title: Heat treatment, impact properties, and fracture behaviour of Ti-6Al-4V alloy produced by powder compact extrusion.

authors: Singh, Ajit Pal

subjects: blended powder

abstract: The mechanical properties of titanium and titanium alloys are very sensitive to processing, microstructure, and impurity levels. In this paper, a blended powder mixture of Ti-6Al-4V alloy was consolidated by powder compact extrusion that involved warm compaction, vacuum sintering, and hot extrusion. The as-processed material with an oxygen content of 0.34 wt.% was subjected to various annealing treatments. The impact toughness of heat-treated material was determined using Charpy V-notch impact testing at room temperature. An emphasis was placed on establishing a relationship among fracture behaviour, microstructure, and the resulting properties of tested material. From the results, it is apparent that the highest impact toughness value of 19.3 J was achieved after α/β annealing and is comparable with typical values given in the literature for wrought Ti-6Al-4V. In terms of fracture behaviour, it is quite apparent that the crack propagation behaviour of powder-produced material is rather complex compared with the limited amount of data reported for ingot counterparts.

text: Heat treatment, impact properties, and fracture behaviour of Ti-6Al-4V alloy produced by powder compact extrusion. The mechanical properties of titanium and titanium alloys are very sensitive to processing, microstructure, and impurity levels. In this paper, a blended powder mixture of Ti-6Al-4V alloy was consolidated by powder compact extrusion that involved warm compaction, vacuum sintering, and hot extrusion. The as-processed material with an oxygen content of 0.34 wt.% was subjected to various annealing treatments. The impact toughness of heat-treated material was determined using Charpy V-notch impact testing at room temperature. An emphasis was placed on establishing a relationship among fracture behaviour, microstructure, and the resulting properties of tested material. From the results, it is apparent that the highest impact toughness value of 19.3 J was achieved after α/β annealing and is comparable with typical values given in the literature for wrought Ti-6Al-4V. In terms of fracture behaviour, it is quite apparent that the crack propagation behaviour of powder-produced material is rather complex compared with the limited amount of data reported for ingot counterparts.

year: 2019

title: Using digital feedback in support of middle school students’ persuasive writing skills: A Bernsteinian perspective

