```liquid {% seo %} ```


  1. Sakharov, A. (Director). (2013). Game of Thrones.
  2. III, J., Wiley, D., Stein, J., & Johnson, A. (2010). The four ’R’s of openness and ALMS analysis: Frameworks for open educational resources. Open Learning, 25, 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680510903482132
  3. Baker, R. S., Gasevic, D., & Karumbaiah, S. (2021). Four paradigms in learning analytics: Why paradigm convergence matters. Computers and Education: Artificial Intelligence, 2, 100021. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeai.2021.100021
  4. Bissell, A. (2009). Permission granted: Open licensing for educational resources. Open Learning, 24, 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680510802627886
  5. Blikstein, P., & Worsley, M. (2016). Multimodal Learning Analytics and Education Data Mining: using computational technologies to measure complex learning tasks. Journal of Learning Analytics, 3(2), 220–238. https://doi.org/10.18608/jla.2016.32.11
  6. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. K. (1997). Qualitative research for education. Allyn & Bacon Boston, MA, USA:
  7. Bourdeau, J., & Balacheff, N. (2014). Technology-Enhanced Learning: From Thesaurus and Dictionary to Ontology. Technological and Social Environments for Interactive Learning, 1–33.
  8. Chejara, P., Prieto, L. P., Ruiz-Calleja, A., Rodriguez-Triana, M. J., Shankar, S. K., & Kasepalu, R. (2021). EFAR-MMLA: An Evaluation Framework to Assess and Report Generalizability of Machine Learning Models in MMLA. Sensors, 21(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/s21082863
  9. Chejara, P., Kasepalu, R., Shankar, S. K., Prieto, L., Rodriguez-Triana, M., & Ruiz-Calleja, A. (2020, March). MMLA Approach to Track Collaborative Behavior in Face-to-Face Blended Settings.
  10. Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2013). Successful qualitative research: A practical guide for beginners. Successful Qualitative Research, 1–400.
  11. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2018). Research Methods in Education. Routledge: London.
  12. Conole, G., Scanlon, E., Mundin, P., & Farrow, R. (2010). Technology-enhanced learning as a site for interdisciplinary research. http://oro.open.ac.uk/35300/1/TELInterdisciplinarity.pdf
  13. Corbin, J., & and Strauss, A. (2018). Basics of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  14. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design. SAGE Publications, Inc.
  15. Dennen, V. P., & Spector, J. M. (2007). Preparing educational technology leaders: Reflections on the past. present, and future. Educational Technology Archive, 47, 5–12. https://www.jstor.org/stable/44429422
  16. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2005). The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  17. Devos, C., Boudrenghien, G., Linden, N., Azzi, A., Frenay, M., Galand, B., & Klein, O. (2016). Doctoral students’ experiences leading to completion or attrition: a matter of sense, progress and distress. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 32. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-016-0290-0
  18. Di Mitri, D., Schneider, J., Specht, M., & Drachsler, H. (2018). From signals to knowledge: A conceptual model for multimodal learning analytics. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(4), 338–349. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12288
  19. Trottier, M. N. (2010). RESEARCH METHODS IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS. Zoltan Dornyei. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Pp. 336. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 32(3), 498–499. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0272263110000094
  20. Drachsler, H., & Greller, W. (2016, April). Privacy and Analytics - it’s a DELICATE Issue. A Checklist for Trusted Learning Analytics. https://doi.org/10.1145/2883851.2883893
  21. Edelson, D. C. (2002). Design Research: What We Learn When We Engage in Design. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 11(1), 105–121. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327809JLS1101_4
  22. Eraut, M. (2004). Transfer of knowledge between education and workplace settings. In A. Fuller, A. Munro, & H. Rainbird (Eds.), Workplace Learning in Context (p. 21). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06333-6_12
  23. Ferguson, R. (2012). Learning analytics: drivers, developments and challenges. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4, 304–317.
