Microsoft Word - conts24-2.doc
Australasian Journal of
Educational Technology
Volume 24, Number 2, 2008
ISSN 1449-5554 (online)
Contents
Editorial ........................................................................................................ i i i - x
Using blogging for higher order learning in large cohort university
teaching: A case study ................................................................................ 123-136
Brett Farmer, Audrey Yue and Claire Brooks
Quantifying the reuse of learning objects ...................................................... 137-142
Kristine Elliott and Kevin Sweeney
Promoting staff learning about assessment through digital representations
of practice: Evaluating a pilot project .......................................................... 143-149
Rosemary Thomson and Gail Wilson
Using “plasma TV” broadcasts in Ethiopian secondary schools:
A brief survey ............................................................................................. 150-167
Getnet Demissie Bitew
Effects of remoteness on the quality of education: A case study from
North Indian schools .................................................................................. 168-180
Sugata Mitra, Ritu Dangwal and Leher Thadani
Harnessing distributed musical expertise through edublogging ..................... 181-194
Eddy K. M. Chong
Is wiki an effective platform for group course work? ..................................... 195-210
Irina Elgort, Alastair G Smith and Janet Toland
Coherence or interest: Which is most important in online
multimedia learning? ................................................................................. 211-221
Derek A. Muller, Kester J. Lee and Manjula D. Sharma
Student and staff perceptions of the effectiveness of plagiarism
detection software ...................................................................................... 222-240
Doug Atkinson and Sue Yeoh
30 Nov - 3 Dec 2008 at Deakin University Burwood Campus, Melbourne
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/melbourne08/
i i Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2008, 24(2)
The Australasian Journal of Educational Technology (AJET) is a refereed research journal
published four 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.
© 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: C.McLoughlin@signadou.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 nominated by ASCILITE. The AJET Management Committee
comprises:
Dr Mike Keppell, Charles Sturt University, ASCILITE Exececutive
Ms Meg O'Reilly, Southern Cross University, ASCILITE Executive
Assoc Prof Geoffrey Crisp, Uni of Adelaide, ASCILITE 2003 Convenor
Dr Rob Phillips, Murdoch University, ASCILITE 2004 Convenor
Professor Peter Goodyear, University of Sydney, ASCILITE 2006 Convenor
Professor Ron Oliver, Edith Cowan University, AJET Editor 1997-2001
Assoc Prof Catherine McLoughlin (Editor), Australian Catholic University
Dr Roger Atkinson (Production Editor)
Australasian Society for Computers
in Learning in Tertiary Education
http://www.ascilite.org.au/
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2008, 24(2) iii
Editorial
Outstanding Paper Awards from ascilite Singapore 2007
Since the publication of AJET 16(1) in May 2000, we have commenced each volume
with a recognition of the Outstanding Paper Award recipients from the previous
December's ASCILITE Conference. This year we are very pleased to recognise three
Awards selected from the 126 full and concise papers accepted by the a s c i l i t e
Singapore 2007 Conference review process [1, 2, 3].
Brett Farmer, Audrey Yue and Claire Brooks from the University of Melbourne wrote
the full paper, Using blogging for higher order learning in large cohort university
teaching: A case study. Their investigation is comprehensive and in supporting t h e
educational value of well-designed uses of blogging, they provide evidence based
recommendations for good practice.
Quantifying the reuse of learning objects is by Kristine Elliott and Kevin Sweeney,
also from the University of Melbourne. A concise paper, it describes a systematic
procedure for comparing the reuse of learning objects with de novo development of
one's own, equivalent resources, finding in the example they studied, a substantial
time saving in favour of the reuse of LOs approach.
Rosemary Thomson and Gail Wilson, University of Western Sydney, wrote Promoting
staff learning about assessment through digital representations of p r a c t i c e :
Evaluating a pilot project, also a concise paper. Their Assessment Snapshots Project
provides a successful dissemination of "…knowledge and understanding of locally
contextualised good practice in assessment…". Gail is now Manager of Teaching and
Learning Services at Bond University and we congratulate her upon the new
appointment.
The Outstanding Paper Awards were nominated by reviewers [3], with a minor,
moderating role adopted by the Program Committee. At the Conference's closing [4],
session Chairperson Marissa Wettasinghe, in announcing the Awards, stated t h e
Committee's impression that the 2007 Award recipients shared a particular
distinction in the care the authors had taken to ensure that their research outcomes
included useful and practical guides for rank and file practitioners.