authors: Lyons, Florence Felicie Marie Nicole

subjects: Feedback

abstract: The provision of feedback is one of the most important changes a teacher can implement to enhance learning. Digital technology can support teachers' feedback to students by creating new and different spaces for conversations around learning. In this study I combined feedback and digital technology to create a different space for teachers and students to learn together about persuasive writing. My interest in persuasive writing arose during my reading of Bernstein’s work. Bernstein argues there are two types of codes, or discourses: restricted and elaborated codes. Students from more advantaged backgrounds can switch between these discourses. Schools operate in the elaborated code, which can be challenging to fully comprehend, especially for students from less advantaged milieu. Bernstein offers that the knowledge to be acquired at school is or needs to be recontextualised by teachers so all students can access this academic knowledge.
Persuasive writing is a difficult genre to master as it is complex and presents codes which can be challenging for students to comprehend. However, the literature suggests that it allows students to become democratically informed and active citizens. It is for this reason that this genre of writing was chosen as the focus of this study.
The investigation I undertook aimed to answer the following question: How does the use of an online collaborative writing platform to create feedback as dialogue support diverse middle school students’ learning of the persuasive genre?
To answer this question, a design-based intervention was conducted in a middle school with two participating teachers and their classes, of which 10 students were chosen by the teachers to be the target students. These students formed three groups: one group of three students was working above the national standard in writing, a group of three students was working at the standard and another group of four students was working below the standard. The study, conducted within the critical paradigm, sought to transform the educational reality for students working below the standard in writing. Students were asked to produce two pieces of persuasive writing and were provided with written and audio-based feedback on Google Docs. The teachers co-created rubrics regarding the persuasive writing genre and co-planned lessons. Data were collected in the form of semi-structured interviews, surveys, class observations, documents such as teachers’ mark books and students’ work samples.  
The findings show when effective feedback is provided to students, their writing attainment is more likely to increase. To be effective, feedback needs to be timely, personalised, and understood by the students. The four target students whose writing was below the standard benefited, and some of them preferred, from being provided with audio-based feedback. However, students whose writing attainment was already high, preferred receiving written-based feedback due to ease in reading and comprehending this feedback. Regardless of their literacy level, the target students preferred being provided feedback on Google Docs as it allowed timely and personalised feedback. The teachers and their students not only agreed on the efficacy of providing feedback on Google Docs, but they also shared the view that producing written pieces on Google Docs allowed students to produce more, better quality writing and it permitted students to redraft their work more easily.
This study provides an example of how a Bernsteinian perspective can be applied to provide a new and useful understanding of the role of feedback in supporting students to enhance their persuasive writing genre. Teachers in the study were able to use feedback to recontextualise the School’s discourse and knowledge and create a bridge to the codes students comprehended. Furthermore, the findings show that for some students whose literacy level was below the standard audio-based feedback can be particularly effective as a recontextualisation tool that helps students in comprehending the School’s discourse by making the meaning of the feedback comments more explicit for them. On the other hand, students whose literacy level was above the standard commented they preferred written feedback. These two contrasting findings can be explained by student understandings of the codes of the written feedback. A surprising finding was that although the teachers had co-created rubrics regarding persuasive writing and their students commented they would have liked to use them as they could have served as goals to aim for in their writing, the teachers did not use the rubrics. Drawing on Bernstein it is possible that these teachers found themselves in the field of production of knowledge, a field within which they did not feel comfortable operating, and so they reverted to the field of reproduction of knowledge, and used the school’s e-asTTle rubric, with which they felt more comfortable.  
The implications for teachers teaching writing are that they need to be aware of the codes their students comprehend and consider the use of recontextualisation tools, such as audio-based feedback, to modify the School’s discourse so all students can access the School’s knowledge. Professional development providers and policy makers could consider providing teachers with support and adequate training to thoroughly comprehend the process of provision of feedback.

