title: Accelerating success and promoting equity through the ako (note 1): Critical contexts for change

authors: Berryman, Mere

abstract: Achieving equity and excellence for all young people remains the major challenge of education systems across the world. This paper contends that equity and excellence for students currently underserved by our system needs transformative school reform. In response, we outline the ako: critical contexts for change. This model has been applied across five dimensions for transformative reform within Kia Eke Panuku (Note 2). This paper focuses on how this model can be understood and applied alongside curriculum implementation. We draw evidence from wider research of the impact on improving student achievement when individual aspects of the ako: critical contexts for change have been applied. We have found that when all three contexts are applied simultaneously and spread throughout the school, pedagogical reform can be accelerated, even for those students most underserved.

text: Accelerating success and promoting equity through the ako (note 1): Critical contexts for change Achieving equity and excellence for all young people remains the major challenge of education systems across the world. This paper contends that equity and excellence for students currently underserved by our system needs transformative school reform. In response, we outline the ako: critical contexts for change. This model has been applied across five dimensions for transformative reform within Kia Eke Panuku (Note 2). This paper focuses on how this model can be understood and applied alongside curriculum implementation. We draw evidence from wider research of the impact on improving student achievement when individual aspects of the ako: critical contexts for change have been applied. We have found that when all three contexts are applied simultaneously and spread throughout the school, pedagogical reform can be accelerated, even for those students most underserved.

year: 2017

title: Maori internal and international migration at the turn of the century: An Australasian perspective

authors: Bedford, Richard

abstract: At the beginning of the twenty-first century there were two major national clusters of Maori: New Zealand, the ancestral home for Maori, and Australia, home to a much smaller Maori population from the early years of the nineteenth century. In the 2001 censuses of New Zealand and Australia, the usually resident Maori populations were, respectively, 526,281 (ethnic group classification) and 72,956 (ancestry classification). In this paper we examine four dimensions of Maori population movement between 1996 and 2001 using the census data from New Zealand and Australia: 1) internal migration between rural and urban areas in New Zealand; 2) internal migration between rural and urban areas in Australia; 3) migration into New Zealand of Maori resident overseas in 1996; 4) migration into Australia of Maori resident overseas in 1996. There has never been a comprehensive assessment of Maori migration in an Australasian context before, but in the light of developments in population exchanges between New Zealand and Australia this sort of analysis is critical if one wishes to understand contemporary Maori population dynamics.

text: Maori internal and international migration at the turn of the century: An Australasian perspective At the beginning of the twenty-first century there were two major national clusters of Maori: New Zealand, the ancestral home for Maori, and Australia, home to a much smaller Maori population from the early years of the nineteenth century. In the 2001 censuses of New Zealand and Australia, the usually resident Maori populations were, respectively, 526,281 (ethnic group classification) and 72,956 (ancestry classification). In this paper we examine four dimensions of Maori population movement between 1996 and 2001 using the census data from New Zealand and Australia: 1) internal migration between rural and urban areas in New Zealand; 2) internal migration between rural and urban areas in Australia; 3) migration into New Zealand of Maori resident overseas in 1996; 4) migration into Australia of Maori resident overseas in 1996. There has never been a comprehensive assessment of Maori migration in an Australasian context before, but in the light of developments in population exchanges between New Zealand and Australia this sort of analysis is critical if one wishes to understand contemporary Maori population dynamics.

year: 2004

title: An Analysis of the Impact of Reinforcement on Response Variability on Multiple Behavioural Dimensions

authors: Kong, Xiuyan

subjects: Reinforcing behavioural variability

abstract: A series of four experiments were carried out to examine whether increases in variability in responding on some dimensions of a behaviour as a result of reinforcement generalised to other dimensions of the same behaviour. In Experiment 1, adult participants drew 300 rectangles on a computer screens; variability in the Area, Shape and Location dimensions of the rectangles drawn was measured. One group of participants received reinforcement when they drew rectangles varying on all three dimensions (VAR) using a threshold contingency to determine reinforcement while another group received reinforcement regardless whether they varied on any of the dimensions of the rectangles drawn (YOKE). Results showed that the variability of each dimension, as measured by the U-value, was higher for the VAR group than for the YOKE group. In Experiment 2, three groups of adult participants received reinforcement when they varied on two of the three dimensions of the rectangles drawn. Results showed that reinforcing variability in the Shape and Location dimensions and in the Area and Location dimensions resulted in higher variability in these dimensions compared to the dimension where variability was not directly reinforced, as measured by U-values. However, for the group who received reinforcement when varying in the Area and Shape dimensions, the variability across the three dimensions did not differ. Generalisation of reinforced variability was examined by comparing the variability in dimensions that were not subject to reinforcement for varying from Experiment 1 and Experiment 2. For the Shape and Location dimensions, results showed that the variability was higher when the two dimensions occurred with other dimensions that were subject for reinforcement for varying compared to when they occurred with other dimensions that were not required to vary. However, no significant difference was found for the Area dimension. Therefore, there appeared to be generalisation of reinforced variability for only two of these three groups of participants, suggesting the dimensions were not orthogonal. The non-orthogonality of the three dimensions of the rectangles was suggested as a possible confounding variable so that it not be concluded that generalisation of reinforced variability across dimensions had been obtained. Experiment 3 used a task with more independent dimensions (Shape, Colour and Pattern) to control for the non-orthogonality issue found in Experiment 2. Adult participants created objects by selecting elements from three dimensions on the computer screen. One group of participants received reinforcement when they varied on the use of elements on all three dimensions using a threshold contingency while the other group received reinforcement independent of the elements chosen. Results showed that the variability in using the elements for all three dimensions was similar between the two groups; whether the group received reinforcement when the dimensions varied did not make a difference. Inspection of the elements selected on each trial revealed that participants from both groups, in general, responded in stereotypic patterns; however, the stereotypy in the responses was not picked up by the measure of U-value. In Experiment 4, a new task asking participants to colour t-shirts on the computer screen was created to examine the effect of reinforcement on the variability in colours used. Adult and adolescent participants were instructed to colour t-shirts on the computer screen in three phases. In Phase 1, no feedback was provided; in Phase 2, positive feedback was provided when participants used a colour they had not used before (including those used in Phase 1); and in Phase 3, no feedback was provided. Results showed that, after reinforcement for using novel colours, participants who used only a small number of colours initially used more colours; however, the increase was not found for participants who initially used a moderate or high number of colours. U-value as the measure of variability was examined by using two sets of simulated data. It was found that highly stereotypic response patterns can result in extremely high U-values. Also, the number of options/categories used affects the values of U, which makes comparisons between groups difficult. Overall, results from these experiments support the notion that the level of variability in responses can be controlled by reinforcement. It is possible that learned variability can generalise over unreinforced dimensions. However, the examination of generalisation of reinforced variability across dimensions is not conclusive when the dimensions are interdependent. The results and simulation showed that U-value as a measure of variability needs to be used with caution because it does not capture potential stereotypy in responses and the values of U can be ambiguous.