The appearance of the Outstanding Paper Awards in AJET's second issue for 2008,
instead of the first issue as has been the practice during 2000-2007, is due to an
unusual circumstance. Given the backlog of reviewed, accepted and revised articles
that developed in the second half of 2007, we filled AJET 24(1) before the end of
Ballina Beach Resort
Ballina NSW
5-9 April 2008
http://ausweb.scu.edu.au/
Refereed full papers due 28 January
iv Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2008, 24(2)
November 2007. However, even though deferred until the second issue, this year's
AJET publication of the ascilite Singapore 2007 Outstanding Paper Awards is earlier
than for previous years, which recorded first issue dates in the range 17 March (AJET
19, 2003) to 4 June (AJET 18, 2002).
Cadiz, Spain 25-27 June 2008. http://lams2008.lamsfoundation.org/
IM 25: Online preprints and open access for commercial journals
As alluded to above, AJET has set a record this year for earliness. Publishing 24(2) on
22 February gives our second issue for 2008 a publication date over three weeks earlier
in the year than any previous first issue date [5]. This indicates one of the more
immediate, though little publicised, benefits of print retirement: AJET has avoided
the spectre of an excessive backlog of accepted articles awaiting publication. In an
Idle Moment, the first since Editorial 23(4) [6], we investigated the adoption of
'online preprints' by some major commercial publishers also experiencing backlogs, or
appearing to, in their journal production queues. As the option to purchase 'open
access' status is now becoming quite common, we checked that out too. Tables 1 and 2
record some informative examples.
Table 1: Some examples of online preprints in commercial journals
Publisher Online preprintservice name Illustrative quotation
Taylor &
Francis
iFirst [7] …Taylor & Francis’ proprietary system for publishing journal
articles online almost immediately after author proofs have been
corrected … iFirst reduces the time from article submission to
publication – sometimes by several weeks… iFirst also eliminates
the problem of the backlog: accepted but unpublished papers.
Blackwell
Synergy
OnlineEarly [8] …a Blackwell Synergy service where fully corrected, fully web-
functional and complete articles are published online as and when
they are ready, prior to their ultimate inclusion in a print issue.
Springer Online First [9] The Online First service lets users access peer reviewed articles
well before print publication. These articles are searchable and
citeable… significantly reduce the time it takes for critical
discoveries to reach the research community.
Elsevier Articles in press
(no specific
name) [10]
…contains peer reviewed accepted articles to be published in this
journal. … although "Articles in Press" do not have all
bibliographic details available yet, they can already be cited using
the year of online availability and the DOI…
Table 1 contains only brief quotations, and therefore you may wish to read further
from the publishers' websites, in order to consider in more depth our key impressions.
Firstly, major publishers appear to be reluctant to use the most obvious description for
the practice under discussion here, namely 'online preprints'; obvious because t h e
context is 'preceding print publication'. Perhaps the reluctance is due to the major
publishers seeking to associate 'preprint' with a different activity, namely t h e
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2008, 24(2) v
concession now widely offered to authors, whereby they are allowed to provide 'non-
definitive', 'preprint' versions of their articles on publicly accessible websites, under
certain conditions. To illustrate briefly, using Elsevier as a typical example [11]:
…we do not consider that a preprint of an article … prior to its submission to Elsevier
for consideration amounts to prior publication, which would disqualify the work from
consideration for re-publication in a journal. We also do not require authors to remove
electronic preprints from publicly accessible servers … once an article has been
accepted for publication.
Our policy however is that the final published version of the article as it appears in the
journal will continue to be available only on an Elsevier site. [11]
Secondly, the publishers in Table 1 appear to be reluctant to address questions of t h e
kind: "Will you retire the print version if the reading of articles via (insert online
preprint service name) is found to greatly exceed reading of articles via the printed,
hardcopy version?" We could add, perhaps a little mischievously but pertinently,
"If so, will you pass on to subscribers the cost savings from print retirement?" We can
reiterate, in AJET's case the cost savings from print retirement were significant for
Ascilite, as outlined in Editorial 24(1) [12], though time saving is perhaps even more
significant, as illustrated splendidly by this year's record for AJET's 'earliness'.