text: Using digital feedback in support of middle school students’ persuasive writing skills: A Bernsteinian perspective The provision of feedback is one of the most important changes a teacher can implement to enhance learning. Digital technology can support teachers' feedback to students by creating new and different spaces for conversations around learning. In this study I combined feedback and digital technology to create a different space for teachers and students to learn together about persuasive writing. My interest in persuasive writing arose during my reading of Bernstein’s work. Bernstein argues there are two types of codes, or discourses: restricted and elaborated codes. Students from more advantaged backgrounds can switch between these discourses. Schools operate in the elaborated code, which can be challenging to fully comprehend, especially for students from less advantaged milieu. Bernstein offers that the knowledge to be acquired at school is or needs to be recontextualised by teachers so all students can access this academic knowledge.
Persuasive writing is a difficult genre to master as it is complex and presents codes which can be challenging for students to comprehend. However, the literature suggests that it allows students to become democratically informed and active citizens. It is for this reason that this genre of writing was chosen as the focus of this study.
The investigation I undertook aimed to answer the following question: How does the use of an online collaborative writing platform to create feedback as dialogue support diverse middle school students’ learning of the persuasive genre?
To answer this question, a design-based intervention was conducted in a middle school with two participating teachers and their classes, of which 10 students were chosen by the teachers to be the target students. These students formed three groups: one group of three students was working above the national standard in writing, a group of three students was working at the standard and another group of four students was working below the standard. The study, conducted within the critical paradigm, sought to transform the educational reality for students working below the standard in writing. Students were asked to produce two pieces of persuasive writing and were provided with written and audio-based feedback on Google Docs. The teachers co-created rubrics regarding the persuasive writing genre and co-planned lessons. Data were collected in the form of semi-structured interviews, surveys, class observations, documents such as teachers’ mark books and students’ work samples.  
The findings show when effective feedback is provided to students, their writing attainment is more likely to increase. To be effective, feedback needs to be timely, personalised, and understood by the students. The four target students whose writing was below the standard benefited, and some of them preferred, from being provided with audio-based feedback. However, students whose writing attainment was already high, preferred receiving written-based feedback due to ease in reading and comprehending this feedback. Regardless of their literacy level, the target students preferred being provided feedback on Google Docs as it allowed timely and personalised feedback. The teachers and their students not only agreed on the efficacy of providing feedback on Google Docs, but they also shared the view that producing written pieces on Google Docs allowed students to produce more, better quality writing and it permitted students to redraft their work more easily.
This study provides an example of how a Bernsteinian perspective can be applied to provide a new and useful understanding of the role of feedback in supporting students to enhance their persuasive writing genre. Teachers in the study were able to use feedback to recontextualise the School’s discourse and knowledge and create a bridge to the codes students comprehended. Furthermore, the findings show that for some students whose literacy level was below the standard audio-based feedback can be particularly effective as a recontextualisation tool that helps students in comprehending the School’s discourse by making the meaning of the feedback comments more explicit for them. On the other hand, students whose literacy level was above the standard commented they preferred written feedback. These two contrasting findings can be explained by student understandings of the codes of the written feedback. A surprising finding was that although the teachers had co-created rubrics regarding persuasive writing and their students commented they would have liked to use them as they could have served as goals to aim for in their writing, the teachers did not use the rubrics. Drawing on Bernstein it is possible that these teachers found themselves in the field of production of knowledge, a field within which they did not feel comfortable operating, and so they reverted to the field of reproduction of knowledge, and used the school’s e-asTTle rubric, with which they felt more comfortable.  
The implications for teachers teaching writing are that they need to be aware of the codes their students comprehend and consider the use of recontextualisation tools, such as audio-based feedback, to modify the School’s discourse so all students can access the School’s knowledge. Professional development providers and policy makers could consider providing teachers with support and adequate training to thoroughly comprehend the process of provision of feedback.

