title: Decadal Changes in Soil Carbon and Nitrogen under a Range of Irrigation and Phosphorus Fertilizer Treatments

authors: Schipper, Louis A.

subjects: soil carbon

abstract: We determined decadal changes in soil carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) due to different irrigation regimes and phosphorus fertilization of pastures. Archived soil samples (0–75 mm) collected annually from two long-term trials in New Zealand were analyzed for %C and %N from three P input treatments (ranging from 0 to 376 kg superphosphate ha−1 yr−1, 1952–2009) and three irrigation treatments (unirrigated and irrigated when soil moisture content fell below either 10 or 20%, 1959–2002). In the fertilizer trial, soil C increased linearly from 2.7 to 4.2%, and there was no difference in rates of increase in C between treatments, despite much greater aboveground production when P was added. This lack of difference was attributed to higher stocking rates on treatments with higher production, and to the possibility that root inputs (which differed less between treatments) was a more important control of soil C accumulation. Nitrogen (%) was lower in the unfertilized than fertilized treatments due to lower clover N fixation, which was constrained by P availability. Soil C (%) was significantly greater in the unirrigated treatment than the irrigated treatments throughout the trial. Aboveground production was much greater in the irrigated than dryland treatment but root biomass was lower. Irrigation must have increased C and N losses, possibly via increased respiration rates during seasonally dry periods. Our study showed that P fertilizer application did not result in an increase in surface soil C and that flood irrigation resulted in a constrained increase in surface soil C content.

text: Decadal Changes in Soil Carbon and Nitrogen under a Range of Irrigation and Phosphorus Fertilizer Treatments We determined decadal changes in soil carbon (C) and nitrogen (N) due to different irrigation regimes and phosphorus fertilization of pastures. Archived soil samples (0–75 mm) collected annually from two long-term trials in New Zealand were analyzed for %C and %N from three P input treatments (ranging from 0 to 376 kg superphosphate ha−1 yr−1, 1952–2009) and three irrigation treatments (unirrigated and irrigated when soil moisture content fell below either 10 or 20%, 1959–2002). In the fertilizer trial, soil C increased linearly from 2.7 to 4.2%, and there was no difference in rates of increase in C between treatments, despite much greater aboveground production when P was added. This lack of difference was attributed to higher stocking rates on treatments with higher production, and to the possibility that root inputs (which differed less between treatments) was a more important control of soil C accumulation. Nitrogen (%) was lower in the unfertilized than fertilized treatments due to lower clover N fixation, which was constrained by P availability. Soil C (%) was significantly greater in the unirrigated treatment than the irrigated treatments throughout the trial. Aboveground production was much greater in the irrigated than dryland treatment but root biomass was lower. Irrigation must have increased C and N losses, possibly via increased respiration rates during seasonally dry periods. Our study showed that P fertilizer application did not result in an increase in surface soil C and that flood irrigation resulted in a constrained increase in surface soil C content.

year: 2012

title: This is simply what I do: Peirce's real generality meets Wittgenstein's rule-following?

authors: Legg, Catherine

subjects: philosophy

abstract: Wittgenstein’s discussion of rule-following is widely regarded to have identified what Kripke called “the most radical and original sceptical problem that philosophy has seen to date”. But does it? This paper examines the problem in the light of Charles Peirce’s distinctive scientific hierarchy. Peirce identifies a phenomenological inquiry which is prior to both logic and metaphysics, whose role is to identify the most fundamental philosophical categories. His third category, particularly salient in this context, pertains to general predication.

