Richard Collecutt, Robert Douglas, Don Mardle & Kay Fielden
UNITEC, New Zealand
kfielden@unitec.ac.nz
 

Collecutt, R., Douglas, R., Mardle, D. & Fielden, K. (2006, October), A Review of Five Years of Instructional Technology in New Zealand. Bulletin of Applied Computing and Information Technology Vol. 4, Issue 2. ISSN 1176-4120. Retrieved from

ABSTRACT

For this literature review thirty-five Instructional Technology research articles were selected from the period 2001 - 2006. These articles were further classified three ways by: (i) research method adopted; (ii) education sector; and topic domain within instructional technology. The majority of papers reviewed were from the tertiary sector. Twenty-seven of the thirty-five papers reported on completed research. Over half of the papers selected were published in 2005. The authors do not believe that this a representative sample but rather reflects their personal bias. It was interesting to note that most research conducted for this review did not provide any documentary on ethics approval. More than three quarters of the papers were peer reviewed. In some instances it was difficult to determine the review status for the paper. The majority of research was distributed across Auckland University, Victoria University and UNITEC, New Zealand. Both national and international articles were reviewed. There was also evidence of collaboration inter-institutionally and internationally.

Based on this review, it is apparent New Zealand research in Instructional Technology is buoyant, with a range of methodologies employed. There is significant scope for further peer reviewed publications within New Zealand, but most such publication opportunities appear to lie offshore.

Keywords

Instructional technology, literature review, research methods

1. INTRODUCTION

This report is a preliminary investigation of the scope of recent research in New Zealand into “instructional technology”. The background of the investigation has several facets that are independent of the investigation’s outcomes.

The objectives of the report are to derive relevant conclusions from a detailed analysis of who and what organisations are conducting research, the research methodology utilised, the target or focus group of the research and under what sub-groups of instructional technology the research falls. Also of interest was how the research was published, this could be via peer reviewed journals (national and international), conference proceedings (again national and international) or government reports. Given that education is often regulated by government, and also driven by government policies, some degree of research undertaken for the sole purpose of reporting back to government, as opposed to general publication, is expected.

Included in this report are analyses of the methodologies used in the selected research articles, the type of publications (peer reviewed and non-peer reviewed, international and domestic), and the general structure of the article. The research articles have been sourced primarily electronically, that is, via the Internet and electronic databases.  Thirty-five New Zealand research articles from the period 2001 to 2006 were selected in three specific areas:  e-learning software, particularly learning management systems; New Zealand Secondary schools, especially the way information technology is managed within schools; and e-learning, online learning and instructional design.

2. SEARCH STRATEGIES

Local institutional electronic databases were augmented by Internet-based resources and hard-copy publications to locate relevant research articles in the education and information technology fields. The initial search strategy was to identify New Zealand authors researching and publishing within this domain, and to identify journals and conferences that dealt with either educational or information technology.

Through their institutional library, researchers have access to a large number of full text databases, particularly on education subjects. Most of the databases use Boolean searches, and/or offer advanced search options. Both of these options enable researchers to refine individual searches. Advanced searches in the electronic databases (depending on the database in question) also allow researchers to set date parameters, and to return only refereed papers.

The Internet offers a similar variety of search options, again dependent on the search engine being used. Google has advanced techniques similar to online database search options as described above.  Search techniques can be as simple as using speech marks around a phrase (“this phrase”) to search for the complete phrase.  A comprehensive set of search strategies can be found on the Google Help pages (type ‘Google Help’ into the Google search engine). This page provided links to strategies which can restrict results by date and/or country, and provided a guide to using the advanced search feature.  Google advanced search enables, among other things, exact phrase searches, searches without specified words, and options to identify the type of file that is returned.

Literature was collected from the following target information sources:

• New Zealand  tertiary education institutions

With many of the tertiary institutions involved in research in New Zealand it was possible to identify authors, and occasionally articles, from the listings of research publications available on individual institutions’ public web sites. Some of the tertiary institution web sites provided a search facility specifically for their research publications.

