Microsoft Word - conts25-2.doc Australasian Journal of Educational Technology Volume 25, Number 2, 2009 ISSN 1449-5554 (online) Contents Editorial 25(2): Announcing AJET's new Editorial Board ................................. iii-vi The wiki way of learning ............................................................................ 135-152 Alison Ruth and Luke Houghton A review of research methodologies used in studies on mobile handheld devices in K-12 and higher education settings .............................................. 153-183 Wing Sum Cheung and Khe Foon Hew How pacing of multimedia instructions can influence modality effects: A case of superiority of visual texts ............................................................. 184-203 Klaus D. Stiller, Annika Freitag, Peter Zinnbauer and Christian Freitag Using game making pedagogy to facilitate student learning of interactive multimedia .............................................................................. 204-220 Gary Cheng Stepping through the orientation looking glass: A staged approach for postgraduate students ............................................................................ 221-234 Helen Wozniak, Mary Jane Mahony, Tim Lever and Jenny Pizzica A strategic assessment of audience response systems used in higher education ........................................................................................ 235-249 Robin H. Kay and Ann LeSage Advancing the m-learning research agenda for active, experiential learning: Four case studies ........................................................................... 250-267 Laurel Evelyn Dyson, Andrew Litchfield, Elaine Lawrence, Ryszard Raban and Peter Leijdekkers Improving critical thinking using web based argument mapping exercises with automated feedback ............................................................. 268-291 Sam Butchart, Daniella Forster, Ian Gold, John Bigelow, Kevin Korb, Graham Oppy and Alexandra Serrenti The potential for adaptable accessible learning objects: A case study in accessible vodcasting ........................................................... 292-307 Stavroula Gkatzidou and Elaine Pearson The Australasian Journal of Educational Technology (AJET) is a refereed research journal published 5-6 times per year by the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ascilite). AJET retired its printed version (ISSN 1449-3098) at the end of Volume 23, 2007, and from Volume 24, 2008, the journal is open access, online only (ISSN 1449-5554), and does not have paid subscriptions. i i Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2009, 25(2) © 2008 Authors retain copyright in their individual articles, whilst copyright in AJET as a compilation is retained by the publisher. Except for authors reproducing their own articles, no part of this journal may be reprinted or reproduced without permission. For further details, and for details on submission of manuscripts and open access to all issues of AJET published since the journal's foundation in 1985, please see http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ For editorial inquiries, contact the Editor, Associate Professor Catherine McLoughlin, School of Education (ACT), Australian Catholic University, PO Box 256, Dickson ACT 2602, Australia. Email: Catherine.McLoughlin@acu.edu.au, Tel: +61 2 6209 1100 Fax +61 2 6209 1185. For review process, production, website and business matters, contact the Production Editor, Dr Roger Atkinson, 5/202 Coode Street, Como WA 6152, Australia. Email: rjatkinson@bigpond.com, Tel: +61 8 9367 1133. Desktop publishing (PDF versions) and HTML by Roger Atkinson. AJET is managed by a Committee comprising ASCILITE Executive nominees, the convenors or nominees from previous ascilite Conferences, and AJET's previous editors and current senior editorial staff. The 2009 Management Committee members are: Professor Mike Keppell, Charles Sturt University, ASCILITE President Dr Philippa Gerbic, Auckland University of Technology, ASCILITE Executive Professor Geoffrey Crisp, University of Adelaide, ASCILITE 2003 Convenor Dr Rob Phillips, Murdoch University, ASCILITE 2004 Convenor Professor Peter Goodyear, University of Sydney, ASCILITE 2006 Convenor Dr Dale Holt, Deakin University, ASCILITE 2008 Convenor Professor Ron Oliver, Edith Cowan University, AJET Editor 1997-2001 Assoc Prof Catherine McLoughlin (Editor), Australian Catholic University Dr Roger Atkinson (Production Editor) AJET's Editorial Board (see http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/about/editorial- board.html) reflects the journal's commitment to academic excellence in educational technology and related areas of research and professional practice, our vision of an international journal with an Australasian regional emphasis, and our origins as a professional and learned society publication. Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education http://www.ascilite.org.au/ Same places, different spaces Auckland, 6-9 December 2009 http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland09/ Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2009, 25(2) iii Editorial 25(2) Announcing AJET's new Editorial Board In March 2009 the AJET Management Committee [1] agreed to proceed with t h e formation of a new Editorial Board, after considering an analysis of editorial board compositions and roles prepared by AJET's Editorial staff. We are now very pleased and proud to announce the inaugural Board, comprising the following members (see [2] for institutional affiliation and country details): Baharuddin Aris Helen Carter Chen Chwen Jen Cheung Wing Sum Gráinne Conole Geoffrey Crisp Iain Doherty Mark Freeman Peter Goodyear Cathy Gunn Barry Harper John G Hedberg Jan Herrington Tony Herrington Dale M Holt Gregor Kennedy Mike Keppell Colin Latchem Kar-Tin Lee Catherine McLoughlin Carmel McNaught John O'Donoghue Ron Oliver Meg O'Reilly Rob Phillips Quek Choon Lang Thomas C. Reeves Rod Sims Alan Smith