Rule-following scepticism, the paper suggests, results from running together two questions: “How is it that I can project rules?”, and, “What is it for a given usage of a rule to be right?”. In Peircean terms the former question, concerning the irreducibility of general predication (to singular reference), must be answered in phenomenology, while the latter, concerning the difference between true and false predication, is answered in logic. A failure to appreciate this distinction, it is argued, has led philosophers to focus exclusively on Wittgenstein’s famous public account of rule-following rightness, thus overlooking a private, phenomenological dimension to Wittgenstein’s remarks on following a rule which gives the lie to Kripke’s reading of him as a sceptic.

text: This is simply what I do: Peirce's real generality meets Wittgenstein's rule-following? Wittgenstein’s discussion of rule-following is widely regarded to have identified what Kripke called “the most radical and original sceptical problem that philosophy has seen to date”. But does it? This paper examines the problem in the light of Charles Peirce’s distinctive scientific hierarchy. Peirce identifies a phenomenological inquiry which is prior to both logic and metaphysics, whose role is to identify the most fundamental philosophical categories. His third category, particularly salient in this context, pertains to general predication.

Rule-following scepticism, the paper suggests, results from running together two questions: “How is it that I can project rules?”, and, “What is it for a given usage of a rule to be right?”. In Peircean terms the former question, concerning the irreducibility of general predication (to singular reference), must be answered in phenomenology, while the latter, concerning the difference between true and false predication, is answered in logic. A failure to appreciate this distinction, it is argued, has led philosophers to focus exclusively on Wittgenstein’s famous public account of rule-following rightness, thus overlooking a private, phenomenological dimension to Wittgenstein’s remarks on following a rule which gives the lie to Kripke’s reading of him as a sceptic.

year: 2003-01

title: Te whakaako i te reo Māori i te kura auraki tuarua i Aotearoa nei: Kei tua o te awe māpere. The teaching of te reo Māori in English-medium secondary schools in New Zealand: Beyond the mask.

authors: Nock, Sophie

subjects: language curricula

abstract: He taonga te reo Māori nō tuawhakarere, nō tuauriuri, whāioio, nā te atua i homai kia poipoia e te iwi Māori hei reo kōrero mō te hunga kaingākau, mō te hunga kāore anō kia whānau noa.  Ahakoa ia he toimaha tonu te hauora o te reo Māori, nā te mahi tūkino (a ētahi).  I roto i ngā tau whā tekau kua ara ake ngā momo rongoā hei whakahauora, hei whakatairanga i te reo Māori, nā, ko Te Kōhanga Reo tērā, ko te Kura Kaupapa Māori tērā, ko Te Wharekura tērā, aha atu, aha atu.  Ka mutu, i te tau 1987 i whakamanahia ai te reo Māori hei reo tūturu o tēnei whenua.  Ahakoa he aha e mea ana te Tāhūhū o te Mātauranga ehara i te mea me whai wāhi te reo Māori hei reo ako i roto i ngā kura tuarua puta noa i te motu.  Engari, ko te raruraru kua whai wāhi kē ētahi atu reo o te ao, kaua ko te reo Māori.  Kāti, i te tau 2009 i tatū ai Te Aho Arataki Marau mō te Ako i Te Reo Māori, ā, ki reira whai wāhi ai te reo Māori.  Nā, ko tā te kura tuarua mahi he tautoko mārika i te reo Māori, mā te whakaako i te reo Māori, e tika ana me pērā, nā te mea, ko te nuinga o ngā tamariki Māori e haere ana ki a ia ako ai.  Mōhio pai i whakapeto ngoi ngā kaiwhakaako reo Māori me te matatau anō o ētahi ki te reo hoki, engari, ki tā te pūrongo rangahau a Te Tari Arotake Mātauranga kīhai i tino eke panuku ngā mahi whakaako.  Ko ngā tino take, ko te whakangungu kaiwhakaako, ko te tautoko me te whakahaere a te kura hoki.