• New Zealand government:

The education sector in New Zealand is subject to the Ministry of Education. The ministry was a likely source of material with it being a known driving force behind information technology usage in primary and secondary schools. The Ministry of Education is also a source of research funds for instructional technology.

• New Zealand journals and conference proceedings

Various journals and conferences were known to the authors. These were the National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications (NACCQ) conference proceedings along with their on-line publication - the Bulletin of Applied Computing and Information Technology (BACIT), and Computers in New Zealand Schools.

• International journals and conference proceedings

New Zealand researchers are encouraged to present or publish their research in overseas journals and conferences such as the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education conference (ASCILITE), the annual Australian Computing Education Conference (ACE), and the Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australasia (HERDSA).

• Internet based search engines

Google Scholar seemed the obvious choice of search engines but it was limited in that it makes extensive use of the subscription and pay per view sites. Google itself was preferred in that it returned a far wider set of results which could then be filtered. The keywords used in Google were typically authors’ names, conference names and likely content (e.g. instructional, technology, design, Zealand). Specific search strategies are discussed below.

• Bibliographies

The bibliographies in research articles were also targeted as a known source of authors and journals that were publishing in the domain in question.

3. PEER REVIEWING

Discerning a paper’s status regarding peer review is not necessarily an easy task. Anderson (1990) describes the process by which conference papers and journal articles are reviewed, stating that for a journal:

“One submits a paper and it is generally given a quick review by the journal editor who, on deciding of its general interest, sends it to a panel of reviewers” (Anderson, 1990, pp. 85-86).

These reviewers are usually academics and the authors name is withheld from them. Given this as an ‘accepted’ practice for peer review the question arises as to how one can tell if a research paper has undergone this process.

Reputed academic journals will carry a notation describing the process by which the material is reviewed. If the article is published it can be assumed that it has followed the process. An  issue arises if this notice is not available. The researcher is then obliged to delve deeper and may be best served by contacting the editor to confirm review details.

However, in the New Zealand context, one journal in particular caused some issues. Computers in New Zealand Schools (CINZS), is a commonly quoted source of research in information technology in NZ schools. Some Universities (Massey University, for example (Massey, 2003) ) regard this as a peer reviewed journal. Closer inspection showed that some of the CINZS volumes carried a brief note regarding a review process under the heading of manuscript submission while other editions did not.

The current editor of CINZS stated that he saw CINZS as a professional journal, and that he would not call it peer reviewed (Lai, 2006). Thus, although other agencies suggest a journal is ‘scholarly’ and peer reviewed, it appears advisable to contact the editor for confirmation where doubt exists.

Similarly, the status of conference presentations falls under question. Some conferences will list their papers as ‘Reviewed’ or ‘Not reviewed’ but failing this, if the call for papers can be located, the review status of papers presented can be found. It may also be possible to infer the status of a past conference from the call for papers for the current conference (Fielden, 2006b). One author of this review found a paper in The Australian Association for Research in Education where the presenter could pay an additional fee to have the paper peer reviewed. No notation was given as to the actual status of the paper and an e-mail to the presenter elicited no response.

The status of government sponsored research, such as through the Ministry of Education, needs to be examined. Unless stated or unless the authors can be contacted, it is impossible to categorically state that a piece of research has undergone a review process. However, there is a certain level of expectation from Government sources that such research is accurate and scholarly in fashion. The researchers will also be staking their academic reputation, and opportunities for further sponsored research, on such work and it would appear reasonable to assume such research is of a scholarly nature.

