title: Lake-ice conveyor deposits: Geomorphology, sedimentology, and importance in reconstructing the glacial history of the Dry Valleys

authors: Hall, Brenda L.

subjects: Lake-ice conveyor

abstract: During the last glacial maximum (LGM), lake-ice conveyors transported glacial debris across the surface of large proglacial lakes in the Dry Valleys region of Antarctica. The resulting sediments and landform assemblages are keys to interpreting the glacial history of the Dry Valleys and, potentially, other areas of Antarctica. Paleoconveyor deposits occur in Taylor, Miers, Wright, and Victoria Valleys, as well as in many other parts of the region. Sediments typically consist of stratified to massive sand and/or silt grading upward into poorly sorted gravel, cobbles, and boulders. These sediments make up a variety of landforms, including mounds and moat line, cross-valley, and longitudinal ridges. The classic landform assemblage also displays an associated moraine bank, as well as deltas and shorelines.

text: Lake-ice conveyor deposits: Geomorphology, sedimentology, and importance in reconstructing the glacial history of the Dry Valleys During the last glacial maximum (LGM), lake-ice conveyors transported glacial debris across the surface of large proglacial lakes in the Dry Valleys region of Antarctica. The resulting sediments and landform assemblages are keys to interpreting the glacial history of the Dry Valleys and, potentially, other areas of Antarctica. Paleoconveyor deposits occur in Taylor, Miers, Wright, and Victoria Valleys, as well as in many other parts of the region. Sediments typically consist of stratified to massive sand and/or silt grading upward into poorly sorted gravel, cobbles, and boulders. These sediments make up a variety of landforms, including mounds and moat line, cross-valley, and longitudinal ridges. The classic landform assemblage also displays an associated moraine bank, as well as deltas and shorelines.

year: 2006

title: An evaluation of teacher implemented Trial Based Functional Analysis and Function Based Interventions in a mainstream classroom

authors: Anderson, Kelsey Teresa

abstract: Despite the documented accuracy of using Functional Analysis (FA) to design effective interventions, it is not being utilised in school settings for students with challenging and highly disruptive behaviours (Shumate & Wills, 2010). This may be due to the time constraints and complexities associated with standard FA procedures, making them difficult to complete in classrooms and requiring specialised staff. Many variations to the standard FA have been adapted to address these issues, including Trial-Based Functional Analysis (i.e., TBFA). The method uses short (1-4 min) assessment probes within typical classroom instruction to measure occurrences of behaviour under different conditions (e.g. Attention, Demand, Tangible and Ignore). Research on TBFA has shown its reliability to identify functions (Bloom et al., 2011), making it a viable option for classroom settings. Furthermore, research on TBFA methodology has been able to show behavioural skills training methods can upskill teachers to carry out TBFA and Function Based Interventions (FBI) procedures with high fidelity, particularly with students who present with disabilities (Flynn & Ya-Yu Lo., 2016). 
There are, however, some areas requiring further research including generalisation of procedures to new students and using social validity measures to understand teacher’s perceptions and acceptance of the procedures. There is also limited use of procedures with students who are typically developing but engage in highly disruptive or challenging behaviours in mainstream classrooms. This study aimed to expand current research and address the limitations by analysing teacher implemented TBFA and FBI procedures on disruptive or challenging behaviours with typical developing students in mainstream classrooms. Two teachers participated in behavioural skills training on TBFA and FBI methodology and implemented the procedures across three typical developing students who presented with off-task disruptive behaviours. The results showed teachers had the ability to carry out the TBFA and FBI procedures with high level of integrity. In addition, one of the teachers could implement procedures with a high level of fidelity during generalisation measures. Results showed a reduction in disruptive off-task behaviour across all students, indicating the FBI’s were effective in addressing function. Finally, social validity measures indicated teachers found the procedures easy to implement and felt they had a positive impact on student behaviours.