year: 2021

title: Pupuritia ngā purapura i mahue mai rā: Te waiata-ā-ringa 1960 - 1990

authors: Papesch, Te Rita

subjects: Māori history

abstract: I tēnei tuhinga kei te āta titiro ahau ki te waiata-ā-ringa. Kei te hoki ahau ki te tīmatanga, ā, kei te whai ahau i te tipuranga me te oranga o tēnei mea, o te waiata-ā-ringa. Hei āwhina i ahau, kei te titiro ahau ki ētahi o ngā waiata-ā-ringa kua titoa e ngā kaitito mai i te tau 1960 tae noa ki te tau 1990. Kei te whakamārama hoki ahau i te whānui o ngā rerengakētanga o ēnei waiata-ā-ringa. Ka titiro hoki ahau ki te mahi ā ringa āhua reka hoki o ēnei waiata-ā-ringa, arā te mahi ngahau, te mahi whakataetae, te mahi i ēnei waiata-ā-ringa hei kīnaki i ngā whaikōrero, hei kīnaki i ngā kōrero kua kōrerohia i ngā hui, hei taonga pupuri i ngā kōrero o te iwi whānui, mō te iwi whānui me ngā mahi kua mahia i te ao i aua tuangahurutoru o ngā tau.
I tōku tau tuawhā i roto i te Tari Māori o Te Whare Wānanga o Waikato, i haere mātou ngā ākonga me tō mātou kaiwhakaako, me Hirini Melbourne, ki te kōrero ki ngā kaitito rongonui o te motu. I aua wā i hopukina ā rātou kōrero ki te mīhini. I roto i tēnei tuhinga kei te hoki ahau ki ā rātou kōrero i mau i a mātou. Ko ētahi o rātou kei te ora tonu, ko ētahi kua mate kē, kua haere ki tua o te ārai, ki te kāinga tūturu mō tātou katoa. Nō reira, e ngā whaea, nā koutou ahau i awhi, i mirimiri ki ō koutou ringa me ō koutou mōhiotanga ki tēnei taonga a tātou, ki te waiata-ā-ringa, moe mai rā i roto i ngā ringa o Hine-nui-te-pō.
Mai i aua wā i a au e ako ana i roto i te Tari Māori o Te Whare Wānanga o Waikato, i haere hoki ahau ki te pātai atu, ki te kōrero atu ki ētahi atu kaitito. Nā rātou ā rātou whakahoki ki aku pātai i tuhi ki runga i te pepa, ā, i mau hoki ki te rīpene. Nā, kua tae ki te wā me whakapuaki e ahau ōku māramatanga, mōhiotanga hoki ki ā rātou kōrero. Nō reira, e ngā mātua, he mihi kau anō tēnei ki a koutou i whai wā ki te whakahoki i ngā pātai, i ngā tono a tēnei tā koutou mōkai. Kua tukua e koutou tōku reo hei kawe i ō koutou whakaaro mō ā koutou mahi whakahirahira.
Kei te tuhi kōrero hoki ahau hei tautoko i tāku i whakapae, i whakahautia ēnei kaitito e ngā mahi waiata-ā-ringa i Te Tairāwhiti, e ngā tāngata o reira hoki, pērā i a Tā Apirana Ngata, i a Tuini Ngawai, i a wai, i a wai. Hei tautoko i tōku whakapae kua pātai atu ahau ki ēnei kaitito mō ō rātou whakaaro mō tōku whakapae, ā, kua tuhia ō rātou whakaaro.
Kei te whai hoki ahau i ōku whakaaro, mā tēnei taonga, mā te waiata-ā-ringa ka ako ai te tangata i tō tātou reo rangatira me ōna āhuatanga katoa.
Ki ahau nei kei reira, kei ngā waiata-ā-ringa e takoto ana ngā kōrero ātaahua o mua rā, arā, ngā whakataukī, ngā pepeha. Kei reira hoki e mahia ana te reo tūturu, te reo tawhito, tae noa ki te reo o nāianei. He ātaahua katoa ēnei reo, he akoranga hoki mā te tangata.
Ki te pātai mai te tangata, e hia te roa atu o tāku mahi rangahau i tēnei kaupapa, ka whakahoki au ki a ia, mai i te wā tuatahi ka mahi au i te waiata-ā-ringa, tae noa ki tēnei tau tonu, ā, e toru tekau ngā tau au e whakaaro ana, e mahi ana i te waiata-ā-ringa. Kātahi anō au ka whai wā ki te tuhi mō te waiata-ā-ringa.
Nā, hei kōrero whakamutunga, kei te titiro ahau kei whea e tū ana te waiata-ā-ringa i ēnei rā, ā, kei whea hoki e haere ana, ka whai hua anō, ā, ki whea?
Kia ora tātou mō tēnei wā.