4. LITERATURE REVIEW SCOPE

Sixteen of the research articles reviewed were concerned with online learning or e-learning (Bremmer & Bryant, 2005; Clear & Kassabova, 2005; Doyle, 2002; Elgort, 2005; Elgort, Marshall, & Mitchell, 2003; Hart, 2005; Henderson, Napan, & Montero, 2003; Jiramahapoka, 2005; Khoo, Forret, & Cowie, 2005; Marshall & Mitchell, 2004; McSporran, 2004a; McSporran, 2004b; Parry, 2004; Thompson & Hills, 2005; Vargo, Nesbit, Belfer, & Archambault, 2003; Young & McSporran, 2004) and three papers discussed learning management systems (Bremmer & Bryant, 2005; Elgort et al., 2003; McSporran, 2004a , 2004b) It seems likely that the arrival of the internet has been “heralded as a highly promising, cost effective educational resource” and as “a highly valuable tool with which to engage students, promote independent learning and a valuable, instant source of information for students.” (Coogan, 2005, p.8). It is little wonder  that significant funds are being spent on its deployment in the education sector (Project PROBE for example, completed in mid 2005) and in researching its outcomes (Elgort et al., 2003).

Putting aside online learning, a further breakdown shows that in schools there is a significant body of research on information technology governance and on changing pedagogy through infusion with information technology. Only one paper reviewed specifically researched hardware (Interactive White Boards (IWB) (Garden, 2005) and only five papers examined specific software (Russell, 2004; Waiti, 2005; Ward, 2003; Ward, Robinson, & Parr, 2005; Winter, 2005) .

Figure 1 indicates that there is an apparent lack of research into the primary school sector for the articles selected for this literature review. This may be a false assumption as a deliberate decision was made by the authors to focus on the secondary school and tertiary education sectors, rather than to exclude research into the primary sector. Anecdotal evidence suggests there is a significant amount of research into information technology in primary schools.

Figure 1. Publications by Education Sector

The adult domain constitutes second chance adult learners at NCEA levels 2, 3 & 4. These learners fall under neither tertiary nor secondary although the institutions offering these levels of learning are often tertiary, typically polytechnics. This area is not well represented by published research, somewhat surprisingly as this type of education has come under close scrutiny due to governmental funding issues.

4.1. Place of Publication

In the sample selected for this literature review there are 18 papers that were published within New Zealand and 17 that were published internationally.  It appears that New Zealand authors are being accepted into international publications. Internationally published articles were often easier to locate than locally published papers, as the more reputable journals and publishers are indexed more often in the larger search engines.

4.2. Year of Publication

Whether or not this distribution of research over time is a valid reflection of reality is a moot point.  A possible factor affecting the distribution of research over time is when universities post their research outputs online. Many do not have their 2005 outputs online whilst others did not have their 2004 outputs available either. Given the annual nature of this posting, and that at the time of writing this review it is March 2006, it is not surprising that no 2006 outputs were found. The size of the research sample and the constraints placed upon it means that little can be conferred from this data. However it is useful to inform further discussion in this review.

Figure 2. Publications by Institution

4.3. Publications by Institution

Figure 2 indicates which New Zealand institutions are most strongly represented in the articles selected for this literature review. Interestingly, UNITEC, Auckland University of Technology and the University of Auckland appear to have a strong interest in the field of instructional design. Overall it could be expected that universities would have a better research and publishing record than other tertiary institutions but this was not the case. Clearly the polytechnic sector is contributing to the body of knowledge in this domain.

4.4. Research Project Duration

Figure 3 shows that there was little longitudinal research being conducted in the articles reviewed. Twenty-one of these projects were completed and further six research projects were classified as stand-alone research. Only four projects were described by authors as preliminary and a further four were described as longitudinal.  In this sample, therefore, only eight papers reported research that was preliminary or long term.

Figure 3. Research Term

Whilst this sample is too small to identify a research trend it does pose some interesting questions. The current policy of Performance Based Research Funding (PBRF) may have an impact here, given that 28 of the 35 papers reviewed were published in the last two years (Figure 4). It is suggested that PBRF could be creating a climate rewarding quick research rather than longer term analysis. This would be an interesting question for further, more rigorous research.

