MERGA

2021 Conference Proceedings

2021 Conference Proceedings

2021 Full Conference Proceedings

CLEMENTS FOYSTER LECTURE

“Becoming” a researcher in mathematics education – Vince Geiger

 

KEYNOTE ADRESSES

The devil in details: Mathematics teaching and learning as managing inter-discursive gaps – Anna Sfard

Many pathways towards “Excellence” in Singapore mathematics education – Tin Lam Toh

 

PLENARY PANEL

Aspects of excellence in mathematics education – Berinderjeet Kaur

Excellence in mathematics education: Influences on the effective use of technology in primary classrooms – Catherine Attard

Excellence in mathematics education: Multiple confluences – Ban Heng Choy

Excellence in mathematics education: Models for teacher education practices – Oh Nam Kwon

A framework for teaching excellence in the context of university mathematics education – Victor Tan

 

RESEARCH SYMPOSIA

Singapore Enactment Project – Berinderjeet Kaur (Chair), Tin Lam Toh, Joseph Boon Wooi Yeo, Yew Hoong Leong, Lu Pien Cheng

Strengths approaches in early childhood mathematics education – Amy MacDonald (Chair), Fiona Collins, Angela Fenton, Steve Murphy, Matt Sexton, Joce Nuttall, James Russo, Toby Russo

Let’s Count: Success and expansion – Bob Perry (Chair), Ann Gervasoni, Amy MacDonald, Sue Dockett, Anne Roche, Paige Lee

Issues and affordances in studying children’s drawings with a mathematical eye – Jennifer Way (Chair), Jill Cheeseman, Ann Downton, Anne Roche, Sarah Ferguson, Katherin Cartwright, Janette Bobis, Kate Quane, Mohan Chinnappan, Sven Trenholm

RESEARCH PAPERS

Understanding secondary school students’ motivations for mathematics subject choice: First steps in construct validation and correlational analysis – Jacky Tianmi Pei Bell, Jennifer Way, Paul Ginns

Exploring the ‘high’ and ‘low’ points in primary preservice teachers’ mathematics related identity development – Janette Bobis, Janet Nguyen, Heather McMaster

Coding and learning mathematics: How did collaboration help the thinking? – Nigel Calder, Kate Rhodes

Adapting curriculum materials in secondary school mathematics: A case study of a Singapore teacher’s lesson design – Sze Looi Chin, Ban Heng Choy, Yew Hoong Leong

By teaching we learn: Comprehension and transformation in the teaching of long division – Ban Heng Choy, Joseph Boon Wooi Yeo, Jaguthsing Dindyal

Using interviews with non-examples to assess reasoning in F-2 classrooms – Kate Copping

Spatial reasoning and the development of early fraction understanding – Chelsea Cutting

Secondary mathematics teachers’ conceptions of assessment – Hem Dayal

Secondary pre-service teachers’ views on using games in teaching probability: An international collaboration – Hem Dayal, Sashi Sharma

Language games in primary mathematics – Patrick Galvin

Insights into the pedagogical practices of out-of-field, in-field, and upskilled teachers of mathematics – Merrilyn Goos, Aoife Guerin

Noticing structural thinking through the CRIG framework of mathematical structure – Mark Gronow

Spatial ability, skills, reasoning or thinking: What does it mean for mathematics? – Danielle Harris

Contextualising space: Using local knowledge to foster students’ location and transformation skills – Danielle Harris, Tracy Logan, Tom Lowrie

Curriculum development and the use of a digital framework for collaborative design to inform discourse: A case study – Ellen Jameson, Rachael Whitney-Smith, Darren Macey, Will Morony, Anne-Marie Benson-Lidholm, Lynne McClure, David Leigh-Lancaster

The development and efficacy of an undergraduate numeracy assessment tool – Andrea Knowles, Chris Linsell, Boris Baeumer, Megan Anakin

Why should we argue about the process if the outcome is the same? When communicational breaches remain unresolved – Joanne Knox

The metaphor of transition for introducing learners to new sets of numbers – Igor’ Kontorovich, Rina Zazkis, John Mason

Engagement and outdoor learning in mathematics – Alexandra Laird, Peter Grootenboer, Kevin Larkin

Teacher actions for consolidating learning in the early years – Sharyn Livy, Janette Bobis, Ann Downton, Melody McCormick, James Russo, Peter Sullivan

Teaching towards Big Ideas: A review from the horizon – Yi Fong Loh, Ban Heng Choy

The Tattslotto question: Exploring PCK in the senior secondary mathematics classroom – Nicole Maher, Helen Chick, Tracey Muir

Capitalising on student mathematical data: An impetus for changing mathematics teaching approaches – Tracey Muir

The development of predictive reasoning in Grades 3 through 4 – Gabrielle Ruth Oslington, Joanne Mulligan, Penny Van Bergen

Comparative judgement and affect: A case study – Jennifer Palisse, Deborah King, Mark MacLean

A primary education mathematics initiative in an Indigenous community school – Bronwyn Reid O’Connor

Computer based mathematics assessment: Is it the panacea? – Angela Rogers

Why that game? Factors primary school teachers consider when selecting which games to play in their mathematics classrooms – James Russo, Toby Russo, Leicha A. Bragg