  24. Flick, U. (2018). Designing qualitative research. Sage.
  25. Fominykh, M., Weidlich, J., Kalz, M., & Hybertsen, I. D. (2022). What do they TEL(L)? A systematic analysis of master programs in technology-enhanced learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239-021-00305-7
  26. Friese, S. (2016). Qualitative data analysis software: The state of the art. KWALON, 21. https://doi.org/10.5117/2016.021.001.005
  27. Gallant, T. B. (2011). Creating the Ethical Academy: A Systems Approach to Understanding Misconduct and Empowering Change in Higher Education. Routledge.
  28. Greller, W., & Drachsler, H. (2012). Translating Learning into Numbers: A Generic Framework for Learning Analytics. Educational Technology & Society, 15, 42–57.
  29. Hager, P. (2011). Theories of Workplace Learning. In M. Malloch, L. Cairns, K. Evans, & B. N. O’Connor (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Workplace Learning (pp. 17–31). https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446200940
  30. Kalz, M., & Specht, M. (2014). Assessing the crossdisciplinarity of technology-enhanced learning with science overlay maps and diversity measures. British Journal of Educational Technology, 45(3), 415–427. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12092
  31. Kaplan, A. M., & Haenlein, M. (2016). Higher education and the digital revolution: About MOOCs, SPOCs, social media, and the Cookie Monster. Business Horizons, 59(4), 441–450. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2016.03.008
  32. Kasepalu, R., Chejara, P., Prieto, L., & Ley, T. (2022). Do Teachers Find Dashboards Trustworthy, Actionable and Useful? A Vignette Study Using a Logs and Audio Dashboard. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 27, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10758-021-09522-5
  33. Kirkpatrick, D. L., & Kirkpatrick, J. D. (2010). Evaluating Training Programs: The Four Levels. 3rd Edition, Read How You Want.
  34. Kirkwood, A., & Price, L. (2014). Technology-enhanced learning and teaching in higher education: what is ‘enhanced’ and how do we know? A critical literature review. Learning, Media and Technology, 39(1), 6–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2013.770404
  35. Lancy, D. F. (1993). Qualitative Research in Education: An Introduction to the Major Traditions.
  36. Littlejohn, A., & Pammer-Schindler, V. (2022). Technologies for Professional Learning. In C. Harteis, D. Gijbels, & E. Kyndt (Eds.), Research Approaches on Workplace Learning: Insights from a Growing Field (pp. 321–346). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-89582-2_15
  37. Lina Markauskaite, P. G. (2016). Epistemic Fluency and Professional Education. Springer Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-4369-4
  38. Meyer, P., Kelle, S., Ullmann, T. D., Scott, P., & Wild, F. (2013). Interdisciplinary Cohesion of TEL - An Account of Multiple Perspectives. In D. Hernández-Leo, T. Ley, R. Klamma, & A. Harrer (Eds.), Scaling up Learning for Sustained Impact (pp. 219–232). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
  39. Orey, M., & Branch, R. M. (2017). Educational Media and Technology Yearbook. Springer Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-45001-8
  40. Pammer-Schindler, V., Wild, F., Fominykh, M., Ley, T., Perifanou, M., Soule, M. V., Hernández-Leo, D., Kalz, M., Klamma, R., Pedro, L., Santos, C., Glahn, C., Economides, A. A., Parmaxi, A., Prasolova-Førland, E., Gillet, D., & Maillet, K. (2020). Interdisciplinary Doctoral Training in Technology-Enhanced Learning in Europe. Frontiers in Education, 5. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2020.00150
  41. Prieto, L., Rodriguez-Triana, M., Odriozola-Gonzalez, P., & Dimitriadis, Y. (2022). Single-Case Learning Analytics to Support Social-Emotional Learning: The Case of Doctoral Education (pp. 251–278). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06333-6_12
  42. Spector, J. M. (2015). The Changing Nature of Educational Technology Programs. Educational Technology, 55(2), 19–25. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44430352
  43. Lang, C., Wise, A., Siemens, G., & Gasevic, D. (2017). Handbook of Learning Analytics. https://doi.org/10.18608/hla17
  44. Lofstrom, E., & Pyhalto, K. (2014). Ethical Issues in Doctoral Supervision: The Perspectives of PhD Students in the Natural and Behavioral Sciences. Ethics & Behavior, 24, 195–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/10508422.2013.830574
