[
1. Anderson, T. (2003). Getting the mix right again: An updated and theoretical rationale for interaction. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 4(2).10.19173/irrodl.v4i2.149
]Search in Google Scholar
[
2. Andrews, J. (1980). The verbal structure of teacher questions: Its impact on class discussion. POD Quarterly: Journal of Professional and Organizational Development Network in Higher Education, 2(3 & 4), 129–163.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
3. Avella, J.T., Kebritchi, M., Nunn, S., & Kanai, T. (2016). Learning analytics methods, benefits, and challenges in Higher Education: A systematic literature review. Online Learning, 20(2), http://dx.doi.org/10.24059/olj.v20i2.790.10.24059/olj.v20i2.790
]Search in Google Scholar
[
4. Becker, S. A., Cummins, M., Davis, A., Freeman, A., Hall, C. G., & Ananthanarayanan, V. (2017). NMC horizon report: 2017 higher education edition (pp. 1-60). The New Media Consortium. Retrieved from http://cdn.nmc.org/media/2017-nmc-horizon-report-he-EN.pdf
]Search in Google Scholar
[
5. Berland, M., Baker, R. S., & Blikstein, P. (2014). Educational data mining and learning analytics: Applications to constructionist research. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 19(1-2), 205-220.10.1007/s10758-014-9223-7
]Search in Google Scholar
[
6. Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Surkes, M. A., & Bethel, E. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79, 1243–1289.10.3102/0034654309333844
]Search in Google Scholar
[
7. Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R., Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P. C., & Sokolovskaya, A. (2012). Are contextual and designed student–student interaction treatments equally effective in distance education? Distance Education, 33(3), 311–329.10.1080/01587919.2012.723162
]Search in Google Scholar
[
8. Brooks, C. D., & Jeong, A. (2006). Effects of pre-structuring discussion threads on group interaction and group performance in computer-supported collaborative argumentation. Distance Education, 27(3), 371-390.10.1080/01587910600940448
]Search in Google Scholar
[
9. Cheng, C. K., Paré, D. E., Collimore, L. M., & Joordens, S. (2011). Assessing the effectiveness of a voluntary online discussion forum on improving students’ course performance. Computers & Education, 56(1), 253–261.10.1016/j.compedu.2010.07.024
]Search in Google Scholar
[
10. Darabi, A., Arrastia, M. C., Nelson, D. W., Cornille, T., & Liang, X. (2011). Cognitive presence in asynchronous online learning: A comparison of four discussion strategies. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(3), 216-227.10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00392.x
]Search in Google Scholar
[
11. Darabi, A., Liang, X., Suryavanshi, R., & Yurekli, H. (2013). Effectiveness of online discussion strategies: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Distance Education, 27(4), 228-241.10.1080/08923647.2013.837651
]Search in Google Scholar
[
12. Dawson, S., Macfadyen, L., Lockyer, L., & Mazzochi-Jones, D. (2011). Using social network metrics to assess the effectiveness of broad based admission practices. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 27(1), 16–27.10.14742/ajet.979
]Search in Google Scholar
[
13. Ertmer, P. A., & Koehler, A. A. (2014). Online case-based discussions: Examining coverage of the afforded problem space. Educational Technology Research and Development, 62(5), 617-636.10.1007/s11423-014-9350-9
]Search in Google Scholar
[
14. Ertmer, P. A., Sadaf, A., & Ertmer, D. J. (2011). Student-content interactions in online courses: The role of question prompts in facilitating higher-level engagement with course content. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(2-3), 157–86.10.1007/s12528-011-9047-6
]Search in Google Scholar
[
15. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23.10.1080/08923640109527071
]Search in Google Scholar
[
16. Gilbert, P. K., & Dabbagh, N. (2005). How to structure online discussions for meaningful discourse: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(1), 5-18.10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00434.x
]Search in Google Scholar
[
17. Hernández-García, Á., & Suárez-Navas, I. (2017). GraphFES: A web service and application for Moodle message board social graph extraction. In Daniel, B.K. (Ed.), Big data and learning analytics in Higher Education: Current theory and practice (pp.167-194). Springer.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
18. Hosler, K. A., & Arend, B. D. (2012). Strategies and principles to develop cognitive presence in online discussions. Educational communities of inquiry: Theoretical framework, research and practice, 148-167.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
19. Huss, J. A., Sela, O., & Eastep, S. (2015). A case study of online instructors and their quest for greater interactivity in their courses: Overcoming the distance in distance education. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 40(4).10.14221/ajte.2015v40n4.5
]Search in Google Scholar
[
20. Ifenthaler, D. (2017). Are Higher Education institutions prepared for learning analytics? TechTrends, 61, 366-371. doi: 10.1007/s11528-016-0154-010.1007/s11528-016-0154-0
]Search in Google Scholar
[
