PME-NA XXII

Twenty-second Annual Meeting of the International Group for the Psycology of Mathematics Education

Tucson, Arizona October 7-10, 2000

Home | Theme | Events | Goals | Program | Pre-Registration | Proposals | Conference | Travel Info | Membership

Table of contents:

Committee
Conference Theme
Schedule of Events
Goals of PME
Scientific Program
Proposals
Conference Site
Travel
Arizona Organizers/Advisors
More Info
Membership
For Reviewer
Registration Form ( pdf format )
Conference Papers

Guidelines for Acceptance of Proposals
Our intent in the reviewing process is to be inclusive, not exclusive, and to provide constructive guidance for authors, whether or not their proposal is selected for a PME-NA presentation. In examining a proposal, you may suggest that it is suitable for a format or type other than that for which it was submitted.

A. Empirical Proposals These proposals should be judged on the following dimensions: 1) Does the study address a significant problem or question? Is the focus clear? 2) Is the study aligned with the goals of PME-NA? Are these goals indicated? 3) Is the theory framing the study indicated? Is it relevant? 4) Does the study employ a methodology appropriate for the question it investigates? 5) Does the proposal present data analyses thereof and are the analyses supported by the data? 6) Does the proposal provide claims, conclusions, or suggestions that are based in its data? 7) Does the proposal display high quality writing?

B. Theoretical Proposals These proposals should be judged on the following dimensions: 1) Does the proposal address issues that are important for mathematics education? Is the focus clear? 2) Is the study aligned with the goals of PME-NA? Are these goals indicated? 3) Does the proposal offer a penetrating analysis of the issues or extend our understanding of them? 4) Does the proposal build stronger connections within a theory or among theories? 5) Does the proposal display high quality writing? Note: Separate forms will be used to judge empirical and theoretical proposals. (With their submissions, authors were asked to indicate which type was most appropriate for their proposal.) In addition to rating proposals on each of the dimensions above, please give written comments to help the author improve the final paper, if accepted, or to enhance their work for a future submission.

Suggestions for Written Reviewer Comments

A. Example of Helpful Comments for an Accepted Empirical Proposal Title of Proposal: Obstacles Related to the Notion of Limit Overall Recommendation: Accept Reviewer Comments: This is a qualitative study that builds on prior work of Cornu, Robert, and . . . on the learning of the notion of limit. The theoretical framework about epistemological obstacle is clearly laid out and provides justification for the choice of research questions. the research work is well connected to PME-NA goals both from an empirical and theoretical point of view (some references are related to previous works presented at PME conferences). The study is primarily descriptive, with ongoing qualitative analysis of the recording sessions of the discussions between the members of small groups and planned personal interviews provided descriptions of students' work in group and individualist. The results are clearly presented. The author makes a clear connection between his/her analysis of students learning and of the theoretical framework presented as it relates to the notion of epistemological obstacle; providing different obstacles students face when learning the notion of limit. The proposal is interesting to read, contains original data, and adds to our understanding of how students learn the concept of limit. The author is encouraged to see the recent article by ------------ in ------------ that would provide an interesting comparison to the work in this paper.

B. Example of Helpful Comments for a Rejected Empirical Proposal Title of Proposal: Strategies and Errors About Solving Problems in Algebra Overall Recommendation: Rejected Reviewer Comments: The specific questions addressed are not clearly formulated. Several questions are raised in the beginning but a clear goal of the paper is not indicated. The literature review on strategies and errors about solving problems in algebra is moderately connected to the study undertaken. There is a weak link to the theoretical framework provided by the literature reviewed. From a general point of view the work is related to PME-NA goals, the paper outlines a piece of research in an area where research is necessary to have a better understanding of the psychological aspect of teaching and learning algebra. The research design and mode of inquiry are appropriate; but the execution of the study is not. The choice of students is idiosyncratic and their abilities and background are not clearly delineated. Flaws in part of the data collection make the data difficult to interpret and the conclusions are not connected to the research findings. The author presumably knows more information than is presented in the paper and it is difficult for the reader to agree with the author's conclusions. I have recommended this proposal be rejected. This is not to say the proposal contains nothing of value to PME-NA members. Indeed, it outlines a piece of research in an area where research is necessary and with some revision, clarification of goals, attention to the above comments and providing the information that is lacking, would make an acceptable paper in a future PME-NA meeting. To this end, the author is encouraged to see recent articles by ------------- in ---------- and . . . that would provide an interesting comparison to the author's paper.

C. Example of an Unhelpful Comments of an Accepted Empirical Proposal Title of Proposal: Mental Models Related to Geometric Thinking Overall Recommendation: Accept Reviewer's Comments: The goal of the paper is clearly formulated and is related to PME-NA goals. I am not familiar with his theoretical framework, it seems relevant. The mode of inquiry and execution of the study are appropriate. The analysis and interpretation appear to be fine.

D. Example of an Unhelpful Comments of a Rejected Empirical Proposal Title of Proposal: Learning Fractional Numbers in Context Overall Recommendation: Reject Reviewer's Comments: A clear goal of the paper is not indicated. The theoretical framework is not well based. Poor relationship to PME-NA goals. The research design and mode of inquiry are not appropriate. The analysis of the results is not well connected to the conclusions.