  45. Pammer-Schindler, V. (2019). Designing Data-Driven and Adaptive Technologies for Reflective Learning in the Workplace. https://www.staff.tugraz.at/viktoria.pammer-schindler/Pammer-Schindler%202019%20-%20Habilitation%20thesis.pdf
  46. Pammer-Schindler, V., Ley, T., Kimmerle, J., & Littlejohn, A. (2022). Guest Editorial: Designing Technologies to Support Professional and Workplace Learning for Situated Practice. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 15(5), 523–525. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2022.3207306
  47. Samuelsen, J., Chen, W., & Wasson, B. (2019). Integrating multiple data sources for learning analytics-review of literature. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 14, 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-019-0105-4
  48. Tchounikine, P. (2011). Computer Science and Educational Software Design - A Resource for Multidisciplinary Work in Technology Enhanced Learning. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20003-8
  49. Lofstrom, E., & Pyhalto, K. (2015). Ethics in the supervisory relationship: supervisors’ and doctoral students’ dilemmas in the natural and behavioural sciences. Studies in Higher Education, 42, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/03075079.2015.1045475
  50. Lofstrom, E., & Pyhalto, K. (2015). ’I Don’t Even Have Time to be Their Friend!’ Ethical Dilemmas in Ph.D. Supervision in the Hard Sciences. International Journal of Science Education, 37, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2015.1104424
  51. Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. (2006). Designing Qualitative Research. Sage.
  52. Martinez-Maldonado, R., Echeverria, V., Nieto, G., & Buckingham Shum, S. (2020). From Data to Insights: A Layered Storytelling Approach for Multimodal Learning Analytics. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376148
  53. Maxwell, J. (1992). Understanding and Validity in Qualitative Research. Harvard Educational Review, 62, 279–300.
  54. McKenney, S., & van den Akker, J. ( 2005 ). Computer-Based Support for Curriculum Designers: A Case of Developmental Research . Educational Technology Research and Development , 53 ( 2 ), 41–66 .
  55. OECD, O. (2007). Giving Knowledge for Free: The Emergence of Open Educational Resources. Giving Knowledge for Free: The Emergence of Open Educational Resources, 1–147. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264032125-en
  56. Prieto, L., Rodriguez-Triana, M., Odriozola-Gonzalez, P., & Dimitriadis, Y. (2022). Single-Case Learning Analytics to Support Social-Emotional Learning: The Case of Doctoral Education (pp. 251–278). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-06333-6_12
  57. Given, L. (2008). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909
  58. Saldana, J. (2011). Fundamentals of Qualitative Research (p. 201).
  59. Samuelsen, J., Chen, W., & Wasson, B. (2019). Integrating multiple data sources for learning analytics-review of literature. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 14, 11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41039-019-0105-4
  60. Scanlon, E., & Taylor, J. (2016). Is technology enhanced learning an interdisciplinary activity. International Conference on Networked Learning, 129–133. http://www.networkedlearningconference.org.uk/abstracts/pdf/P05.pdf
  61. Siemens, G. (2013). Learning Analytics The Emergence of a Discipline. American Behavioral Scientist, 57, 1380–1400. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213498851
  62. Shankar, S. K., Rodriguez-Triana, M. J., Ruiz-Calleja, A., Prieto, L. P., Chejara, P., & Martinez-Mones, A. (2020). Multimodal Data Value Chain (M-DVC): A Conceptual Tool to Support the Development of Multimodal Learning Analytics Solutions. IEEE Revista Iberoamericana De Tecnologias Del Aprendizaje, 15(2), 113–122. https://doi.org/10.1109/RITA.2020.2987887
  63. Sousa, L., Pedro, L., & Santos, C. (2021). Developing a Prototype of an Open Educational Resource on Research Methods for PhD Candidates in Technology-Enhanced Learning. In T. De Laet, R. Klemke, C. Alario-Hoyos, I. Hilliger, & A. Ortega-Arranz (Eds.), Technology-Enhanced Learning for a Free, Safe, and Sustainable World (pp. 295–299). Springer International Publishing.