Nō reira, ko te whāinga matua o tēnei rangahau kia tirohia me pēhea e whakaako ai te reo Māori ki te kura tuarua, (kaua i ngā wharekura) i Aotearoa.  Mai i te rau tau tekau mā waru ka tātaria ētahi o ngā kōrero whanake e hāngai pū ana ki te whakaako me te ako i (t)ētahi atu reo, ko ia te wāhanga tuarua.  Whai muri mai i tērā (kei te wāhanga tuatoru) ko ngā patapatai me ngā uiuitanga, ā, ko tā te patapatai he kukume mai i ngā whakapono, i ngā whakaaro, i ngā waiaro o te hunga kaiwhakaako, ko tā te uiuitanga e whakatātūtū i te rētotanga o te kaupapa.  Ka mutu, i whārikihia ngā whakakitenga, ngā whakahoki kōrero ki taua wāhanga.  I te mutunga iho i whakapau kaha ngā kaiwhakaako ki te whakatutuki i ngā mahi, ahakoa ngā piki me ngā heke.  Kei ngā wāhanga e rua (4 & 5) ngā kōrero mō ngā tūmomo rauemi e whakamahia ana e ngā kaiwhakaako, arā, ko ngā momo pukapuka (4) me ngā tūmomo rauemi o te ipurangi nā Te Tāhūhū o te Mātauranga i whakarato (5).  E kī ana ngā whakaputanga, tuatahi, kīhai aua rauemi i tino whakaatu mai i ngā momo whanaketanga i roto i ngā tau whā tekau neke atu mō te whakaako i te reo tuarua, hou rānei, tuarua, kāhore hoki i tino hāngai pū ēnei rauemi ki te Marau mō te Ako i Te Reo Māori i te kura tuarua me te hāngai anō hoki ki te āhua o te whakaako i te reo mā te ‘Communicative Language Teaching’.  Hei whaiwhai ake i ngā rauemi i tātaria ētahi o ngā karaehe reo (te wāhanga 6) mā ngā wehewehetanga matua o te whakaako reo.  Mai i taua tātaritanga i kitea mai ētahi raruraru, tuatahi, kāhore ngā tauira/akonga i whai wāhi ki te kōrero (i roto tonu i te karaehe), tuarua, kāhore e taea te whakawhitiwhiti kōrero ki a rātou anō, tuatoru, kāhore rātou i te mahi tahi anō hoki.  Hei whakakapi ake i tēnei rangahau, kei te wāhanga whakamutunga (7) te whakakaokao mai o ngā whakakitenga katoa, me te whakatakoto o ngā tūtohutanga kia anga whakamua ai. 

It has been acknowledged that te reo Māori is a taonga and, as such, is subject to the protections guaranteed under the terms of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.  Since 1987, it has been an official language of Aotearoa.  Its future is, however, very far from secure and instructed language learning continues to play a significant part in the revitalisation agenda.  Even so, although schools are now required to offer a language other than the language of instruction to pupils in Years 7 to 10, and although over two thirds of Māori students currently attend schools in which English is the main language of instruction, schools are not required to include te reo Māori in their language offering.  In addition, although curriculum guidelines documents for a number of foreign languages have been available for many years, it was not until 2009 that the final version of a curriculum guidelines document for the teaching and learning of te reo Māori in English-medium schools became available.  Furthermore, while there clearly are some extremely competent teachers of the language, Education Review Office (ERO) reports indicate that all is not well so far as the teaching and learning of te reo Māori in English-medium secondary schools is concerned.  The problems identified relate not to teachers' proficiency in the language but to their limited pedagogical knowledge.  As ERO has indicated, this raises questions about the initial training of teachers of te reo Māori and the ways in which all schools manage and support them. 

The overall aim of the research reported here is to investigate the teaching of te reo Māori in English-medium secondary schools in Aotearoa.  Following a critical review of selected literature on developments in the teaching and learning of additional languages since the end of the 18th Century (Chapter 2), there is a report on a survey (involving questionnaire responses and semi-structured interviews) of a sample of teachers of te reo Māori in English-medium secondary schools.  That survey focuses on their educational and linguistic backgrounds and their attitudes and approaches to a range of issues associated with the teaching and learning of the language in school settings (Chapter 3).  Overall, the findings indicate that while these teachers are doing their best to provide a high quality educational experience for their students, they are doing so in the face of a number of significant barriers relating, in particular, to the limited nature of the pre-service training they have received, and the range of additional duties they are expected to perform.  In addition, the survey revealed some concerns about the impact of national assessment on teaching and learning and about the teaching materials and resources that are available.  The next two chapters report on the analysis of a sample of textbooks which are widely used in secondary schools (Chapter 4) and a sample of resources made available by the Ministry of Education (Chapter 5), the main findings being that these are, in the main, (a) inconsistent with both research-based developments in the teaching of additional languages and the expectations relating to communicative language teaching as outlined in the curriculum guidelines, and (b) that these resources do not align with the new curriculum.  The analysis of a sample of lessons taught in secondary schools follows (Chapter 6).  That analysis, conducted in relation to a number of focus points, reveals some significant problems, including the fact that the students were provided with few opportunities to contribute, to interact with one another, and to engage in genuinely communicative activities.  The final chapter (Chapter 7) provides an overview of the findings and includes some suggestions about a possible way forward.

