[1. Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R. M., Bures, E. M., Borokhovski, E., & Tamim, R. M. (2011). Interaction in distance education and online learning: Using evidence and theory to improve practice. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23(2-3), 82-103.10.1007/s12528-011-9043-x]Search in Google Scholar
[2. Agudo-Peregrina, Á. F., Iglesias-Pradas, S., Conde-González, M. Á., & Hernández-García, Á. (2014). Can we predict success from log data in VLEs? Classification of interactions for learning analytics and their relation with performance in VLE-supported F2F and online learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 31, 542-550.10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.031]Search in Google Scholar
[3. Alkhateeb, M., Hayashi, Y., & Hirashima, T. (2015). Comparison between Kit-Build and Scratch-Build Concept Mapping Methods in Supporting EFL Reading Comprehension. The Journal of Information and Systems in Education, 14(1), 13-27.10.12937/ejsise.14.13]Search in Google Scholar
[4. Arbaugh, J. B. (2002). Managing the online classroom: a study of technological and behavioral characteristics of web-based MBA courses. Journal of High Technology Management Research, 13, 203-223.10.1016/S1047-8310(02)00049-4]Search in Google Scholar
[5. Arbaugh, J. B., & Duray, R. (2002). Technological and structural characteristics, student learning and satisfaction with web-based courses – An exploratory study of two on-line MBA programs. Management Learning, 33(3), 331-347.10.1177/1350507602333003]Search in Google Scholar
[6. Beaudoin, M. F. (2002). Learning or lurking? Tracking the “invisible” online student. The internet and higher education, 5(2), 147-155.10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00086-6]Search in Google Scholar
[7. 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(3), 1243-1289.10.3102/0034654309333844]Search in Google Scholar
[8. Cacciamani, S., Cesareni, D., Martini, F., Ferrini, T., & Fujita, N. (2012). Influence of participation, facilitator styles, and metacognitive reflection on knowledge building in online university courses. Computers & Education, 58(3), 874-884.10.1016/j.compedu.2011.10.019]Search in Google Scholar
[9. Case, S. M., & Swanson, D. B. (2001). Constructing written test questions for the basic and clinical sciences (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: National Board of Medical Examiners]Search in Google Scholar
[10. Chan, C. K., & Chan, Y. Y. (2011). Students’ views of collaboration and online participation in Knowledge Forum. Computers & Education, 57(1), 1445-1457.10.1016/j.compedu.2010.09.003]Search in Google Scholar
[11. Cheng, G., & Chau, J. (2016). Exploring the relationships between learning styles, online participation, learning achievement and course satisfaction: An empirical study of a blended learning course. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(2), 257-278.10.1111/bjet.12243]Search in Google Scholar
[12. Cohen, D., & Prusak, L. (2001). In good company: how social capital makes organizations work. MA, Boston: Harvard Business Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[13. Cunningham, J. M. (2015). Mechanizing People and Pedagogy: Establishing Social Presence in the Online Classroom. Online Learning, 19(3), 34-47.10.24059/olj.v19i3.476]Search in Google Scholar
[14. Dabbagh, N., & Kitsantas, A. (2012). Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. The Internet and higher education, 15(1), 3-8.10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.06.002]Search in Google Scholar
[15. Dennen, V. P., & Paulus, T. M. (2006). Researching “collaborative knowledge building” in formal distance learning environments. In T. Koschman, T. W. Chan & D. D. Suthers (Eds.), Computer supported collaborative learning 2005: The next 10 Years! International Society of the Learning Sciences, Taipei.]Search in Google Scholar
[16. Dimkov, T., Pieters, W., & Hartel, P. (2011). Training students to steal: a practical assignment in computer security education. Proceedings of the 42nd ACM technical symposium on computer science education, 21-26.10.1145/1953163.1953175]Search in Google Scholar
[17. Earl-Novell, S. (2006). Determining the extent to which program structure features and integration mechanisms facilitate or impede doctoral student persistence in mathematics. International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 1, 52-55.10.28945/60]Search in Google Scholar
[18. Ferrer de Valero, Y. (2001). Departmental factors affecting time-to-degree and completion rates of doctoral students at one land-grant research institution. The Journal of Higher Education, 72(3), 341-367.10.2307/2649335]Search in Google Scholar
[19. Freeman, M., & McKenzie, J. (2002). SPARK, A Confidential Web-Based Template for Self and Peer Assessment of Student Teamwork: Benefits of Evaluating across Different Subjects. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33, 551-569.10.1111/1467-8535.00291]Search in Google Scholar
