Microsoft Word - [0]Editorial_29_1.doc Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2013, 29(1). ascilite i. Editorial: Volume 29 Issue 1 It is with great pleasure that we present our first editorial as the incoming lead editors of the Australasian Journal of Educational Technology (AJET). We’d like to thank the selection committee representing the ascilite executive and the AJET editorial board for the confidence they have shown in us in appointing us to this role for the next three years. Our first and most important task is to acknowledge the contribution of outgoing editors Dr Roger Atkinson and Associate Professor Catherine McLoughlin and to thank them for their work together over the past 10 years. We’d particularly like to acknowledge the contribution of Roger Atkinson as AJET production editor for more than 15 years. The very strong position AJET finds itself in, with a high volume of submissions and the quality and scholarly impact of articles, is in no small measure attributable to the work of Roger, Catherine, and their predecessor as editor prior to 2002, Professor Ron Oliver. We’d like to highlight the new editorial team structure we have put in place, which consists of ourselves (Associate Professors Sue Bennett, Barney Dalgarno and Gregor Kennedy) as lead editors and Dr Helen Farley, Professor Robert Fitzgerald, Dr Michael Henderson, Dr Terry Judd, Professor Lori Lockyer and Dr Lina Markauskaite as associate editors. We are confident that this new distributed structure will sustain the journal well into the future. This issue contains a range of articles addressing some of the most important contemporary issues in educational technology research, including technology supported learning design in higher education, teacher knowledge and ICT capacity development, the use of laptops and mobile devices in schools, and comparisons of learning outcomes achieved with and without technology. The article by Nuray Gedik, Ercan Kiraz and Yasar Ozden explores the issues to consider in the design of blended learning environments in higher education, drawing on a design-based research study. The article identifies design considerations, lists proposed affordances and identifies critical issues and challenges in considering blended learning design. Sven Venema and Jason Lodge look at a more specific higher education learning design issue in exploring the use of a writing tablet as a tool for annotating presentation slides during lectures, using the results of student evaluations in the context of a university Information Technology course. The positive results would perhaps be no surprise to those who effectively used similar approaches with overhead transparencies prior to the ubiquitous introduction of PowerPoint. Importantly, however, the proposed approach allows for recording of the presentation, including the annotations as they unfold, providing an equivalent experience for those unable to be present during the lecture, a key requirement in today’s higher education context. Continuing the theme of technology in university lectures, the article by Tzy-Ling Chen and Yu-Li Lan reports on a study of student perceptions about the use of personal response systems (or ‘clickers’) in Taiwanese chemistry classes. Addressing important questions about the nature of ICT pedagogical knowledge needed by teachers, Ching Shing Chai, Eugenia Ng, Wenhao Li, Huang-Yao Hong and Joyce Koh present perhaps the first validated questionnaire measuring all seven teacher knowledge constructs within the TPCK framework (Mishra & Koehler, 2006), including results from confirmatory factor analysis of responses from 550 preservice teachers. The article by Neil Harrison continues the theme of preservice teacher capacity development in describing a case study exploring the ways in which preservice primary students were able to develop the capacity to teach higher order thinking skills aided by the use of an interactive whiteboard. Mark Pegrum, Grace Oakley and Robert Faulkner report on a study of the use of mobile devices in West Australian schools using data from interviews with teachers and school leaders. While the article by Simon Crook, Manjula Sharma, Rachel Wilson and Derek Muller picks up a related theme, reporting on a study exploring laptop use in secondary schools, and in particular the degree of alignment between student and staff perceptions of laptop use. Continuing the focus on school-based implementations of technology, Yuh-Ming Cheng, Shi-Jer Lou, Sheng-Huang Kuo and Ru-Chu Shih present findings from an investigation into the factors contributing to student intention to use, and acceptance of, digital game- based learning resources for environmental education in primary (elementary) school settings. Their Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 2013, 29(1). ii. analysis, framed with the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, 1989; Davis, Bagozzi & Warshaw, 1989), confirmed that perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness contributed towards positive attitudes towards and intention to use the resources, while gender and prior experience were not found to contribute to acceptance. The article by Shu-Chiao Tsai describes a study comparing English language learning outcomes when using task based learning supported by online courseware with the outcomes from conventional teacher- centred face-to-face instruction in a course preparing Taiwanese students for participation in international trade fairs. The article provides a clear illustration of the potential of online courseware especially when the design and associated learning tasks draw on a foundation of theoretical and empirical research. In another comparison study, Chih-Hsiang Wu, Gwo-Jen Hwang, Fan-Ray Kuo and Iwen Huang describe a collaborative learning process based on mind mapping techniques and ‘mindtool’ resources for supporting university students in using creative and innovative approaches while developing a business plan. To conclude this editorial we would like to inform the journal readership about some of the recent changes to the journal as a result of the independent review undertaken on behalf of the ascilite executive by Professor Paul Bacsich during 2011 and 2012. Professor Bacsich’s report is available to ascilite members through the online community hub. First, a new Management Committee has been appointed, consisting of Dr Caroline Steel and Professor Mark Brown representing ascilite, and Associate Professors Sue Bennett, Barney Dalgarno and Gregor Kennedy representing the AJET editorial team. We would like to acknowledge the contribution of the outgoing Management Committee which consisted of Professor Geoffrey Crisp, Dr Philippa Gerbic, Professor Peter Goodyear, Associate Professor Dale Holt, Professor Mike Keppell, Professor Ron Oliver, Dr Rob Phillips, Associate Professor Catherine McLoughlin, and Dr Roger Atkinson. Second, the focus and scope of the journal has changed to focus specifically on the higher education sector. While AJET will accept manuscripts that make a broad cross-sectoral contribution to educational technology research, submissions focusing on the school sector are no longer accepted. The revised statement of focus and scope is available on the journal website at: http://ascilite.org.au/ajet/submission/index.php/AJET/about/editorialPolicies#focusAndScope. During 2013 we will continue to publish accepted articles focussing on the school sector submitted in 2012, but will not be accepting new submissions with this focus. We look forward, with your support, to upholding the strong AJET tradition of publishing high quality research and scholarship that informs policy and promotes effective practice. Sue Bennett, Barney Dalgarno and Gregor Kennedy Lead Editors Australasian Journal of Education Technology References Davis, F. D. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319-340. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management Science, 35(8), 982-1003. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.