In contrast to Table 1, the key impressions from Table 2 are reasonably clear without
undertaking a great deal of follow up reading from the website references. Firstly,
major publishers for the most part seem willing to test and develop new markets in
the sale of open access status for individual articles in journals, even inventing t h e i r
own product names, although in Table 2's set of examples Elsevier appears to be t h e
party pooper [13].
Table 2: Some examples of open access purchase in commercial journals
Publisher Open accessservice name Illustrative quotation
Taylor &
Francis
iOpenAccess
[14]
…all authors whose manuscripts are accepted for publication in
one of these iOpenAccess journals will have the option to make
their articles available to all via the Journal's website, and to post
to repositories, for a one-off fee of $3250.
Blackwell
Synergy
Online Open [15] Authors of accepted peer-reviewed articles may choose to pay a fee
in order for their published article to be made freely accessible to
all via our online journals platform… For 2007, the Online Open fee
is fixed at US$2600…
Springer Open Choice [16] …offers authors to have their journal articles made available with
full open access in exchange for payment of a basic fee ('article
processing charge')… The basic fee for Springer Open Choice is
$3,000 USD
Elsevier (no open access
option offered by
Elsevier) [17; see
also 11]
…[Elsevier] uses a traditional model of subscription fees … As well
as traditional print and online publishing of the article, the final,
pre-print version of the article is released to the author for his or
her distribution, usually online, free of charge. Elsevier has been
using the Open Access Green Route with its authors since June
2004.
…In other studies, authors have been polled to discover the amount
they are willing to pay… Most do not want to pay anything, but
those who are willing to pay limit their willingness to US$500. The
actual cost of publishing is US$3000-4000 per article.
CSIRO
Publishing
Open Access [18] …authors may choose to publish their papers as Open Access.
CSIRO PUBLISHING charges an Open Access Author Fee for this
service… Fees vary by journal. [generally US$2500]
vi Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2008, 24(2)
Secondly, in this small sample (though it encompasses some especially influential
publishers) there appears to be a relatively narrow range quoted for fees, or
estimated costs in the case of Elsevier, compared with the wider range found for
subscription charges. One can ask, quite legitimately, "Why is that so?", and
furthermore, as with Table 1, the examples in Table 2 suggest various other
interesting questions that the parties may be reluctant to address. To begin with, let's
suppose that purchase of open access becomes popular, maybe as a consequence of
government agencies seeking more 'bangs' (dissemination and publicity) for t h e i r
'research grant bucks'. Could a commercial publisher fill an entire issue of a
prestigious journal with articles for which open access has been purchased by t h e
authors (who thereby sacrificed a small proportion of their publicly funded research
budget)? Will the publisher then let subscribers have that issue of the journal for
free? To continue, authors may ask, 'Will I get good value for money from (insert
name of commercial publisher's open access service) compared with (insert name of a n
open access journal, e.g. AJET, having a fee of $0/€0/¥0, etc)?
Conference theme: Engaging Communities
http://conference.herdsa.org.au/2008/
Call for contributions closes 26 February
IM 26: Obituaries for the RQF
Will Australia's Research Quality Framework attract eloquent obituaries? Probably
not, if the DEST/DEEWR's website three-liner sets the standard:
The Australian Government announced on 21 December 2007 that it would not be
proceeding with the former Government’s Research Quality Framework (RQF) project.
In light of this decision material regarding the RQF has been removed from the website.[19]
Actually, the "removal" of RQF was not especially thorough. Another Idle Moment
search revealed that Your search for ' "research quality framework" ' returned 48
results [20], so the RQF documents are lurking in there, although the main URL we
have quoted in the past for RQF matters is now "broken" [21]. This is a matter on
which we have to declare a degree of ambivalence. On the one hand, small journals
such as AJET have a better chance to grow at a more reasonable and orderly pace,
because the pressure to publish only in the 'high impact factor' journals has been
lessened - see, for example, concerns stated in AJET Editorial 23(1) [22]. On the other
hand, researchers interested in the history of the RQF and forecasts about a
successor, if any, may have to resort to paper archives if the 'electronic' archives are
not preserved in an accessible way. It's likely to be a challenge for the archivists!
Like DEET and DETYA from earlier decades, DEST itself is now 'an archivable',
displaced by DEEWR. As announced under DEST and DEEWR website addresses [23]:
A new Government led by the Leader of the Australian Labor Party, the Hon Kevin
Rudd MP, was sworn in by the Governor-General on 3 December 2007.