[20. Gibbs, G. (2006). How assessment frames student learning. In C. Bryan & K. Clegg (Eds.), Innovative assessment in higher education (pp. 23-36). London: Routledge.]Search in Google Scholar
[21. Greller, W., Santally, M. I., Boojhawon, R., Rajabalee, Y., & Kevin, R. (2017). Using Learning Analytics to Investigate Student Performance in Blended Learning Courses. Journal of Higher Education Development – ZFHE, 12(1).10.3217/zfhe-12-01/03]Search in Google Scholar
[22. Harvey, L. (2000). New realities: the relationship between higher education and employment. Tertiary Education and Management, 6, 3-17.10.1080/13583883.2000.9967007]Search in Google Scholar
[23. HEFCE-PISG (1999). Performance indicators in higher education. First report of the performance indicators steering group, 99/11. Bristol: HEFCE.]Search in Google Scholar
[24. Hirashima, T., Yamasaki, K., Fukuda, H., & Funaoi, H. (2011). Kit-Build Concept Map for Automatic Diagnosis. Proceedings of Artificial Intelligence in Education 2011, Auckland, New Zealand: Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 466-468.10.1007/978-3-642-21869-9_71]Search in Google Scholar
[25. Hirashima, T., Yamasaki, K., Fukuda, H., & Funaoi, H. (2015). Framework of kit-build concept map for automatic diagnosis and its preliminary use. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 10(1), 1-21.10.1186/s41039-015-0018-9]Search in Google Scholar
[26. Hong, K. S. (2002). Relationships between students’ and instructional variables with satisfaction and learning from a Web-based course. Internet and Higher Education, 5, 267-281.10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00105-7]Search in Google Scholar
[27. Hussain, Ch. A. (2006). Effect of Guidance Services on Study Attitudes, Study Habits and Academic Achievement of Secondary School Students. Bulletin of Education and Research, 28(1), 35-45.]Search in Google Scholar
[28. Ke, F. (2010). Examining online teaching, cognitive, and social presence for adult students. Computers & Education, 55(2), 808-820.10.1016/j.compedu.2010.03.013]Search in Google Scholar
[29. Larres, P. M., Ballantine, J. A., & Whittington, M. (2003) Evaluating the validity of self-assessment: Measuring computer literacy among entry-level undergraduates within accounting degree programmes at two UK universities. Accounting Education, 12, 97-112.10.1080/0963928032000091729]Search in Google Scholar
[30. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511815355]Search in Google Scholar
[31. Lin, W.-J., Yueh, H.-P., Liu, Y.-L., Murakami, M., Kakusho, K., & Minoh, M. (2006). Blog as a tool to develop e-learning experience in an international distance course. Proceedings of the Sixth IEEE International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies (ICALT’06).]Search in Google Scholar
[32. Lovitts, B., & Nelson, C. (2000). The hidden crisis in graduate education: Attrition from Ph.D. programs [Electronic version]. Academe Online.]Search in Google Scholar
[33. Macfadyen, L. P., & Dawson, S. (2010). Mining LMS data to develop an “early warning system” for educators: A proof of concept. Computers & Education, 54(2), 588–599. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.00810.1016/j.compedu.2009.09.008]Otwórz DOISearch in Google Scholar
[34. Macfadyen, L. P., & Dawson, S. (2012). Numbers are not enough. Why e-learning analytics failed to inform an institutional strategic plan. Educational Technology & Society, 15(3), 149-163.]Search in Google Scholar
[35. McCoubrie, P. (2004). Improving the fairness of multiple-choice questions: a literature review. Medical teacher, 26(8), 709-712.10.1080/01421590400013495]Search in Google Scholar
[36. McGloughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2010). Personalised and self regulated learning in the Web]Search in Google Scholar
[2.0 era: International exemplars of innovative pedagogy using social software. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 28–43]Search in Google Scholar
[37. McLoughlin, C., & Luca, J. (2002). A learner–centred approach to developing team skills through web–based learning and assessment. British Journal of Educational Technology, 33(5), 571-582.10.1111/1467-8535.00292]Search in Google Scholar
[38. Millar, R. (2010). Analysing practical science activities to assess and improve their effectiveness. Hatfield: Association for Science Education.]Search in Google Scholar
[39. Moore, M. G., & Kearsley, G. (2005). Distance education: A systems view (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company.]Search in Google Scholar
[40. Mushtaq, S. N. K. (2012). Factors affecting students’ academic performance. Global Journal of Management and Business Research, 12(9).]Search in Google Scholar