Figure 4. Year Research Published

Further, the rate of technological advance may make longitudinal research impractical. At a higher level, such questions as ‘does improving student access to information technology improve student outcomes’ may be answerable over an extended time frame whilst a question such as ‘Does using Hyperstudio assist student learning’ can not be (clearly, changes in software preclude such studies). Thus the nature of questions for longitudinal study must be carefully examined so that their validity does not diminish prior to the end of the study.

Finally, a researcher’s ability to actually perform long term study in this field must also be questioned, as suggested by Coogan who notes issues that would prevent long term study (Coogan, 2005, p. 57). It must be remembered that information technology is relatively new in schools and further, that many of the technologies being deployed and evaluated are even newer. The World Wide Web came into existence in the mid nineties, Interactive White Boards became available in the late nineties and much of the operating systems and software is even more recent. Conversely, the more fundamental issues of information technology in education, particularly in the school system, have yet to be answered with no strong evidence linking access to information technology with improved student learning. (MinEdu, 2003, p.7).

4.5. Classification of Research Methods Found

Reviewing each article in order to ascertain which research methodology was followed proved a relatively straightforward task; in most articles (30) the article’s author(s) explicitly stated which methodology was followed, in other cases (5) it was left to the reviewer to determine the methodology (Figure 5).

Figure 5. Research Methods

The procedure used to identify the range of methodologies used was as follows: where the methodology used covered more than one method, but was not a genuine mixed method, the classification of each was counted, whilst any articles using a true mixture of methodologies were classed as mixed method. Twenty-five papers utilized qualitative methods (Bremmer & Bryant, 2005; Clear & Kassabova, 2005; Cochrane, 2004; Dantin, 2005; Elgort et al., 2003; Garden, 2005; Hart, 2005; Hawthorn, 2003; Henderson et al., 2003; Jiramahapoka, 2005; Jonnavithula & Kinshuk, 2005; Khoo et al., 2005; Marshall & Garry, 2005; Marshall & Mitchell, 2004; McSporran, 2004a; MMcSporran, 2004b; Norman & Scadden, 2004; Parr & Ward, 2005; Russell, 2004; Thompson & Hills, 2005; Vargo et al., 2003; Waiti, 2005; Ward, 2003; Ward et al., 2005; Winter, 2005; Young & McSporran, 2004) employing this classification technique and eighteen

Figure 6. Classification of Research

papers were found to have quantitative research methods (Bremmer & Bryant, 2005; Cochrane, 2004; Coogan, 2005; Hamer, Ma & Kwong, 2005; Hart, 2005; Hawthorn, 2003; Jiramahapoka, 2005; Jonnavithula & Kinshuk, 2005; Kearny, 2005; Marshall & Garry, 2005; Marshall & Mitchell, 2004; McSporran, 2004a; McSporran, 2004b; Norman and Scadden, 2004; Parry, 2004; Strand et al., 2004; Vargo, Nesbit et al., 2003; Young & McSporran, 2004). This ratio ignores the two literature reviews (Figure 6) included in this literature review (Elgort, 2005; Savidan 2003).  Qualitative research was predominated by case studies (sixteen) (Clear & Kassabova, 2005; Cochrane, 2004; Dantin, 2005; Elgort et al., 2003; Henderson et al., 2003; Khoo et al., 2005; Kwok-wing & Pratt, 2004; Marshall & Mitchell, 2004; Parr & Ward, 2005; Russell, 2004; Thompson & Hills, 2005; Waiti, 2005; Ward, 2003; Ward et al., 2005; Winter, 2005). There were only two studies where action research was carried out (Clear & Kassabova, 2005; Garden 2005) and no researchers tackled ethnographic studies.