The Government has announced the creation of a new Department of Education,
Employment and Workplace Relations.[23]
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2008, 24(2) vii
Australian Computers in Education Conference
ACEC '08
29 September - 2 October 2008
Canberra ACT 2600 Australia
http://acec2008.info/
IM 27: Some monitoring of citation frequencies
Idle Moment No. 26 revisits IM 12: Citation frequencies, a topic last discussed in
Editorial 22(2), dated June 2006 [24]. The purpose for Table 3 is to update our
monitoring of the extent to which authors of AJET papers and ASCILITE Conference
papers are citing references from AJET and ASCILITE Conferences, compared with a
small sample of other journals (any volume). Table 3's data suggests that we have no
reason to modify the general observations made in Editorial 22(2) [24]. In summary,
Table 3: Frequency of journal citations in AJET, 2004-2007, Vols 20-23,
and in ASCILITE 2004 and 2007 Proceedings
Journal or conference proceedingsPublication, year and
data type (no of citations,
% of all references)
AJET
[25]
ASC
Conf
HERDSA
Conf [27]
BJET
[28]
C&E
[29]
DE
[30]
E T
[31]
ETRD
[32]
JALN
[33]
JECR
[34]
cits 3 8 2 0 1 1 0 7 8 8 3 1 2 42007 (30 paps,
1030 refs) % 3.7 1.9 0.1 1.0 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.3 1.2 0.4
cits 2 3 1 9 2 7 6 4 8 1 8 2 32006 (29 paps,
1084 refs) % 2.1 1.8 0.2 0.6 0.6 0.4 0.7 1.7 0.2 0.3
cits 3 0 1 7 4 1 5 1 1 9 1 0 1 6 30[35] 52005 (30 paps,
1003 refs) % 3.0 1.7 0.4 1.5 1.1 0.9 1.0 1.6 3.0 0.5
cits 1 9 1 0 6 5 0 1 4 7 5 2
AJET
[25]
2004 (21 paps,
588 refs) % 3.2 1.7 1.0 0.9 0 0.2 0.7 1.2 0.9 0.3
cits 5 6 7 7 7 1 0 1 6 1 4 6 2 1 1 4 1 02007 (127 paps,
2705 refs) % 2.1 2.8 0.3 0.4 0.6 0.5 0.2 0.8 0.5 0.4
cits 4 8 8 4 1 7 5 - 1 2 1 0 1 8 9 6
ASC
Conf
Procs
[26]
2004 (119 paps,
2207 refs % 2.2 3.8 0.8 0.2 - 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.4 0.3
Notes: The number counted in column 2 excludes posters in the case of ASCILITE Conferences,
and excludes editorials in the case of AJET. The "cits" row records the number of times a
particular journal or proceedings was cited in AJET or ASCILITE Conference for the given year.
The "cits" count includes all citations without regard to year of publication. The "%" row is
calculated from "cits" and the corresponding number of references in column 2.
Keynote speaker
Carl Bernstein
Pulitzer Prize Winning
Author and Journalist
Keynote speaker
Marc Prensky
The Original "Digital
Natives" Author
19th International Conference on
College Teaching and Learning
14-18 April 2008
Jacksonville, Florida
Submission deadline
30 November 2007
http://www.teachlearn.org/
viii Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2008, 24(2)
whilst AJET and ASCILITE Proceedings articles continue to 'outcite' others, for t h e
reasons outlined earlier, the two provide only a relatively small share of the t o t a l
number of citations in AJET and ASCILITE Proceedings articles. Citations continue to
be drawn from a wide and diverse range of sources, although in many individual
cases authors may be drawing upon selections from the educational research
literature that may be relatively narrow and less than systematic than is desirable.
Also, we can say that AJET and ASCILITE Conferences are not 'naughty' w i t h
excessive 'self citation', as defined by Thomson Scientific, owners of the Impact
Factor [36].
ALT-C 2008: Rethinking the Digital Divide
Leeds, UK, 9-11 September 2008
http://www.alt.ac.uk/altc2008/
IM 28: Abstracted & Indexed In…
Many websites for educational research journals provide a list of the publications or
'database products' in which they are 'Abstracted & Indexed' [37]. The purpose is to
inform prospective authors that the journal provides an impressive array of
literature searching tools for readers to find the author's paper. The bigger t h e
'Abstracted & Indexed' list, the better your chances for being read and getting cited.