text: Te whakaako i te reo Māori i te kura auraki tuarua i Aotearoa nei: Kei tua o te awe māpere. The teaching of te reo Māori in English-medium secondary schools in New Zealand: Beyond the mask. He taonga te reo Māori nō tuawhakarere, nō tuauriuri, whāioio, nā te atua i homai kia poipoia e te iwi Māori hei reo kōrero mō te hunga kaingākau, mō te hunga kāore anō kia whānau noa.  Ahakoa ia he toimaha tonu te hauora o te reo Māori, nā te mahi tūkino (a ētahi).  I roto i ngā tau whā tekau kua ara ake ngā momo rongoā hei whakahauora, hei whakatairanga i te reo Māori, nā, ko Te Kōhanga Reo tērā, ko te Kura Kaupapa Māori tērā, ko Te Wharekura tērā, aha atu, aha atu.  Ka mutu, i te tau 1987 i whakamanahia ai te reo Māori hei reo tūturu o tēnei whenua.  Ahakoa he aha e mea ana te Tāhūhū o te Mātauranga ehara i te mea me whai wāhi te reo Māori hei reo ako i roto i ngā kura tuarua puta noa i te motu.  Engari, ko te raruraru kua whai wāhi kē ētahi atu reo o te ao, kaua ko te reo Māori.  Kāti, i te tau 2009 i tatū ai Te Aho Arataki Marau mō te Ako i Te Reo Māori, ā, ki reira whai wāhi ai te reo Māori.  Nā, ko tā te kura tuarua mahi he tautoko mārika i te reo Māori, mā te whakaako i te reo Māori, e tika ana me pērā, nā te mea, ko te nuinga o ngā tamariki Māori e haere ana ki a ia ako ai.  Mōhio pai i whakapeto ngoi ngā kaiwhakaako reo Māori me te matatau anō o ētahi ki te reo hoki, engari, ki tā te pūrongo rangahau a Te Tari Arotake Mātauranga kīhai i tino eke panuku ngā mahi whakaako.  Ko ngā tino take, ko te whakangungu kaiwhakaako, ko te tautoko me te whakahaere a te kura hoki.