Charting a learning progression for reasoning about angle situations – Rebecca Seah, Marj Horne

Conceptualising 3D shapes in New Zealand primary classes – Shweta Sharma

“I think it’s 3D because it’s not 2D”:Construing dimension as a mathematical construct in a New Zealand primary classroom – Shweta Sharma

The development and validation of two new assessment options for multiplicative thinking – Dianne Siemon, Rosemary Callingham, Lorraine Day

Professional development and junior secondary mathematics teachers: Can out-of-field teachers benefit too? – Rebekah Strang

Perspective taking: Spatial reasoning and projective geometry in the early years – Jennifer S. Thom, Lynn M. McGarvey, Nicole D. Lineham

The reification of the array: The case of multi-digit multiplication – Kristen Tripet

Leading mathematics: Doings of primary and secondary school mathematics leaders – Colleen Vale, Anne Roche, Jill Cheeseman, Ann Downton, Ann Gervasoni, Penelope Kalogeropolous, Sharyn Livy, James Russo

What sense do children make of “data” by Year 3? – Jane Watson, Noleine Fitzallen

 

RESEARCH PRESENTATIONS

Pre-service teachers’ wellbeing balance when learning mathematics and numeracy – Philemon Chigeza

Pre-service teachers on the use of mobile apps for teaching geometry – Shiyama Edirisinghe, Nigel Calder, Sashi Sharma

Digital competences of high school mathematics teacher in Pakistan: A pilot study to validate the online survey – Mairaj Jafri

Analysis of secondary school textbooks on trigonometric identities – Si Ying Lim

Pedagogical and epistemic beliefs of pre-service secondary mathematics teachers: A pilot study – Margaret Marshman, Anne Bennison

Teaching 21st Century Skills in the mathematics classroom – Jennifer Missen

Hands, Head and Heart (3H) Framework: More evidence for self-similarity – Da Yang Tan, Eng Guan Tay, Kok Ming Teo, Paul Maurice Edmund Shutler

A decade of MERGA research papers in mathematics teacher education – Daya Weerasinghe

 

SHORT COMMUNICATIONS

Using metaphors to evaluate pre-service teachers’ attitude change over first year mathematics unit – Jonathan Adams, Tracy Logan

The impact of the COVID19 induced primary school closures on the use of engaging mathematics pedagogies – Catherine Attard, Steve Murphy, Lena Danaia, Kathryn Holmes, Jacquie Tinkler, Fiona Collins

Pre-schoolers’ number sense strategies and patterns of strategy use during interactions with multi-touch technology – Chengxue Ge, Stephen I. Tucker, Siyu Huan

What teachers notice about student’s online mathematical thinking – Anita Green

Professional learning using a peer learning circle – Vesife Hatisaru, Sharon Fraser, Carol Murphy, Greg Oates

From modeling perspectives to analyse the mathematics grounding activities in classes: Take the game of adding and subtracting decimal numbers module as an example – Wei-Hung Huang, Wan-Ching Tseng

Disrupting deficit discourses in mathematics education: Documenting the funds of knowledge of young diverse learners – Jodie Hunter

How can novice STEM teachers develop integrated STEM materials: The first step from mathematics textbooks – Takashi Kawakami, Akihiko Saeki

Overcoming issues of status and creating pathways for learning mathematics in one primary school classroom – Generosa Leach

Primary school mathematics teachers’ exploration of integration strategies within a community of practice – Tarryn Lovemore, Sally-Ann Robertson

Investigating the disconnect of theory and practice: Differentiating instruction in secondary mathematics – Andrew Marks, Geoff Woolcott, Christos Markopoulos, Lisa Jacka

Reflecting upon mathematical competency: An appreciative inquiry – Catherine McCluskey

Implementing a Spatial Reasoning Mathematics Program (SRMP) in Grades 3 through 4 – Joanne Mulligan, Geoff Woolcott, Michael Mitchelmore, Susan Busatto, Jennifer Lai, Brent Davis

Connecting calculation strategies through grounding metaphors – Carol Murphy

A scoping review of research into mathematics classroom practices and affect – Steve Murphy, Naomi Ingram

Supporting pre-service teachers of mathematics to ‘notice’ – Lisa O’Keeffe, Bruce White

Collaborative problem-solving: An initial analysis of the role of prompts to support online learners in mathematics – Lisa O’Keeffe, Bruce White, Amie Albrecht, Chelsea Cutting, Bec Neil

Spatial and numeracy skills at the beginning of preschool: A large-scale, nationally representative study – Ilyse Resnick, Tom Lowrie

Assessment-related affect in mathematics: Results from a quasi-experimental study – Kaitlin Riegel, Tanya Evans, Jason Stephens

Tuning-in to non-linguistic resources during collective problem-solving in a second language context – Sally-Ann Robertson, Mellony Graven

From deficiency to strengths: Prospective teachers’ shifting frames in noticing student mathematical thinking – Thorsten Scheiner

Accounting for embodiment via gestural number sense – Stephen I. Tucker

 

ROUND TABLE

Comparing mathematics curricula across countries: What do they tell us? – Jodie Hunter, Ban Heng Choy

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.