Naturally, editors of journals are keen to expand their journal's 'Abstracted &
Indexed' list, and we would expect that the publishers of 'Abstracting and Indexing'
services would be keen to expand their coverage of journals. However, whilst t h e
latter will use phrases such as (for example) "…comprehensive coverage of t h e
world's most important and influential journals" [38] in their marketing, there is a
problem in agreeing upon the identities of the "most important and influential". An
illustrative example was given in Editorial 23(3), "IM 21: More on databases" [39].
As there is quite a number of 'Abstracting and Indexing' services to deal with, we
have found that a simple classification and check list is useful (Table 4).
Table 4: A simple classification of abstracting and indexing services
Type Examples Some key features Openaccess
Automation of
data collection
1 Google [40] Internet search engine. No licensing, no pay per view
applied to 'found' items, no formal agreements, no
sales to libraries. Easy and quick to 'deal with'.
Yes Very highly
automated
2 ERIC [41] Formal licensing, no pay per view applied to 'found'
items, relatively simple formal agreements, no sales to
libraries. Needs a long time to 'deal with'.
Yes Little
automation
3 Scopus [42],
CC [43], ERA
[44]
No licensing, no pay per view applied to 'found'
items, minimal formal agreements, sells to libraries.
Times to 'deal with' vary, may be long.
No* Little
automation
4 EBSCO [45],
Gale Group
[46]
Formal licensing, offers royalties, offers to apply pay
per view to 'found' items (though publishers may
decline those option, as AJET does), more complex
formal agreements, sells to libraries. Needs time.
No* Little
automation
Notes: All major publishers provide open access search facilities within their own set of journals,
allowing readers to obtain bibliographic information and abstracts, but full text access requires
a subscription or pay per view.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2008, 24(2) i x
Table 4 subdivides the general problem of managing relations with 'Abstracting and
Indexing' services into smaller activities. For example, Types 1-3 are routine matters
for the Production Editor, whilst Type 4 is a matter for AJET Management Committee
to act upon after consideration of briefing papers from the AJET Editors, for example
"Including AJET in EBSCO Publishing databases" (AJET Editorial 23(2) [47]; in
passing we could record that a similar agreement with the Gale Group is being
developed).
Table 4 is a little unusual because Google and Google Scholar do not appear in t h e
typical list of 'Abstracted & Indexed' noted at the beginning of this Idle Moment [37].
Perhaps that's because G o o g l e and Google Scholar are ultra-comprehensive,
including everything, or nearly everything, albeit with insufficient selectivity? But
these services do provide 'Abstracting and Indexing', with a degree of selectivity, i f
used by readers with at least modest skills in searching academic literature. As John
MacColl from the Edinburgh University Library pointed out several years ago [48]:
Its [Google Scholar's] coverage, however, is of academic material - journal articles,
reports, conference proceedings, and e-theses and dissertations… It ranks results by
relevance, as with the general Google engine, but its algorithm in this case includes
citedness, and so it is engineered for the academic quality and reward system in which
academics and researchers work… It therefore contains all of the elements of the sort
of search service which we in our libraries are trying to provide by purchasing
federated search tools.
…for known item searching - for that paper by this author on this topic for instance - it
is often as good as any of the abstracting and indexing services we take, and better in
that it is Google - easy and free and used by everyone. [48]
Roger Atkinson and Catherine McLoughlin
AJET Production Editor and AJET Editor
Endnotes
1. ascilite Singapore 2007. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/
2. Specifications for full and concise papers are given at
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/papers/papers.htm#Categories
3. Review criteria for papers and advice to reviewers are given at
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/papers/papers.htm#review
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/singapore07/papers/papers.htm##advice
4. ascilite Singapore 2007 closing session photos are available at
http://cedmedia.ntu.edu.sg/ascilite/main.php?g2_itemId=16&g2_page=6
5. Since 1997 the date of publication of each issue of AJET has been recorded in its contents
page.