text: An Analysis of the Impact of Reinforcement on Response Variability on Multiple Behavioural Dimensions A series of four experiments were carried out to examine whether increases in variability in responding on some dimensions of a behaviour as a result of reinforcement generalised to other dimensions of the same behaviour. In Experiment 1, adult participants drew 300 rectangles on a computer screens; variability in the Area, Shape and Location dimensions of the rectangles drawn was measured. One group of participants received reinforcement when they drew rectangles varying on all three dimensions (VAR) using a threshold contingency to determine reinforcement while another group received reinforcement regardless whether they varied on any of the dimensions of the rectangles drawn (YOKE). Results showed that the variability of each dimension, as measured by the U-value, was higher for the VAR group than for the YOKE group. In Experiment 2, three groups of adult participants received reinforcement when they varied on two of the three dimensions of the rectangles drawn. Results showed that reinforcing variability in the Shape and Location dimensions and in the Area and Location dimensions resulted in higher variability in these dimensions compared to the dimension where variability was not directly reinforced, as measured by U-values. However, for the group who received reinforcement when varying in the Area and Shape dimensions, the variability across the three dimensions did not differ. Generalisation of reinforced variability was examined by comparing the variability in dimensions that were not subject to reinforcement for varying from Experiment 1 and Experiment 2. For the Shape and Location dimensions, results showed that the variability was higher when the two dimensions occurred with other dimensions that were subject for reinforcement for varying compared to when they occurred with other dimensions that were not required to vary. However, no significant difference was found for the Area dimension. Therefore, there appeared to be generalisation of reinforced variability for only two of these three groups of participants, suggesting the dimensions were not orthogonal. The non-orthogonality of the three dimensions of the rectangles was suggested as a possible confounding variable so that it not be concluded that generalisation of reinforced variability across dimensions had been obtained. Experiment 3 used a task with more independent dimensions (Shape, Colour and Pattern) to control for the non-orthogonality issue found in Experiment 2. Adult participants created objects by selecting elements from three dimensions on the computer screen. One group of participants received reinforcement when they varied on the use of elements on all three dimensions using a threshold contingency while the other group received reinforcement independent of the elements chosen. Results showed that the variability in using the elements for all three dimensions was similar between the two groups; whether the group received reinforcement when the dimensions varied did not make a difference. Inspection of the elements selected on each trial revealed that participants from both groups, in general, responded in stereotypic patterns; however, the stereotypy in the responses was not picked up by the measure of U-value. In Experiment 4, a new task asking participants to colour t-shirts on the computer screen was created to examine the effect of reinforcement on the variability in colours used. Adult and adolescent participants were instructed to colour t-shirts on the computer screen in three phases. In Phase 1, no feedback was provided; in Phase 2, positive feedback was provided when participants used a colour they had not used before (including those used in Phase 1); and in Phase 3, no feedback was provided. Results showed that, after reinforcement for using novel colours, participants who used only a small number of colours initially used more colours; however, the increase was not found for participants who initially used a moderate or high number of colours. U-value as the measure of variability was examined by using two sets of simulated data. It was found that highly stereotypic response patterns can result in extremely high U-values. Also, the number of options/categories used affects the values of U, which makes comparisons between groups difficult. Overall, results from these experiments support the notion that the level of variability in responses can be controlled by reinforcement. It is possible that learned variability can generalise over unreinforced dimensions. However, the examination of generalisation of reinforced variability across dimensions is not conclusive when the dimensions are interdependent. The results and simulation showed that U-value as a measure of variability needs to be used with caution because it does not capture potential stereotypy in responses and the values of U can be ambiguous.

year: 2016