Annual Report 2010, Helsinki

A cursory survey at the network’s business meeting showed that the conference was a success for the Mathematics Education Research Network. Several reasons were mentioned: firstly, the high quality and interesting nature of presentations, in particular in the symposia, was commented upon. Thus, and this is ‘minuted’, the Network wants to encourage more submission of symposium proposals, or ‘linked’ papers/proposals of groups. This, it is hoped, brings a ‘natural coherence’ to the sessions. Secondly, participants seem to have found a ‘home’ in the Network, in the sense that participants felt a belonging to the group. This was helped by the allocation of only one room for the Network’s sessions, and it is hoped that this can be continued. One thing which has not worked as well as expected was the organisation and allocation of ‘roundtables’: only one submission opted for this. It seems that this new form of submissions has not been well established yet and may need explanation/support in the call for proposals.
In terms of number of sessions, all sessions were allocated (two symposia, one Roundtable, the rest individual sessions), plus two parallel sessions. The individual sessions were grouped under themes, but only one of those ‘ind sessions groups’ was linked by a common project. It is hoped that in the future more groups (one project) submit together. The attendance generally varied between approximately 8 to 25 attendees.
The reviewing process was discussed again at the business meeting. It was suggested/decided to try to review ‘inclusively’ and at the same time academically rigorous.    
The network met socially during the conference, with an attendance of about 25 participants.
The business meeting was well attended (about 10 participants), considering that it was scheduled/held at 7.30 am and the university had not opened the rooms! In the future we will have it at lunchtime.

Minutes

Network 24 Meeting at ECER 2010

Thursday 26th August (7.30 am - 8.45 am)

1. Welcome:     Birgit Pepin led the meeting and welcomed everybody

2. Minutes:        Uwe Gellert

3. Convenors: Birgit Pepin explained the role of the convenor and the co-convenors of the Network 24.

Current convenor is: Birgit Pepin

Current co-convenors are: Ole Björkquist, Uwe Gellert, Hendrik van Steenbrugge, Pauline Vos, Geoff Wake

4. Discussion Issues:     

• New co-convenors: Volunteers, please contact Birgit Pepin
• The Network wants to encourage more submission of symposium proposals, or ‘linked’ papers/proposals of groups, in order to get more coherence amongst session papers- this will be considered for the amendment of the network descriptor. In addition, for attracting new network members all are encouraged to spread around information about Network 24 particularly to their colleagues and, particularly, to those who can be considered “locals” at the place where ECER is organized. However, it has been asked, though not finally answered, what should happen if the number of proposals continues to raise: Should we organize more sessions in parallel or should we raise the review standards?
• Criteria for review of proposals: The “European dimension” is currently defined as “what are the implications of your research for the European context”. Network 24 understands this definition as a plea for some broadening of focus: What are the implications of your research, not only in your specific context?
• Link to the pre-conference:  One way would be to invite the 3 best pre-conferences papers on mathematics education research to present again at Network 24.
• It was discussed whether network 24 should ‘connect’ more to other networks, i.e. have symposia together etc.
• Experiences with ‘roundtables’ were discussed: it seems that this category has not been taken up in the ways expected- perhaps it needs explaining in the network descriptor.
• Proceedings: The issue has been raised whether the Network 24 could set up conference proceedings in order to be ‘on par’ with other mathematics education conference practices. Which platform to use?
• It was discussed whether ‘local mathematics education researchers (e.g. in Berlin) should be called and more involved into the network’s programme (also in terms of contributions).
• EERA invites Networks to submit proposal for smaller projects (and joint projects together with other Networks).
• ECER plenary speakers: Network 24 would like to be more involved in the process of discussing/suggesting potential plenary speakers (though this might be in the hands of the international programme committees).