6. AJET Editorial 23(4). http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet23/editorial23-4.html
7. Taylor & Francis. Online Publication Through iFirst.
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/ifirst
8. Blackwell Synergy. What is OnlineEarly? http://www.blackwell-
synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2007.OEhold999.x
9. Springer. Online First. http://www.springer.com/e-content?SGWID=0-113-2-99044-0
10. Elsevier. For an example, see Computers & Education, which on 16 Feb 2008 listed 34 articles
'in press' for 50(3), 627-1102 to appear in print during April 2008.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03601315
11. Elsevier. Electronic preprints.
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authorshome.authors/preprints
12. AJET Editorial 24(1): The decision to retire AJET's printed version.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet24/editorial24-1.html
13. A genteel definition of this term may be found in The Macquarie Dictionary.
x Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2008, 24(2)
14. Taylor & Francis. iOpenAccess. http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/iopenaccess.asp
15. Blackwell Synergy. About Online Open.
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/static/onlineopen.asp
16. Springer. Springer Open Choice. http://www.springer.com/open+choice?SGWID=0-40359-0-0-0
17. Elsevier. Editors' Update, Issue 14 - April 2006. Open Access Journal Survey.
http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/editors.editors/editors_update/issue14b
18. CSIRO Publishing. Open access. http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/247.htm
19. DEST/DEEWR. Research Quality. [viewed 18 Feb 2008] http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/
research_sector/policies_issues_reviews/key_issues/research_quality_framework/
20. DEST/DEEWR [viewed 18 Feb 2008] http://www.dest.gov.au/Search.htm?query=%22
research%20quality%20framework%22
21. DEST. http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/research_sector/policies_issues_reviews/
key_issues/research_quality_framework/default.htm (delete 'default.htm ' to avoid
redirection to http://www.dest.gov.au/archive/)
22. Editorial 23(1). http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet23/editorial23-1.html
23. The two addresses are http://www.dest.gov.au/ and http://www.deewr.gov.au/ [viewed
18 Feb 2008]
24. AJET Editorial 22(2). http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet22/editorial22-2.html
25. AJET. http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet.html
26. ASCILITE Conference Proceedings. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences.html
27. HERDSA Conferences. http://www.herdsa.org.au/conferences.php
28. BJET. British Journal of Educational Technology.
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0007-1013&site=1
29. C&E. Computers & Education. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03601315
30. DE. Distance Education. DE. http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/01587919.asp
31. ET. Educational Technology. http://www.bookstoread.com/etp/
32. ETRD. Educational Technology Research & Development. http://www.aect.org/
33. JALN. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks. http://www.sloan-
c.org/publications/jaln/index.asp
34. JECR. Journal of Educational Computing Research.
http://www.baywood.com/journals/PreviewJournals.asp?Id=0735-6331
35. 20 of the 30 JALN citations are due to one paper, Hammond, M. & Wiriyapinit, M. (2005).
Learning through online discussion: A case of triangulation in research. Australasian Journal
of Educational Technology, 21(3), 283-302.
http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet21/hammond.html
36. McVeigh, M. E. (undated). Journal self-citation in the Journal Citation Reports - Science
Edition (2002). Thomson Scientific. http://scientific.thomson.com/free/essays/
journalcitationreports/selfcitation2002/
37. For typical examples, see:
British Journal of Educational Technology. http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/
aims.asp?ref=0007-1013&site=1
Computers & Education. http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journal
abstracting.cws_home/347/abstracting#abstracting
Journal of Educational Computing Research. http://www.baywood.com/journals/
PreviewJournals.asp?Id=0735-6331
Distance Education. http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/journal.asp?issn=0158-7919&linktype=2
38. Testa, J. (undated). Thomson Scientific. http://scientific.thomson.com/free/essays/
selectionofmaterial/journalselection/
39. AJET Editorial 23(3). http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet23/editorial23-3.html
40. http://www.google.com/, http://scholar.google.com/,
http://scholar.google.com/intl/en/scholar/publishers.html
41. http://www.eric.ed.gov/
42. http://info.scopus.com/
43. Current Contents / Social & Behavioral Sciences. http://scientific.thomson.com/products/cc-sbs/
44. Educational Research Abstracts Online. http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/
title~content=t713417651~db=all
45. EBSCOhost Online Research Databases. http://www.ebscohost.com/
46. http://gale.cengage.com/
47. AJET Editorial 23(2). http://www.ascilite.org.au/ajet/ajet23/editorial23-2.html
48. MacColl, J. (2006). Google challenges for academic libraries. Ariadne, 46.
http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue46/maccoll/
Note: All URLs last viewed 20 February 2008.