  64. Tryon, G. S. (2000). Ethical Transgressions of School Psychology Graduate Students: A Critical Incidents Survey. Ethics & Behavior, 10, 271–279.
  65. Wiley, D., Bliss, T. J., & McEwen, M. (2014). Open Educational Resources: A Review of the Literature. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen, & M. J. Bishop (Eds.), Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology (pp. 781–789). Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_63
  66. Richards, T. (2002). An intellectual history of NUD*IST and NVivo. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 5, 199–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645570210146267
  67. Parameswaran, U., Ozawa-Kirk, J., & Latendresse, G. (2019). To live (code) or to not: A new method for coding in qualitative research. Qualitative Social Work, 19, 147332501984039. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325019840394
  68. Kalpokaite, N., & Radivojevic, I. (2019). Teaching qualitative data analysis software online: a comparison of face-to-face and e-learning ATLAS.ti courses. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 43, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/1743727X.2019.1687666
  69. Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. The Qualitative Report, 8, 597–607. https://doi.org/10.46743/2160-3715/2003.1870
  70. Weber, R. (1990). Basic content analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
  71. Seidel, J. (1998). The Ethnograph v.5.0: A User’s Guide. London: SAGE.
  72. Richards, L. (2005). Handling Qualitative Data: A Practical Guide. London: SAGE.
  73. Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
  74. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. London: SAGE.
  75. Mason, J. (2002). Qualitative Researching. London: SAGE.
  76. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic Inquiry. Beverly Hills: SAGE.
  77. Silver, C., & Lewins, A. (2008). Using Software in Qualitative Research. London: SAGE.
  78. Layder, D. (1998). Sociological Practice: Linking Theory and Sociological Research. London: SAGE.
  79. Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc.
  80. Mason, J. (2011). Booth, Andrew and Sutton, Anthea and Clowes, Mark and St. James, Marrissa Martyn. SAGE Publications.
  81. Kitchenham, B., & Charters, S. (2007). Guidelines for performing Systematic Literature Reviews in Software Engineering. 2.
  82. Matcha, W., Ahmad Uzir, N. A., Gasevic, D., & Pardo, A. (2019). A Systematic Review of Empirical Studies on Learning Analytics Dashboards: A Self-Regulated Learning Perspective. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, PP, 1–1. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2019.2916802
  83. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ, 339. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535
  84. Newman, M., & Gough, D. (2020). Systematic Reviews in Educational Research: Methodology, Perspectives and Application. In O. Zawacki-Richter, M. Kerres, S. Bedenlier, M. Bond, & K. Buntins (Eds.), Systematic Reviews in Educational Research: Methodology, Perspectives and Application (pp. 3–22). Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-27602-7_1
  85. Brocke, J. vom, Simons, A., Niehaves, B., Riemer, K., Plattfaut, R., & Cleven, A. (2009, June). Reconstructing the Giant: On the Importance of Rigour in Documenting the Literature Search Process. Http://Www.alexandria.unisg.ch/Publikationen/67910.
  86. Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2017). Guidance on Conducting a Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39, 0739456X1772397. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17723971
  87. Webster, J., & Watson, R. (2002). Analyzing the Past to Prepare for the Future: Writing a Literature Review. MIS Quarterly, 26. https://doi.org/10.2307/4132319
  88. Phillips, V., & Barker, E. (2021). Systematic reviews: Structure, form and content. Journal of Perioperative Practice, 31(9), 349–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750458921994693
  89. Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2006). Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Blackwell.
  90. Wademan, M. (2005). Utilizing development research to guide People Capability Maturity Model adoption considerations. Instructional Design, Development and Evaluation - Dissertations and Theses.