Elizabeth Stacey Gail Wilson Allan H.K. Yuen After reviewing the Editorial Board details published for a number of journals including BJET, C&E, ALT-J, JCAL, JETS, JTaTE and others [3], the Management Committee agreed to form a conventional Board, by invitation, initially with 32 members. In choosing a list of invitees, Committee considered academic and research leadership and distinction; significant previous connections with AJET and ascilite Conferences in one or more of the roles of author, reviewer, Conference keynote or organiser; links with and representation of countries that are prominent in AJET's vision of an Australasian regional emphasis; the inclusion of persons from a range of educational technology topic areas, educational sectors and institutional roles; and a modern view of gender balance. We thank our invitees very warmly, and report a 100% acceptance rate. We envision the Board's primary role to be acting as an independent monitor of AJET's editorial standards, with particular reference to comparing AJET w i t h similar international journals. The principal method for providing feedback to AJET's editorial staff and the Management Committee will be responding to an annual open ended questionnaire, although other avenues may be used. Board members may also be members of AJET's Review Panel [4], for which the contribution per reviewer per year is usually in the range 1-3 articles, and we would like members of the Board to be general ambassadors for AJET within their spheres of influence. Editorial Board appointments are honorary, are made by AJET's Management Committee for a period of five years, and renewals may be offered. Auckland, 6-9 December 2009 http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland09/ iv Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2009, 25(2) Whilst we have been well aware of the benefits and advantages of an international Editorial Board for AJET, for example as noted in Editorial 23(4) in October 2007 [5], the most recent and blunt stimulus to proceed was due to the Australian Research Council's document Tiers for the Australian Ranking of Journals, dated 12 June 2008 [6]. In relation to editorial boards, the prescriptive excerpts from Tiers are: A* (top 5%) … the editorial board would be dominated by field leaders, including many from top institutions. A (next 15%) … an editorial board which includes a reasonable fraction of well known researchers from top institutions. B (next 30%) … editorial boards that have few leading researchers from top international institutions. [6] The Tiers document gives Australian based journals such as AJET (a Tier "A" ranked journal, [7]) a compelling incentive to move towards an editorial board dominated b y field leaders, including many from top institutions. However, the Australian Government's ARC, the proponents for Tiers for the Australian Ranking of Journals, i s not the only constituency to which AJET is linked, and obliged to respond to. The briefing paper for AJET's Management Committee recognised that there are other constituencies, or needs, or principles, to which AJET should respond, including some or all of those listed below, which are in addition to the ideals of academic and research excellence in educational technology and related fields [8]: 1. AJET is an international journal with an Australasian regional emphasis. How can AJET form a board which can help to address the under-representation of the non-Western, non-native English speaking countries, at least within the scope of our regional emphasis? 2. AJET's board should be a reasonable reflection of the range of educational technology topics, sectors of education, kinds of research methodologies and perspectives, etc, included in AJET's recent volumes. AJET seeks to present an emphasis upon research that applies or relates well to the day to day activities of front line academics, whether they be discipline based subject experts, or educational designers and other support persons in the team. The perspectives of these different persons within typical teams or groups need to be represented. 3. Journal review processes need to consider a career development perspective, from two directions. Firstly, AJET can follow the example provided by ascilite Conference review panels which provide specifically for the induction of novice reviewers, who will become the next generation of experienced reviewers. Secondly, AJET seeks to project a reputation for giving good formative advice that facilitates improvement and progress in an author's research career. 4. AJET and ascilite Conference proceedings have monitored and published data on gender balance, to help ensure that reviewer and author populations are a fair representation of the composition of the population of practitioners. The same attention to gender balance should be applied to an editorial board. 5. A journal's editorial board should receive an input from office bearers or other designated representatives of the society that publishes it. [8] Of course the weights assigned to each constituency or need may vary quite widely, and may be quite subjective or even idiosyncratic, but in giving this list we can show that we have at least tried to represent the purposes underlying our initiation of t h e new editorial board a little less superficially than the Tiers quotes given above. The Student Experience Charles Darwin University Darwin, 6-9 July 2009 http://conference.herdsa.org.au/2009/ Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2009, 25(2) v The point was expressed succinctly by Peter Goodyear in the email discussion [9]: I think it's sensible to be influenced by the ARC/ERA criteria for 'top journals', but I don't think one needs to be *driven* by them.