Statistical surveys (eleven) were the dominant sub-group in this sample of research articles (Cochrane, 2004; P Coogan, 2005; Doyle, 2002; Elgort et al., 2003; Hamer, Ma, & Kwong, 2005; Jiramahapoka, 2005; Marshall & Garry, 2005; McSporran, 2004;  McSporran, 2004; Parry, 2004; Young & McSporran, 2004) with equal numbers of papers employing design (Cochrane, 2004; Hamer et al., 2005; Marshall & Mitchell, 2004; Strand, Udas, & Lee, 2004; Vargo et al., 2003) and mixed methods (Clear & Kassabova, 2005; Cochrane, 2004; Elgort et al., 2003; Marshall & Garry, 2005; Marshall & Mitchell, 2004) (five).

It is worth noting the low number of literature reviews (two) (Elgort, 2005; Savidan, 2003). The types of articles reviewed by the authors do not represent a statistical sample of the population as the authors were quite selective in which articles they reviewed, generally staying away from pure literature reviews. This is not to say the articles did not include a literature review but it was not the chosen research methodology.

4.6. Ethical Approval for Research

Figure 7. Ethical Approval

The American Heritage dictionary (2000), defines ethics as “a set of principles of right conduct”. In a research sense, ethics may include principles of informed consent, anonymity, confidentiality and right of withdrawal. When humans are to be directly involved in research, ethics approval must be sought. The approval process may differ slightly from institution to institution, but all respectable New Zealand institutions protect participants in their research through an ethical approval process which attempts to ascertain, and lessen, the likely impact of any research on human subjects.

It is interesting, then, that in only two of thirty-five papers reviewed, that there was any mention of ethical approval, yet many papers, of both a qualitative and quantitative nature, appeared to impact directly on human subjects. In fact in one of the papers in which ethics was mentioned (Clear and Kassabova, 2005), it was only in relation to problems the researchers were having obtaining reliable statistical data, because “Due to the voluntarism inherent in the ethics approval stipulations students are also allowed to withdraw from the trial at any stage.” (p. 52)

It is reasonable to conclude, then, that ethical considerations are a necessary initial component of the research process, but if approval processes are well designed and undertaken diligently and robustly, they need have little impact on the research itself, except in exceptional circumstances. Another valid argument may be, however, that ethics approval stifles certain types of research so little is undertaken in these areas. Certainly, there were no instances in the papers reviewed for this report of any contentious ethical issues being raised, but then again Instructional technology may not be as ethically risky as some areas of, say,  social science.

In seven of the papers, for example those reporting on the design of a model, there were clearly no ethical considerations because of the chosen research method.

5. DISCUSSION

There appears to be a significant body of research sponsored by the Ministry of Education, a large portion of which reviews various cluster based initiatives. The Ministry website states that: “Evaluation of the ICT PD cluster programme has been conducted through a research project since 1999” (Coogan, 2005). This represents a potential wealth of quality data on the use of information technology in schools, especially given such comments as those noted by Coogan that “there is little conclusive evidence of improved student achievement through the use of ICT” (Education Review Office, 2001, p.4), cited in (Parr & Ward, 2005)

A significant body of research is ‘stand alone’, produced independently of government agencies or specific projects. It would be of significant interest to explore just how true this assumption is and what underlying causes for it may exists. Further yet, is this situation harmful to research in New Zealand? This review lacks sufficient depth to adequately answer these questions.

Parr and Ward (2005), in their review of the FarNet project, note that

“research concerning technology has often suffered from poor design and poor measures of outcomes. There is a large amount of research that varies in method and treatment (and quality), rendering it difficult to synthesise. Finally, contributing to the difficulty in answering the question is the lack of clarity in research as to what the goals for ICT are specifically, and what the learning processes and outcomes associated with those goals are that could be measured.” (p. 57).

The only directed or longitudinal research appears to be coming from the Ministry of Education. All of the other papers reviewed were stand alone or short term research. The Ward papers reviewed, although not apparently sponsored by the ministry, were research on a specific school cluster. Interestingly, in his thesis Coogan noted that:

 “Data obtained through longitudinal research would perhaps have been an option for this project as it would have allowed for the study of the impact of the NCEA on teachers' use of ICT over time. However, issues of time and of maintaining contact with a panel (the group of people who would be tracked over time) made this form of research impractical.” (Coogan, 2005, p. 10)

Desirable as longitudinal research may be, Parr and Ward comment that “Technology is only one of a large number of factors that impact on student learning at any one time.” (p. 57) Other factors are diverse and unpredictable, and could include societal, ethnic and economic factors.