Nō reira, ko te whāinga matua o tēnei rangahau kia tirohia me pēhea e whakaako ai te reo Māori ki te kura tuarua, (kaua i ngā wharekura) i Aotearoa.  Mai i te rau tau tekau mā waru ka tātaria ētahi o ngā kōrero whanake e hāngai pū ana ki te whakaako me te ako i (t)ētahi atu reo, ko ia te wāhanga tuarua.  Whai muri mai i tērā (kei te wāhanga tuatoru) ko ngā patapatai me ngā uiuitanga, ā, ko tā te patapatai he kukume mai i ngā whakapono, i ngā whakaaro, i ngā waiaro o te hunga kaiwhakaako, ko tā te uiuitanga e whakatātūtū i te rētotanga o te kaupapa.  Ka mutu, i whārikihia ngā whakakitenga, ngā whakahoki kōrero ki taua wāhanga.  I te mutunga iho i whakapau kaha ngā kaiwhakaako ki te whakatutuki i ngā mahi, ahakoa ngā piki me ngā heke.  Kei ngā wāhanga e rua (4 & 5) ngā kōrero mō ngā tūmomo rauemi e whakamahia ana e ngā kaiwhakaako, arā, ko ngā momo pukapuka (4) me ngā tūmomo rauemi o te ipurangi nā Te Tāhūhū o te Mātauranga i whakarato (5).  E kī ana ngā whakaputanga, tuatahi, kīhai aua rauemi i tino whakaatu mai i ngā momo whanaketanga i roto i ngā tau whā tekau neke atu mō te whakaako i te reo tuarua, hou rānei, tuarua, kāhore hoki i tino hāngai pū ēnei rauemi ki te Marau mō te Ako i Te Reo Māori i te kura tuarua me te hāngai anō hoki ki te āhua o te whakaako i te reo mā te ‘Communicative Language Teaching’.  Hei whaiwhai ake i ngā rauemi i tātaria ētahi o ngā karaehe reo (te wāhanga 6) mā ngā wehewehetanga matua o te whakaako reo.  Mai i taua tātaritanga i kitea mai ētahi raruraru, tuatahi, kāhore ngā tauira/akonga i whai wāhi ki te kōrero (i roto tonu i te karaehe), tuarua, kāhore e taea te whakawhitiwhiti kōrero ki a rātou anō, tuatoru, kāhore rātou i te mahi tahi anō hoki.  Hei whakakapi ake i tēnei rangahau, kei te wāhanga whakamutunga (7) te whakakaokao mai o ngā whakakitenga katoa, me te whakatakoto o ngā tūtohutanga kia anga whakamua ai. 

It has been acknowledged that te reo Māori is a taonga and, as such, is subject to the protections guaranteed under the terms of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.  Since 1987, it has been an official language of Aotearoa.  Its future is, however, very far from secure and instructed language learning continues to play a significant part in the revitalisation agenda.  Even so, although schools are now required to offer a language other than the language of instruction to pupils in Years 7 to 10, and although over two thirds of Māori students currently attend schools in which English is the main language of instruction, schools are not required to include te reo Māori in their language offering.  In addition, although curriculum guidelines documents for a number of foreign languages have been available for many years, it was not until 2009 that the final version of a curriculum guidelines document for the teaching and learning of te reo Māori in English-medium schools became available.  Furthermore, while there clearly are some extremely competent teachers of the language, Education Review Office (ERO) reports indicate that all is not well so far as the teaching and learning of te reo Māori in English-medium secondary schools is concerned.  The problems identified relate not to teachers' proficiency in the language but to their limited pedagogical knowledge.  As ERO has indicated, this raises questions about the initial training of teachers of te reo Māori and the ways in which all schools manage and support them. 

The overall aim of the research reported here is to investigate the teaching of te reo Māori in English-medium secondary schools in Aotearoa.  Following a critical review of selected literature on developments in the teaching and learning of additional languages since the end of the 18th Century (Chapter 2), there is a report on a survey (involving questionnaire responses and semi-structured interviews) of a sample of teachers of te reo Māori in English-medium secondary schools.  That survey focuses on their educational and linguistic backgrounds and their attitudes and approaches to a range of issues associated with the teaching and learning of the language in school settings (Chapter 3).  Overall, the findings indicate that while these teachers are doing their best to provide a high quality educational experience for their students, they are doing so in the face of a number of significant barriers relating, in particular, to the limited nature of the pre-service training they have received, and the range of additional duties they are expected to perform.  In addition, the survey revealed some concerns about the impact of national assessment on teaching and learning and about the teaching materials and resources that are available.  The next two chapters report on the analysis of a sample of textbooks which are widely used in secondary schools (Chapter 4) and a sample of resources made available by the Ministry of Education (Chapter 5), the main findings being that these are, in the main, (a) inconsistent with both research-based developments in the teaching of additional languages and the expectations relating to communicative language teaching as outlined in the curriculum guidelines, and (b) that these resources do not align with the new curriculum.  The analysis of a sample of lessons taught in secondary schools follows (Chapter 6).  That analysis, conducted in relation to a number of focus points, reveals some significant problems, including the fact that the students were provided with few opportunities to contribute, to interact with one another, and to engage in genuinely communicative activities.  The final chapter (Chapter 7) provides an overview of the findings and includes some suggestions about a possible way forward.

year: 2014