en

nl

Referenties

• Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v4i2.149
• Anderson, T., & Dron, J. (2011). Three Generations of Distance Education Pedagogy. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 80-97
• Bank, B. J., Slavings, R. L., & Biddle, B. J. (1990). Effects of peer, faculty, and parental influences on students’ persistence. Sociology of Education, 63(3), 208. doi: 10.2307/2112838.
• Beaumont, C. (2007). Beyond e-learning: Can intelligent agents really support learners? In A. Campbell & L. Norton (Eds.), Learning, teaching, and assessing in Higher education: Developing a reflective practice (pp. 80–91). Exeter, UK: Learning Matters Ltd.
• Cameron, B. A., Morgan, K., Williams, K. C., & Kostelecky, K. L. (2009). Group projects: Student perceptions of the relationship between social tasks and a sense of community in online group work. American Journal of Distance Education, 23(1), 20–33.
• Carr, S. (2000). As distance education comes of age, the challenge is keeping the students. The Chronicle of Higher Education, 4, A39–A41.
• Chang, C. C., Tseng, K. H., Chou, P. N., & Chen, Y. H. (2011). Reliability and validity of Web-based portfolio peer assessment: A case study for a senior high school’s students taking computer course. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1306–1316
• Comer, D. R. (1995). A model of social loafing in real work groups. Human Relations, 48(6), 647–667.
• Dooley, L. M., & Bamford, N. J. (2018). Peer feedback on collaborative learning activities in veterinary education [Special issue: Educating the future of veterinary science and medicine]. Veterinary Science, 5(4). https://doi.org/10.3390/vetsci5040090
• Exter, M. E., Korkmaz, N., Harlin, N. M., & Bichelmeyer, B. A. (2009). Sense of community within a fully online program: Perspective of graduate students. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 10(20), 177–194.
• Filius, R. M., de Kleijn, R. A. M., Uijl, S. G., Prins, F. J., Van Rijen, H. V. M., & Grobbee, D. E. (2018a). Promoting Deep Learning through Online Feedback in SPOCs. Frontline Learning Research, 6(2), 92. https://doi.org/10.14786/flr.v6i2.350
• Filius, R. M., de Kleijn, R. A. M., Uijl, S. G., Prins, F. J., Van Rijen, H. V. M., & Grobbee, D. E. (2018b). ‘Challenges concerning deep learning in SPOC’s. International Journal on Technology Enhanced Learning, 10(1/2), 111–127. http://dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJTEL.2018.088341
• Filius, R. M., de Kleijn, R. A. M., Uijl, S. G., Prins, F. J., van Rijen, H. V. M., & Grobbee, D. E. (2018c). Strengthening dialogic peer feedback aiming for deep learning in SPOCs. Computers & Education, 125(10), 86–100. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJTEL.2018.088341
• Filius, R. M., Kleijn, R. A. M., Uijl, S. G., Prins, F. J., van Rijen, H. V. M., & Grobbee, D. E (2019). Audio peer feedback to promote deep learning in online education. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(5), 607–619. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12363
• Heidig, S. & Clarebout, G. (2011). Do pedagogical agents make a difference to student motivation and learning? Educational Research Review, 6, 27–54.
• Ion, G., Sánchez Martí, A., & Morell, I. A. (2019). Giving or receiving feedback: Which is more beneficial to students’ learning? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 44(1), 124–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/02602938.2018.1484881
• Isohätälä, J., Järvenoja, H. & Järvelä, S. (2017). Socially shared regulation of learning and participation in social interaction in collaborative learning. International Journal of Educational Research, 81, 11–24.
• Jansen, R.S., van Leeuwen, A., Janssen, J., Kester, L., & Kalz, M. (2017). Validation of the selfregulated online learning questionnaire. Journal of Computing in Higher Education. 29, 6–27. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-016-9125-x
• Janssen, J., Berlanga, A. J., & Koper, R. (2012). On quality assessment of learning technology specifications. In J. C. Ramalho, A. Simões, & R. Queirós (Eds.), Innovations in XML applications and metadata management: Advancing technologies (pp. 78-95). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
• Järvelä, S., & Hadwin, A. (2013). New frontiers: Regulating learning in CSCL. Educational Psychologist, 48(1), 25-39.
• Järvenoja, H., Volet, S., & Järvelä,S. (2013) Regulation of emotions in socially challenging learning situations: an instrument to measure the adaptive and social nature of the regulation process, Educational Psychology, 33(1), 31–58, DOI: 10.1080/01443410.2012.742334
• Johnson, D.W. & Johnson, R.T. (2009). An educational psychology success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative learning. Journal of Educational researcher, 38(5), 365–379.
• Kasch, J., van Rosmalen, P., & Kalz, M. (2017). A framework towards educational scalability of open online courses. Journal of Universal Computer Science, 23(9), 845–867.
• Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. E. (1981). Ringelmann revisited: Alternative explanations for the social loafing effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 224–231.
• Kerr, N. L., & Bruun, S. E. (1983). The dispensability of member effort and group motivation losses: Free-rider effects. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, 1–15.
• Kim, D., & Lim, C. (2018) Promoting socially shared metacognitive regulation in collaborative project-based learning: a framework for the design of structured guidance, Teaching in Higher Education, 23(2), 194–211, DOI: 10.1080/13562517.2017.1379484
• Kirschner, P. A., Kreijns, K., Phielix, C., & Fransen, J. (2015). Awareness of cognitive and social behaviour in a CSCL environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 31(1), 59–77.
