Early childhood teachers' integration of ICTs: Intrinsic and extrinsic barriers

The aim of this paper is to report on barriers to ICT integration in teaching practices from the perspective of early childhood teachers. Six early childhood teachers from a combined private school in Queensland participated in this study. Individual interviews explored the ICT tools used in early childhood programs and the barriers to integration in teaching programs. Results indicate that a range of extrinsic barriers which included lack of certain digital tools, time, access (technical and tools) and professional development opportunities were perceived as the major barriers. Intrinsic barriers were also identified but less frequently. Strongly held philosophies about early childhood teaching practices influenced some teachers' decisions about incorporating ICT into their programs

Writing together, learning together :the value and effectiveness of a research writing group for doctoral students

The high level of scholarly writing required for a doctoral thesis is a challenge for many research students. However, formal academic writing training is not a core component of many doctoral programs. Informal writing groups for doctoral students may be one method of contributing to the improvement of scholarly writing. In this paper, we report on a writing group that was initiated by an experienced writer and higher degree research supervisor to support and improve her doctoral students’ writing capabilities. Over time, this group developed a workable model to suit their varying needs and circumstances. The model comprised group sessions, an email group, and individual writing. Here, we use a narrative approach to explore the effectiveness and value of our research writing group model in improving scholarly writing. The data consisted of doctoral students’ reflections to stimulus questions about their writing progress and experiences. The stimulus questions sought to probe individual concerns about their own writing, what they had learned in the research writing group, the benefits of the group, and the disadvantages and challenges to participation. These reflections were analysed using thematic analysis. Following this analysis, the supervisor provided her perspective on the key themes that emerged. Results revealed that, through the writing group, members learned technical elements (e.g., paragraph structure), non-technical elements (e.g., working within limited timeframes), conceptual elements (e.g., constructing a cohesive arguments), collaborative writing processes, and how to edit and respond to feedback. In addition to improved writing quality, other benefits were opportunities for shared writing experiences, peer support, and increased confidence and motivation. The writing group provides a unique social learning environment with opportunities for: professional dialogue about writing, peer learning and review, and developing a supportive peer network. Thus our research writing group has proved an effective avenue for building doctoral students’ capability in scholarly writing. The proposed model for a research writing group could be applicable to any context, regardless of the type and location of the university, university faculty, doctoral program structure, or number of postgraduate students. It could also be used within a group of students with diverse research abilities, needs, topics and methodologies. However, it requires a group facilitator with sufficient expertise in scholarly writing and experience in doctoral supervision who can both engage the group in planned writing activities and also capitalise on fruitful lines of discussion related to students’ concerns as they arise. The research writing group is not intended to replace traditional supervision processes nor existing training. However it has clear benefits for improving scholarly writing in doctoral research programs particularly in an era of rapidly increasing student load

Writing together, learning together : the value and effectiveness of a research writing group for doctoral students

The high level of scholarly writing required for a doctoral thesis is a challenge for many research students. However, formal academic writing training is not a core component of many doctoral programs. Informal writing groups for doctoral students may be one method of contributing to the improvement of scholarly writing. In this paper, we report on a writing group that was initiated by an experienced writer and higher degree research supervisor to support and improve her doctoral students’ writing capabilities. Over time, this group developed a workable model to suit their varying needs and circumstances. The model comprised group sessions, an email group, and individual writing. Here, we use a narrative approach to explore the effectiveness and value of our research writing group model in improving scholarly writing. The data consisted of doctoral students’ reflections to stimulus questions about their writing progress and experiences. The stimulus questions sought to probe individual concerns about their own writing, what they had learned in the research writing group, the benefits of the group, and the disadvantages and challenges to participation. These reflections were analysed using thematic analysis. Following this analysis, the supervisor provided her perspective on the key themes that emerged. \ud \ud Results revealed that, through the writing group, members learned technical elements (e.g., paragraph structure), non-technical elements (e.g., working within limited timeframes), conceptual elements (e.g., constructing a cohesive arguments), collaborative writing processes, and how to edit and respond to feedback. In addition to improved writing quality, other benefits were opportunities for shared writing experiences, peer support, and increased confidence and motivation. The writing group provides a unique social learning environment with opportunities for: professional dialogue about writing, peer learning and review, and developing a supportive peer network. Thus our research writing group has proved an effective avenue for building doctoral students’ capability in scholarly writing.\ud \ud The proposed model for a research writing group could be applicable to any context, regardless of the type and location of the university, university faculty, doctoral program structure, or number of postgraduate students. It could also be used within a group of students with diverse research abilities, needs, topics and methodologies. However, it requires a group facilitator with sufficient expertise in scholarly writing and experience in doctoral supervision who can both engage the group in planned writing activities and also capitalise on fruitful lines of discussion related to students’ concerns as they arise. The research writing group is not intended to replace traditional supervision processes nor existing training. However it has clear benefits for improving scholarly writing in doctoral research programs particularly in an era of rapidly increasing student load

The role of fluency in a mathematics item with an embedded graphic: interpreting a pie chart

The purpose of this study was to identify the pedagogical knowledge relevant to the successful completion of a pie chart item. This purpose was achieved through the identification of the essential fluencies that 12–13-year-olds required for the successful solution of a pie chart item. Fluency relates to ease of solution and is particularly important in mathematics because it impacts on performance. Although the majority of students were successful on this multiple choice item, there was considerable divergence in the strategies they employed. Approximately two-thirds of the students employed efficient multiplicative strategies, which recognised and capitalised on the pie chart as a proportional representation. In contrast, the remaining one-third of students used a less efficient additive strategy that failed to capitalise on the representation of the pie chart. The results of our investigation of students’ performance on the pie chart item during individual interviews revealed that five distinct fluencies were involved in the solution process: conceptual (understanding the question), linguistic (keywords), retrieval (strategy selection), perceptual (orientation of a segment of the pie chart) and graphical (recognising the pie chart as a proportional representation). In addition, some students exhibited mild disfluencies corresponding to the five fluencies identified above. Three major outcomes emerged from the study. First, a model of knowledge of content and students for pie charts was developed. This model can be used to inform instruction about the pie chart and guide strategic support for students. Second, perceptual and graphical fluency were identified as two aspects of the curriculum, which should receive a greater emphasis in the primary years, due to their importance in interpreting pie charts. Finally, a working definition of fluency in mathematics was derived from students’ responses to the pie chart item