instruction as a Coordination of Dimensions of Mathematical Progression: The Case of Blair – David Ellemor-Collins

Students’ use of Mathematical Evidence in Guided Mathematical Inquiry – Jill Fielding-Wells, Kate Makar

Teaching Measurements in Australian Primary Schools – Berit Follong, Tamara Bucher, Elena Prieto-Rodriguez, Andrew Miller

The Australian General Public’s View of Gender and Mathematics: A Comparison of Findings from Binary and Non-Binary Studies – Jennifer Hall, Limin Jao

Making Maths a HIIT at School: A Whole School Approach – Adam Lloyd, Nick Riley, Narelle Eather, Drew Miller

A Preliminary Illustration of Mathematical Inquiry Norms in a Primary Classroom – Katie Makar, Jill Fielding- Wells

Mathematics Education: What Students Want to Learn and What Lecturers Think Students Need to Learn? Martha McFaul, Jyoti Jhagroo

Development of a Theoretical Framework: Designing Online Challenging Mathematics tasks for Pre-Service Teacher Education – Jodie Miller, Regina Bruder, Vince Geiger, Ulrike Roder, Jill Fielding-Wells

Designing a Pedagogical Program to Support Spatial Reasoning in the Primary School – Joanne Mulligan, Geoffrey Woolcott, Michael Mitchelmore, Brent Davis

Connecting Research with Outreach – Michael O’Connor

The ‘Art’ of Ratio: the Potential of a Hands-On Ratio Task – Lisa O’Keefe, Bruce White

A Teacher’s Challenge in Developing Mathematics Talk for Sense-Making in and Through a Second Language – Sally-Ann Robertson, Mellony Graven

Provision of Private Tutoring While School Teachers Provide Enough Support in Mathematics Education  – Daya Weerasinghe

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.