The majority of the research reviewed falls distinctly into two categories. The first is a review of current initiatives, led chiefly by Government funded research into cluster based activities, with the second reviewing, or calling for, pedagogical changes that are enhanced by the use of information technologies. These papers show a very clear emphasis away from technology per se, rather examining the ways in which information technologies may, or may not have, improved student outcomes. The latter is also important in that the literature is not examining the teacher’s use of information technology but rather is strongly focused on students and their learning (Coogan, 2005; Savidan, 2003; Ward, Robinson, & Parr, 2005).

6. CONCLUSION

This critical review and analysis on locating and annotating suitable research articles about instructional design has proved useful. Clearly, there has been a degree of research in New Zealand in this field over the last five years. Ignoring motivational issues it is apparent that instructional technologies are at the forefront of both governmental and tertiary/secondary academic minds.

It is dangerous to draw any strong conclusion from such a limited perspective. If anything, it can be said that there appears to be a significant body of research from a relatively small group of quality researchers, and that a significant portion of this research is targeted at either pedagogical paradigm shifts or at reviewing Ministry initiatives.

If any recommendations could be drawn, it would be that a New Zealand research Journal be established to publish research into the use of information technology in New Zealand Education for instructional technology.

It is most important to reiterate that this review is a ‘snap shot in time’ and is heavily influenced by the interests of the authors. The nature of the research reviewed was further constrained by the requirements that all research be from New Zealand and published since 2001. However, some interesting suggestions can be drawn from this work, which may inform further research.

Firstly, it can be said that quality academic research into the use of information technology in education is regularly being produced within New Zealand, although a significant portion of this is published overseas. The authors suggest that strong information technology and education focused journals published in New Zealand would make this research more accessible to those working in this country.

The majority of research was found to be quantitative in nature with qualitative case studies being an unsurprising close second. The nature of education makes pure experimental approaches with control groups problematical at best. Ethical considerations further compound this. Given that research is to look, look again and then look some more, quantitative methods do provide a good baseline for comparison.

There is a strong emphasis on online or e-learning in the research reviewed in the papers selected. This may be a reflection on research in the whole domain but this can not be conclusively shown from such a small sampling. However, the nature of the research reviewed does tend to be short term and closed, with little longitudinal research. PBRF could be a factor as could the dynamic nature of information technology. Further research into the reasons for this lack would be worthwhile.

The institutions carrying out such research are mainly the universities and polytechnics, but this does vary significantly with the education sector. In the secondary schools sector for example, it seems that  more research has been published by the University of Auckland, probably due to its recent merger with the Auckland College of Education, whilst research in the tertiary sector is lead strongly by UNITEC.

One significant issue noted was the lack of discussion of ethical principles in the research reviewed. By its very nature, research on education affects individuals and thus it seems unusual that so few researchers mention the underlying ethics of their research, especially where experiments in the use of information technology are carried out using students as subjects.

REFERENCES

Anderson, G. (1990). Fundamentals of Educational Research (First ed.). Basingstoke: The Falmer Press.

Bremmer, D., & Bryant, R. (2005). A comparison of two learning management systems: Moodle vs Blackboard. New Zealand Journal of Applied Computing and Information Technology, 2005, 135-139.

Caplinskas, A., & Vasilecas, O. (2004). Information systems research methodologies and models. Paper presented at the International Conference on Computer Systems and Technologies. Rousse, Bulgaria

Clear, T., & Kassabova, D. (2005). Motivational Patterns in Virtual Team Collaboration. Paper presented at the 7th Australian Computing Education Conference, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.