…. As an editor of 15 years, I'd be tempted to say that the primary function of the editorial board is to work directly on the improvement of the journal and its profile…. I *would* expect them to be advocates for the journal, e.g. in persuading people presenting good stuff at conferences to write something up for the journal, developing ideas for special issues, etc…. So I think I'm saying - be driven by the (internal) needs of the journal rather than by the machinations of research assessment. [9] "In dreams begins responsibility": Choices, evidence, and change Manchester, UK, 8-10 September 2009 http://www.alt.ac.uk/altc2009/ AJET's review process: 2008 outcomes Table 1 shows progress since our last report on AJET's review process, dated 23 May 2008 and presented in Editorial 24(3) [10]. After a difficult period due to review and publishing commitments to ascilite Melbourne 2008 [11] and the reduced a v a i l a b i l i t y of reviewers during the traditional holidays period, we regret that we are a l i t t l e outside our desired benchmark of three months maximum for AJET's review process. Table 1: Article review outcomes AJET 2003-2009 Year of receipt No. rec'd No. rejected editorially (b) No. reject ext review (b) No. with- drawn (c) No. pending No. accept(d) No. publ- ished % accep- ted (e) 2003 6 1 3 4 1 4 0 0 1 3 2 4 21.3% 2004 9 7 5 1 1 3 2 0 3 1 2 1 32.0% 2005 9 1 4 7 9 5 0 3 0 3 0 33.0% 2006 1 0 0 5 9 9 3 0 2 9 2 8 29.0% 2007 1 1 9 6 7 1 4 4 0 3 4 3 0 28.6% 2008 1 2 7 7 1 2 0 1 0 3 5 4 2 27.6% 2009(a) 6 0 5 0 1 5 4 5(a) 5 - a. Data for 2009 in columns 2-8 is at 4 May 2009. The 5 acceptances to date are the Outstanding Paper Award recipients from ascilite Melbourne 2008 [12]. b. Some of the rejected articles may appear again as receivals in a subsequent year. The reasons for counting these instances as rejections are to enable a clearer cut off for each year's outcomes, and to align data collection with the editorial advice, used in a significant proportion of cases, 'Reject. Invite resubmission of a revised or expanded work for a new review process'. c. Withdrawn means withdrawn at the request of the authors. d. The number of articles accepted from a particular year's receivals does not correspond to the number published in each year, owing to time taken for review and revisions, and fluctuations in the speed of these processes. e. % accepted is calculated from column 2 (No. rec'd) and column 7 (No. accepted). Whilst it does not diminish our concern about sustaining the benchmark of three months maximum for AJET's review process, we do note occasional examples of longer times. Examples that we know about are "occasional", because in general journal editorial staff and authors seem to avoid discussion of the problem. Here is one example, written by Lisa Robins [13], noted recently in relation to a brief vi Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2009, 25(2) investigation (by Roger Atkinson) that touched upon "doctorate by publication" or "PhD by publication" in the context of "E-theses" [14]: The need to fast-track publishing of highly context-specific research findings is further emphasised by the lengthy publication timelines shown in Figure 1--which ranged from 199 to 469 days, and averaged 334 days, from submission to publication for the six research articles published at the time of writing this article. [13] The word "lengthy" is a polite and restrained understatement. An average of 334 days is not "fast track", it is more like "appallingly excessive"! Roger Atkinson and Catherine McLoughlin AJET Production Editor and AJET Editor Endnotes 1. AJET Management Committee. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/about/about.html#management 2. AJET Editorial Board. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/about/editorial-board.html 3. The selection of journals for analysis of editorial boards was based mainly upon SORTI (2007). Education journals listed alphabetically showing QScore and Area. http://www.newcastle.edu.au/centre/sorti/files/QScore_Nov_2007.pdf (Area 11, educational technology, computing and ICT). However, we also examined Higher Education Research and Development and Distance Education, these these journal representing "kindred societies" for ascilite. For acronyms and other references, see [7]. 4. AJET Review Panel. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/about/rev-panel-current.html 5. AJET Editorial 23(4). Idle Moment No. 23: Education journal banding study. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet23/editorial23-4.html 6. ARC (Australian Research Council) (2008). Tiers for the Australian Ranking of Journals. http://www.arc.gov.au/era/tiers_ranking.htm 7. AJET Editorial 24(4). Blood, sweat and four tiers revisited (Table 1, Notes c.). http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet24/editorial24-4.html. AJET's draft ranking June 2008 is Tier A. For subsequent developments, see http://www.arc.gov.au/media/releases/media_12June08.htm and http://www.arc.gov.au/era/finalising_ranking.htm 8. AJET. Towards an editorial board for AJET (confidential briefing file 'edit-bd-surv09-v2.doc' for the Management Committee, 15 March 2009). 9. Professor Peter Goodyear. Email to AJET Management Committee, 9 Mar 2009. 10. AJET Editorial 24(3). http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet24/editorial24-3.html 11. Hello! Where are you in the landscape of educational technology? Proceedings ascilite Melbourne 2008. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/procs/ 12. For details of the Outstanding Paper Awards made at ascilite Melbourne 2008, see AJET Editorial 25(1). http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet25/editorial25-1.html 13. Robins, L. M. & Kanowski, P. J. (2008). PhD by publication: A student's perspective. Journal of Research Practice, 4(2). http://www.jrp.icaap.org/index.php/jrp/article/view/136/154 14. Atkinson, R. J. (2009). E-theses: Will online change the thesis tradition? HERDSA News, 31(1). http://www.users.bigpond.net.au/atkinson-mcbeath/roger/pubs/herdsa-newslet31- 1.html Same places, different spaces Auckland, 6-9 December 2009 http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/auckland09/