• Kirschner, P. A., Hendricks, M., Paas, F., Wopereis, I., & Cordewener, B. (2004). Determinants for failure and success of innovation projects: The road to sustainable educational innovation. Chicago, IL: Association for Educational Communications and Technology. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED485042.pdf
• Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., & Jochems, W. (2003). Identifying the pitfalls for social interaction in computer-supported collaborative learning environments: A review of the research. Computers in Human Behavior, 19(3), 335–353.
• Kreijns, K., Van Acker, F., Vermeulen, M., van Buuren, H. (2014). Community of inquiry: Social presence revisited [Special Issue: Inquiry into “Communities of Inquiry:” Knowledge, Communication, Presence, Community]. E-Learning and Digital Media, 11(1), 5–18. doi: 10.2304/elea.2014.11.1.5
• Kreijns, K., Scheffel, M., de Kraker, J., Drachsler, H., & Slootmaker, A. (2017, August 29 – September 2). The widgets of Oz: Group awareness widgets in CSCL. Presentation at the 17th Biennial EARLI Conference: EARLI 2017. Tampere, Finland.
• Kreijns, K., Xu, K., Weidlich, J. (submitted). Escape from Babylon: The issue of social presence and its measurement.
• Laal, M., Laal, M., Kermanshahi, Z. K. (2012). 21st century learning: Learning in collaboration. Procedia – Social and Behavior Sciences, 47, 1696–1701. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.06.885
• Li, L., Liu, X., and Steckelberg, A. L. (2010). Assessor or assessee: How student learning improves by giving and receiving peer feedback. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41(3), 525–536.
• Makransky, G., Wismer, P. & Mayer, R. (2019). A gender matching effect in learning with pedagogical agents in an immersive virtual reality science simulation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 35(3), 349–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12335
• Mayer, R. E. (2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), Cambridge handbooks in psychology. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (p. 43–71). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.005
• Mbukusa, N. R., Kibuule, D., & Lates, J. (2017). Overcoming barriers of isolation in distance learning: Building a collaborative community in learning. Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal, 4(17). doi: 10.14738/assrj.417.3478
• Moore, M. G. (1993). Theory of transactional distance. In D. Keegan (Ed.), Theoretical principles of distance education (pp. 22–38). Abingdon: Routledge.
• Nicpon, M., Huser, L., Blanks, E., Sollenberger, S., Befort, C., & Robinson Kurpius, S. (2006). The relationship of loneliness and social support with college freshmen’s academic performance and persistence. Journal of College Student Retention: Research, Theory and Practice, 8(3), 345–358. doi: 10.2190/A465-356M-7652-783R.
• O’Shea, S., Stone, C., & Delahunty, J. (2015). I ‘feel’ like I am at university even though I am online: Exploring how students narrate their engagement with higher education institutions in an online learning environment. Distance Education, 36(1), 41-58.
• Panitz, T.(1999). Benefits of cooperative learning in relation to student motivation, In M. Theall (Ed.), Motivation from within: Approaches for encouraging faculty and students to excel, New directions for teaching and learning. San Francisco, CA; USA. Josey-Bass publishing
• Park, C. (2008). The taught postgraduate student experience: Overview of a Higher Education Academy survey. York: The Higher Education Academy. Available at: http://www.improvingthestudentexperience.com/library/PG_documents/PGT_O…
• Park, J.-H., & Choi, H. J. (2009). Factors influencing adult learners’ decision to drop out or persist in online learning. Educational Technology & Society, 12(4), 207–217.
• Phirangee, K. & Malec, A. (2017) Othering in online learning: an examination of social presence, identity, and sense of community, Distance Education, 38(2), 160—172, DOI: 10.1080/01587919.2017.1322457
• Shin, N. (2003). Transactional presence as a critical predictor of success in distance learning. Distance Education, 24(1), 69–68.
• Salmon, G. (2013). E-tivities: The key to active online learning (2nd ed.). London and New York: Routledge.
• Salmon, G. (2011). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
• Shneiderman, B. (1983). The future of interactive systems and the emergence of direct manipulation. Behaviour & Information Technology, 1(3), 237–256.
• Springer, L., Stanne, M.E., & Donovan, S.S. (1999). Effects of small-group learning on undergraduates in science, mathematics, engineering and technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 69(1), 21–51.
• Topping, K. J. (1998). Peer assessment between students in colleges and universities. Review of Educational Research, 68(3), 249–276.
• Toven-Lindsey, B., Rhoads, R. A., & Lozano, J. B. (2015). Virtually unlimited classrooms: Pedagogical practices in massive open online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 24, 1–12. doi: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2014.07.001.
• Tseng, S. C., Tsai, C. C. (2010). Taiwan college students’ self-efficacy and motivation of learning in online peer assessment environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(3), 164-169.
• Uijl, S., Filius, R. M., & ten Cate, O. (2017). Social interaction in Small Private Online Courses. Medical Science Educator, 27(2),237–242.
• Van Popta, E., Kral, M., Camp, G., Martens, R. L., & Simons, P. R. (2017). Exploring the value of peer feedback in online learning for the provider. Educational Research Review, 20, 24-34.
• Vaughan, M., & Uribe, S. (2016). Potential pitfalls in online feedback: A model for successfully completing the feedback cycle. In Proceedings of E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education 2016 (pp. 277–280). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)