Coogan, P. (2005). When Worlds Collide: English Teachers and High Assessment. Unpublished Ed D, Auckland University, Auckland.

Cochrane, T. (2004). Interactive Quicktime: Developing and Evaluating Multimedia Objects to Enhance Both Face to Face and Distance E-learning Environments. Paper presented at the ASCILITE 2004 Conference, Perth, Western Australia.

Dantin, U. (2005). Application of Personas in User Interface Design for Educational Software. Paper presented at the Australian Computing Education Conference 2005, Newcastle, Australia.

Doyle, S. (2002). Putting learning to work: The distance learner and transfer of learning. Wellington: New Zealand Council for Educational Research.

Elgort, I., Marshall, S., & Mitchell, G. (2003). NESB Student Perceptions and Attitudes to a New Online Learning Environment. Paper presented at the 2003 HERDSA Conference, Canterbury, New Zealand.

Elgort, I. (2005). E-Learning Adoption: Bridging the Chasm. Paper presented at the ASCILITE 2005 Conference, Brisbane, Australia.

Fielden, K. (2006a). 8024 - Research Methods class presentation. Auckland.

Fielden, K. (2006b). 8024 Weekend 1 Class Presentation, ISCG8024 Class. Auckland.

Garden, R. (2005). Achievement in Science: Do interactive whiteboards make a difference? Computers in New Zealand Schools (November), pp. 11-14.

Hamer, J., Ma, T. K., & Kwong, H. F. (2005). A method of automatic grade calibration in peer assessment. Paper presented at the Seventh Australian Computer Science Education Conference (ACE 2005). New Castle, Australia.

Hart, L. (2005). Motivating adults to study: How effective is web-based training. New Zealand Journal of Applied Computing and Information Technology, 2005, 47-54

Hawthorn, D. (2003). How universal is good design for older users? Paper presented at the ACM Conference on Universal Usability. Vancouver, British Columbia.

Henderson, K., Napan, K., & Montero, S. (2003). Encouraging Reflective Learning: An Online Challenge. Paper presented at the ASCILITE 2004 conference, Perth, Western Australia.

Jiramahapoka, N. (2005). The impacts of flexible facilitation in collaborative learning. Bulletin of Applied Computing and Information Technology, 3(1). from http://www.naccq.ac.nz/bacit/0301/2005Jiramahapoka_CLearn.htm

Jonnavithula, L., & Kinshuk. (2005). Exploring multimedia educational games: An aid to reinforce classroom teaching and learning. Paper presented at the IASTED International Conference on Web-Based Education, Grindelwald, Switzerland.

Kearney, P. (2005). Cognitive callisthenics: Do FPS computer games enhance the player's cognitive abilities? Paper presented at the Digital Games Research Association’s 2nd International Conference, Vancouver.

Khoo, E., Forret, M., & Cowie, B. (2005). Teacher Development in Online Teaching: A Negotiated Intervention Strategy. Paper presented at the ASCILITE 2005 conference, Brisbane, Australia.

Kwok-wing, L., & Pratt, K. (2004). Information and communication technology (ICT) in secondary schools: the role of the computer coordinator. British Journal of Educational Technology, 35(4), 461-475.

Marshall, S., & Mitchell, G. (2004). Applying SPICE to E-Learning Maturity Model? Paper presented at the Sixth Australian Computing Education Conference, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Marshall, S., & Garry, M. (2005). How Well Do Students Really Understand Plagiarism? Paper presented at the ASCILITE 2005 conference, Brisbane, Australia.

Massey. (2003). Research Outputs Database. Retrieved March, 2005, from http://www-db.massey.ac.nz/mp_prod/muppit.cgi?use_config=wwp_publications_at_massey.config

McSporran, M. (2004a). Online learning: Which strategies do New Zealand students perceive as most valuable? Paper presented at the Australian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education, Perth.