  91. Mckenney, S., & Reeves, T. (2013). Educational Design Research. In Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology: Fourth Edition (pp. 131–140). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_11
  92. Van den Akker, K., Jan abd Gravemeijer, McKenney, S., & Nieveen, N. (2006). Educational Design Research. London:Routledge.
  93. van den Akker, J. (1999). Principles and Methods of Development Research. In J. van den Akker, R. M. Branch, K. Gustafson, N. Nieveen, & T. Plomp (Eds.), Design Approaches and Tools in Education and Training (pp. 1–14). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4255-7_1
  94. Reeves, T. (2006). Design research from a technology perspective. Educational Design Research, 52–66.
  95. Mckenney, S., & Reeves, T. (2013). Educational Design Research. In Handbook of Research on Educational Communications and Technology: Fourth Edition (pp. 131–140). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3185-5_11
  96. Plomp, T., & Nieveen, N. (2013). Educational design research: an Introduction. Enschede: SLO.
  97. Nieveen, N. (1999). Prototyping to Reach Product Quality. In J. van den Akker, R. M. Branch, K. Gustafson, N. Nieveen, & T. Plomp (Eds.), Design Approaches and Tools in Education and Training (pp. 125–135). Springer Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4255-7_10
  98. McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. (2012). Educational Design Research. London:Routledge.
  99. McKenney, S., & Reeves, T. (2012). Toward a generic model for educational design research. London:Routledge.
  100. Mckenney, S. (2001). Computer-based support for science education materials developers in Africa: Exploring potentials.
  101. Kelly, A. E. (2012). Educational Design Research. London:Routledge.
  102. Bakker, A. (2018). Design Research in Education: a Practical Guide for Early Career Researchers. London:Routledge.
  103. Baumgartner, E., Bell, P., Brophy, S., Hoadley, C., Hsi, S., Joseph, D., Orrill, C., Puntambekar, S., Sandoval, W., & Tabak, I. (2003). Design-Based Research: An Emerging Paradigm for Educational Inquiry. Educational Researcher, 32, 5–8, 35. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X032001005
  104. Dowse, C., & Howie, S. (2013). Promoting academic research writing with South African master’s students in the field of education. Enschede: SLO.
  105. Mafumiko, F., Voogt, J., & Van den Akker, J. (2013). Design and evaluation of micro-scale chemistry experimentation in Tanzanian schools. Enschede: SLO.
  106. Bartle, R. (1996). Hearts, Clubs, Diamonds, Spades: Players Who Suit MUDs. Journal of MUD Research, 1(19).
  107. From game design elements to gamefulness: defining gamification. (2011). In Proceedings of the 15th International Academic MindTrek Conference: Envisioning Future Media Environments, 9–15.
  108. Does Gamification Work? A Literature Review of Empirical Studies on Gamification. (2014). Proceedings of the 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences., 3025–3034.
  109. MDA: A Formal Approach to Game Design and Game Research. (2004). In Proceedings of the AAAI Workshop on Challenges in Game AI., 1722.
  110. Defining gamification: a service marketing perspective. (2012). In Proceedings of the 16th International Academic MindTrek Conference, 17–22.
  111. Marczewski, A. (2015). User Types. In Even Ninja Monkeys Like to Play: Gamification, GameThinking and Motivational Design (pp. 65–80). CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
  112. Serious games: Games that educate, train, and inform. . (2006). Thomson Course Technology.
  113. Game-based Learning and 21st century skills: A review of recent research. (2016). Computers in Human Behavior, 63, 50–58.
  114. How gamification motivates: An experimental study of the effects of specific game design elements on psychological need satisfaction. (2017). Computers in Human Behavior, 69, 371–380.
  115. Werbach, K. (2014). (Re)Defining Gamification: A Process Approach. Spagnolli, A., Chittaro, L., Gamberini, L. (Eds) Persuasive Technology, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 8462, 266–272.
  116. For the win: How game thinking can revolutionize your business. (2012). Wharton Digital Press.
  117. Our Princess Is in Another Castle: A Review of Trends in Serious Gaming for Education. (2012). Review of Educational Research, 82(1), 61–89.