text: An evaluation of teacher implemented Trial Based Functional Analysis and Function Based Interventions in a mainstream classroom Despite the documented accuracy of using Functional Analysis (FA) to design effective interventions, it is not being utilised in school settings for students with challenging and highly disruptive behaviours (Shumate & Wills, 2010). This may be due to the time constraints and complexities associated with standard FA procedures, making them difficult to complete in classrooms and requiring specialised staff. Many variations to the standard FA have been adapted to address these issues, including Trial-Based Functional Analysis (i.e., TBFA). The method uses short (1-4 min) assessment probes within typical classroom instruction to measure occurrences of behaviour under different conditions (e.g. Attention, Demand, Tangible and Ignore). Research on TBFA has shown its reliability to identify functions (Bloom et al., 2011), making it a viable option for classroom settings. Furthermore, research on TBFA methodology has been able to show behavioural skills training methods can upskill teachers to carry out TBFA and Function Based Interventions (FBI) procedures with high fidelity, particularly with students who present with disabilities (Flynn & Ya-Yu Lo., 2016). 
There are, however, some areas requiring further research including generalisation of procedures to new students and using social validity measures to understand teacher’s perceptions and acceptance of the procedures. There is also limited use of procedures with students who are typically developing but engage in highly disruptive or challenging behaviours in mainstream classrooms. This study aimed to expand current research and address the limitations by analysing teacher implemented TBFA and FBI procedures on disruptive or challenging behaviours with typical developing students in mainstream classrooms. Two teachers participated in behavioural skills training on TBFA and FBI methodology and implemented the procedures across three typical developing students who presented with off-task disruptive behaviours. The results showed teachers had the ability to carry out the TBFA and FBI procedures with high level of integrity. In addition, one of the teachers could implement procedures with a high level of fidelity during generalisation measures. Results showed a reduction in disruptive off-task behaviour across all students, indicating the FBI’s were effective in addressing function. Finally, social validity measures indicated teachers found the procedures easy to implement and felt they had a positive impact on student behaviours.

year: 2017

title: Maori and mining at Te Aroha

authors: Hart, Philip

abstract: Before the existence of gold was confirmed at Te Aroha, the Ngati Rahiri reserves were finally delineated. For long there had been rumours of gold, but prospecting was not permitted until 1880. Once Hone Werahiko found what might be a payable goldfield on Maori land, one could not be proclaimed until an agreement was reached with the landowners. To prevent confusion, and to be fair to Ngati Rahiri, it was decided to create a separate mining district. 
Members of Ngati Rahiri were divided over the terms of an agreement, with some (possibly prompted by Pakeha) demanding a bonus of £1,000. Rangatira who had received income from the Thames field ignored this demand and agreed to open their land in the expectation of receiving a steady supply of money from mining plus timber cutting rights and residence and business site licenses. Mokena Hou was especially supportive of prospecting and opening his land, and had a township, known as Morgantown, surveyed (his daughter Ema, wife of George Lipsey, owned the adjacent Lipseytown). The agreement specified all the fees to be paid, and permitted Maori to withdraw their land from the goldfield.
Right up to opening day, demands were made for a bonus, but the opening went smoothly, with Mokena and another rangatira participating in the ceremony and many Maori marking out claims. Maori from many hapu were shareholders in all parts of the goldfield, and some actively worked their claims, usually guided by an experienced Pakeha miner. Encouraged by the Te Aroha rush, some Maori prospected elsewhere.
Revenue from the new field soon declined as it faded, prompting complaints and officials requiring all those working on Maori land to hold a miner’s right. Although most Ngati Rahiri did not benefit, the Mokena family most certainly did, and treated the revenue they received as their own personal income.

text: Maori and mining at Te Aroha Before the existence of gold was confirmed at Te Aroha, the Ngati Rahiri reserves were finally delineated. For long there had been rumours of gold, but prospecting was not permitted until 1880. Once Hone Werahiko found what might be a payable goldfield on Maori land, one could not be proclaimed until an agreement was reached with the landowners. To prevent confusion, and to be fair to Ngati Rahiri, it was decided to create a separate mining district. 
Members of Ngati Rahiri were divided over the terms of an agreement, with some (possibly prompted by Pakeha) demanding a bonus of £1,000. Rangatira who had received income from the Thames field ignored this demand and agreed to open their land in the expectation of receiving a steady supply of money from mining plus timber cutting rights and residence and business site licenses. Mokena Hou was especially supportive of prospecting and opening his land, and had a township, known as Morgantown, surveyed (his daughter Ema, wife of George Lipsey, owned the adjacent Lipseytown). The agreement specified all the fees to be paid, and permitted Maori to withdraw their land from the goldfield.
Right up to opening day, demands were made for a bonus, but the opening went smoothly, with Mokena and another rangatira participating in the ceremony and many Maori marking out claims. Maori from many hapu were shareholders in all parts of the goldfield, and some actively worked their claims, usually guided by an experienced Pakeha miner. Encouraged by the Te Aroha rush, some Maori prospected elsewhere.
Revenue from the new field soon declined as it faded, prompting complaints and officials requiring all those working on Maori land to hold a miner’s right. Although most Ngati Rahiri did not benefit, the Mokena family most certainly did, and treated the revenue they received as their own personal income.

year: 2016