text: Pupuritia ngā purapura i mahue mai rā: Te waiata-ā-ringa 1960 - 1990 I tēnei tuhinga kei te āta titiro ahau ki te waiata-ā-ringa. Kei te hoki ahau ki te tīmatanga, ā, kei te whai ahau i te tipuranga me te oranga o tēnei mea, o te waiata-ā-ringa. Hei āwhina i ahau, kei te titiro ahau ki ētahi o ngā waiata-ā-ringa kua titoa e ngā kaitito mai i te tau 1960 tae noa ki te tau 1990. Kei te whakamārama hoki ahau i te whānui o ngā rerengakētanga o ēnei waiata-ā-ringa. Ka titiro hoki ahau ki te mahi ā ringa āhua reka hoki o ēnei waiata-ā-ringa, arā te mahi ngahau, te mahi whakataetae, te mahi i ēnei waiata-ā-ringa hei kīnaki i ngā whaikōrero, hei kīnaki i ngā kōrero kua kōrerohia i ngā hui, hei taonga pupuri i ngā kōrero o te iwi whānui, mō te iwi whānui me ngā mahi kua mahia i te ao i aua tuangahurutoru o ngā tau.
I tōku tau tuawhā i roto i te Tari Māori o Te Whare Wānanga o Waikato, i haere mātou ngā ākonga me tō mātou kaiwhakaako, me Hirini Melbourne, ki te kōrero ki ngā kaitito rongonui o te motu. I aua wā i hopukina ā rātou kōrero ki te mīhini. I roto i tēnei tuhinga kei te hoki ahau ki ā rātou kōrero i mau i a mātou. Ko ētahi o rātou kei te ora tonu, ko ētahi kua mate kē, kua haere ki tua o te ārai, ki te kāinga tūturu mō tātou katoa. Nō reira, e ngā whaea, nā koutou ahau i awhi, i mirimiri ki ō koutou ringa me ō koutou mōhiotanga ki tēnei taonga a tātou, ki te waiata-ā-ringa, moe mai rā i roto i ngā ringa o Hine-nui-te-pō.
Mai i aua wā i a au e ako ana i roto i te Tari Māori o Te Whare Wānanga o Waikato, i haere hoki ahau ki te pātai atu, ki te kōrero atu ki ētahi atu kaitito. Nā rātou ā rātou whakahoki ki aku pātai i tuhi ki runga i te pepa, ā, i mau hoki ki te rīpene. Nā, kua tae ki te wā me whakapuaki e ahau ōku māramatanga, mōhiotanga hoki ki ā rātou kōrero. Nō reira, e ngā mātua, he mihi kau anō tēnei ki a koutou i whai wā ki te whakahoki i ngā pātai, i ngā tono a tēnei tā koutou mōkai. Kua tukua e koutou tōku reo hei kawe i ō koutou whakaaro mō ā koutou mahi whakahirahira.
Kei te tuhi kōrero hoki ahau hei tautoko i tāku i whakapae, i whakahautia ēnei kaitito e ngā mahi waiata-ā-ringa i Te Tairāwhiti, e ngā tāngata o reira hoki, pērā i a Tā Apirana Ngata, i a Tuini Ngawai, i a wai, i a wai. Hei tautoko i tōku whakapae kua pātai atu ahau ki ēnei kaitito mō ō rātou whakaaro mō tōku whakapae, ā, kua tuhia ō rātou whakaaro.
Kei te whai hoki ahau i ōku whakaaro, mā tēnei taonga, mā te waiata-ā-ringa ka ako ai te tangata i tō tātou reo rangatira me ōna āhuatanga katoa.
Ki ahau nei kei reira, kei ngā waiata-ā-ringa e takoto ana ngā kōrero ātaahua o mua rā, arā, ngā whakataukī, ngā pepeha. Kei reira hoki e mahia ana te reo tūturu, te reo tawhito, tae noa ki te reo o nāianei. He ātaahua katoa ēnei reo, he akoranga hoki mā te tangata.
Ki te pātai mai te tangata, e hia te roa atu o tāku mahi rangahau i tēnei kaupapa, ka whakahoki au ki a ia, mai i te wā tuatahi ka mahi au i te waiata-ā-ringa, tae noa ki tēnei tau tonu, ā, e toru tekau ngā tau au e whakaaro ana, e mahi ana i te waiata-ā-ringa. Kātahi anō au ka whai wā ki te tuhi mō te waiata-ā-ringa.
Nā, hei kōrero whakamutunga, kei te titiro ahau kei whea e tū ana te waiata-ā-ringa i ēnei rā, ā, kei whea hoki e haere ana, ka whai hua anō, ā, ki whea?
Kia ora tātou mō tēnei wā.

year: 1990