[41. Naranjo, M., Onrubia, J., & Segués, M. T. (2012). Participation and cognitive quality profiles in an online discussion forum. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(2), 282-294.10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01179.x]Search in Google Scholar
[42. Nomura, T., Hayashi, Y., Suzuki, T., & Hirashima, T. (2014). Knowledge Propagation in Practical Use of Kit-Build Concept Map System in Classroom Group Work for Knowledge Sharing. Proceeding of International Conference on Computers in Education Workshop 2014, Nara, Japan: ICCE 2014 Organizing Committee, 463-472.]Search in Google Scholar
[43. Nonaka, I., & Konno, N. (1998). The concept of BA: Building a foundation for knowledge creation. California Management Review, 40(3), 40-54.10.2307/41165942]Search in Google Scholar
[44. Norhidayah, A., Kamaruzaman, K., Syukriah, A., Najah, M., & Azni Syafena Andin, S. (2009). The Factors Influencing Students. Performance at Universiti Teknologi MARA Kedah, Malaysia. Canadian Research & Development Center of Sciences and Cultures: Vol.3 No.4.]Search in Google Scholar
[45. Piccoli, G., Ahmad, R., & Ives, B. (2001). Web-based virtual learning environments: a research framework and a preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic IT skill training. MIS Quarterly, 25(4), 401-426.10.2307/3250989]Search in Google Scholar
[46. Richardson, W. (2010). Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful web tools for classrooms. Corwin Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[47. Robinson, A., & Udall, M. (2006). Using formative assessment to improve student learning through critical reflection. In C. Bryan & K. Clegg (Eds.), Innovative assessment in higher education (pp. 92-99). New York: Routledge.]Search in Google Scholar
[48. Santally, M., & Senteni, A. (2013). Effectiveness of Personalised Learning Paths on Students Learning Experiences in an e-Learning Environment. European Journal of Open, Distance and eLearning, 2013(I). Retrieved from http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2013/Santally_Senteni.pdf]Search in Google Scholar
[49. Simonson, M., Smaldino, S., Albright, M., & Zvacek, S. (2009). Teaching and Learning at a Distance: Foundations of distance education (4th ed.). Columbus, OH: Prentice-Hall.]Search in Google Scholar
[50. Sluijsmans, D., Dochy, F., & Moerkerke, G. (1999). Creating a Learning Environment by Using Self-, Peer- and Co-Assessment. Learning Environments Research, 1, 293-319.10.1023/A:1009932704458]Search in Google Scholar
[51. Sugihara, K., Osada, T., Nakata, S., Funaoi, H., & Hirashima, T. (2012). Experimental evaluation of kit-build concept map for science classes in an elementary school. Proceedings of Computers in Education 2012, Singapore: National Institute of Education, 17-24]Search in Google Scholar
[52. Tempelaar, D. T., Heck, A., Cuypers, H., van der Kooij, H., & van de Vrie, E. (2013). Formative Assessment and Learning Analytics. In D. Suthers & K. Verbert (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 205-209). New York: ACM. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2460296.246033710.1145/2460296.2460337]Otwórz DOISearch in Google Scholar
[53. Toplis, R., & Allen, M. (2012). I do and I understand? Practical work and laboratory use in United Kingdom schools. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 8(1), 3-9.10.12973/eurasia.2012.812a]Search in Google Scholar
[54. Vonderwell, S., & Zachariah, S. (2005). Factors that influence participation in online learning, Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 38(2), 213-230.10.1080/15391523.2005.10782457]Search in Google Scholar
[55. Vrasidas, C., & McIsaac, M. (1999). Factors influencing interaction in an online course. The American Journal of Distance Education, 13(3), 22-36.10.1080/08923649909527033]Search in Google Scholar
[56. de Wever, B., van Keer, H., Schellens, T., & Valcke, M. (2009). Structuring asynchronous discussion groups: the impact of role assignment and self-assessment on students’ levels of knowledge construction through social negotiation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 25(2), 177-188.10.1111/j.1365-2729.2008.00292.x]Search in Google Scholar
[57. Wolff, A., Zdrahal, Z., Nikolov, A., & Pantucek, M. (2013). Improving retention: Predicting at-risk students by analysing clicking behaviour in a virtual learning environment. Paper presented at the 3rd International Conference on Learning analytics and Knowledge.10.1145/2460296.2460324]Search in Google Scholar
[58. Yoshida, K., Sugihara, K., Nino, Y., Shida, M., & Hirashima, T. (2013). Practical Use of Kit-Build Concept Map System for Formative Assessment of Learners’ Comprehension in a Lecture. Proceedings of Computers in Education 2013, Bali, Indonesia: Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education, 906-915.]Search in Google Scholar