McSporran, M. (2004b). Web-assisted teaching and learning strategies: Student perceptions. Bulletin of Applied Computing and Information Technology, 2(3). from http://www.naccq.ac.nz/bacit/0203/2004McSporran_WebAssist.htm

MinEdu. (2003, December 2003). Digital Horizons: Learning through ICT. Retrieved March, 2006, from http://www.minedu.govt.nz/web/downloadable/dl6760_v1/digital-horizons-revision-03.pdf

Myers, M. D. (1997). Qualitative Research in Information Systems. MIS Quarterly, 21(2), 241-242.

Norman, D., & Scadden, D. (2004). An experiment worth repeating: the convergence of pedagogy and IT. New Zealand Journal of Applied Computing and Information Technology, 2004, 401-404

Parr, J., & Ward, L. (2005). Evaluation of the Digital Opportunities Project FarNet: Learning Communities in the Far North. Auckland: Ministry of Education. From http://educationcounts.edcentre.govt.nz/publications/downloads/digi-opps-farnet.pdf

Parry, D. (2004). What do online learners really do, and where and when do they do it? Bulletin of Applied Computing and Information Technology, 2(2). From http://educationcounts.edcentre.govt.nz/publications/downloads/digi-opps-farnet.pdf

Russell, V. (2004). ICT and Gifted Education: The Kaleidoscope Programme. Computers in New Zealand Schools, November. 16(3), 45-48

Savidan, V. (2003). ICT and the New Zealand secondary school curriculum. Retrieved 15 March, 2006, from http://www.education.auckland.ac.nz/doclibrary/acepapers/Issue12/ACE_Paper_8_Issue_12.doc

Strand, M., Udas, K., & Lee, U. (2004). Design for communities of practice: Eduforge. Paper presented at the 21st ASCILITE Conference, Perth.

The Writing Centre website. (2006). Retrieved 8 March, 2006, from http://www.unc.edu/depts/wcweb/handouts/literature_review.html

Thompson, J., & Hills, J. (2005). Online Learning Support Services for Distance Education Students: Responding to and Maintaining the Momentum. Paper presented at the ASCILITE 2005 conference, Birsbane, Australia.

Vargo, J., Nesbit, J. C., Belfer, K., & Archambault, A. (2003). Learning object evaluation: Computer-mediated collaboration and inter-rate reliability. International Journal of Computers and Applications, 25(3). 198-205

Waiti, P. (2005). Evaluation of kaupapa ara whakawhiti mätauranga (KAWM). Wellington: Ministry of Education. from http://www.minedu.govt.nz/web/downloadable/dl10506_v1/kawm.pdf

Ward, L. (2003). Teacher practice and the integration of ICT: Why aren't our secondary school teachers using computers in their classrooms? Paper presented at the NZARE/AARE 2003 Conference, Auckland.

Ward, L., Robinson, V., & Parr, J. (2005). Getting ICT into Classrooms: the case for broader swamps in the future. Computers in New Zealand Schools (July), 23-29.

Winter, M. (2005). Digital Opportunities Pilot Project (2001-2003): Evaluation of Generation XP. Report to the Ministry of Education. Wellington.

Young, S., & McSporran, M. (2004). Facilitating Successful Online Computing Courses While Minimising Extra Tutor Workload. Paper presented at the Sixth Australasian Computing Education Conference, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Copyright © 2006 Richard Collecutt, Robert Douglas, Don Mardle and Kay Fielden
The author(s) assign to NACCQ and educational non-profit institutions a non-exclusive licence to use this document for personal use and in courses of instruction provided that the article is used in full and this copyright statement is reproduced. The author(s) also grant a non-exclusive licence to NACCQ to publish this document in full on the World Wide Web (prime sites and mirrors) and in printed form within the Bulletin of Applied Computing and Information Technology. Authors retain their individual intellectual property rights.

Home | Issue Index | About BACIT

 Copyright © 2006 NACCQ. Krassie Petrova, Michael Verhaart, Andy Connor and Judith Symonds (Eds.). An Open Access Journal, DOAJ # 11764120