21. Kim, D., Park, Y., Yoon, M., & Jo, I. H. (2016). Toward evidence-based learning analytics: Using proxy variables to improve asynchronous online discussion environments. The Internet and Higher Education, 30, 30-43.10.1016/j.iheduc.2016.03.002
]Search in Google Scholar
[
22. Kim, D., Yoon, M., Jo, I.H., & Branch, R. M. (2018). Learning analytics to support self-regulated learning in asynchronous online courses: A case study at a women’s university in South Korea. Computers & Education, 127, 233-251.10.1016/j.compedu.2018.08.023
]Search in Google Scholar
[
23. Kuo, Y. C., Walker, A., Belland, B. R., & Schroder, K. E. E. (2013). A predictive study of student satisfaction in online education programs. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(1), 16–39.10.19173/irrodl.v14i1.1338
]Search in Google Scholar
[
24. Lim, J., Jeong, A. C., Hall, B. M., & Freed, S. (2017). Intersubjective and discussion characteristics in online courses. Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 18(1), 29-44.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
25. Lustria, M. L. A. (2007). Can interactivity make a difference? Effects of interactivity on the comprehension of and attitudes toward online health content. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology, 58(6), 766-776.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
26. Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–6.10.1080/08923648909526659
]Search in Google Scholar
[
27. Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. SAGE Publications, Inc.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
28. Park, C. L. (2009). Replicating the use of a cognitive presence measurement tool. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8, 140–155.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
29. Richardson, J. C., & Ice, P. (2010). Investigating students’ level of critical thinking across instructional strategies in online discussions. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 52-59.10.1016/j.iheduc.2009.10.009
]Search in Google Scholar
[
30. Richardson, J., Sadaf, A., & Ertmer, P. (2012). Relationship between question prompts and critical thinking in online discussions. In Z. Akyol & R. Garrison (Eds.), Educational Communities of Inquiry: Theoretical Framework, Research and Practice (pp.197-222). IGI Global. doi. 10.4018/978-1-4666-2110-7.ch011.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
31. Romero, C., Lopez, M. I., Luna, J. M., & Ventura, S. (2013). Predicting students’ final performance from participation in on-line discussion forums. Computers & Education, 68, 458–472.10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.009
]Search in Google Scholar
[
32. Sadaf, A., & Olesova, L. (2017). Enhancing cognitive presence in online case discussions with questions based on the practical inquiry model. American Journal of Distance Education, 31(1), 56-69.10.1080/08923647.2017.1267525
]Search in Google Scholar
[
33. Salter, N. P., & Conneely, M. R. (2015). Structured and unstructured discussion forum as tools for student engagement. Computers in Human Behavior, 46, 18-25.10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.037
]Search in Google Scholar
[
34. Sergis, S., & Sampson, D.G. (2017). Teaching and learning analytics to support teacher inquiry: A systematic literature review. In A. Peña-Ayala (Ed.), Learning analytics: Fundaments, applications, and trends: A view of the current state of the art to enhance e-learning (pp. 25-63). Springer.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
35. Sher, A. (2009). Assessing the relationship of student-instructor and student-student interaction to student learning and satisfaction in Web-based online learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
36. Shukor, N. A., Tasir, Z., Van der Meijden, H., & Harun, J. (2014). Exploring students’ knowledge construction strategies in computer-supported collaborative learning discussions using sequential analysis. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 17(4), 216–228.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
37. Tempelaar, D., Rienties, B., Mittelmeier, J., & Nguyen, Q. (2018). Student profiling in a dispositional learning analytics application using formative assessment. Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 408-420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.01010.1016/j.chb.2017.08.010
]Search in Google Scholar
[
38. Xie, K., Yu, C., & Bradshaw, A. C. (2014). Impacts of role assignment and participation in asynchronous discussions in college-level online classes. The Internet and Higher Education, 20, 10-19.10.1016/j.iheduc.2013.09.003
]Search in Google Scholar
[
39. Xing, W., Guo, R., Petakovic, E., & Goggins, S. (2015). Participation-based student final performance prediction model through interpretable Genetic Programming: Integrating learning analytics, educational data mining and theory. Computer in Human Behavior, 47, 168-181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.09.03410.1016/j.chb.2014.09.034
]Search in Google Scholar
[
40. Zhang, J.-H., Zhang, Y.-X., Zou, Q., & Huang, S. (2018). What learning analytics tells us: group behavior analysis and individual learning diagnosis based on long-term and large-scale data. Educational Technology & Society, 21(2), 245-258.
]Search in Google Scholar
