Learning from experience: the realities of developing mathematics courses for an online engineering programme

References

• Diamond RM. Designing and assessing courses and curricula: a practical guide. San Francisco (CA): Wiley; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Krantz SG. How to teach mathematics. Providence (RI): American Mathematical Society; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• Alley LR, Jansak KE. The ten keys to quality assurance and assessment in online learning. J Interact Instr Dev. 2001;13(3):3–18.
   Google Scholar
• Biggs J. What the student does: teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Educ Res Dev. 1999;18(1):57–75.
   Google Scholar
• Biggs J, Tang C. Teaching for quality learning at university. 4th ed. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill Education; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Ramsden P. Learning to teach in higher education. London: Routledge; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Bowen WG, Chingos MM, Lack KA, et al. Interactive learning online at public universities: evidence from a six-campus randomized trial. J Policy Anal Manag. 2014;33(1):94–111. doi:10.1002/pam.21728
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayadas AF, Bourne J, Bacsich P. Online education today. Science. 2009;323(5910):85–89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bender T. Discussion-based online teaching to enhance student learning: theory, practice, and assessment. Sterling (VA): Stylus Publishing, LLC; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Bourne J, Harris D, Mayadas F. Online engineering education: learning anywhere, anytime. J Eng Educ. 2005;94(1):131–146.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lim DH, Morris ML, Kupritz VW. Online vs. blended learning: differences in instructional outcomes and learner satisfaction. 2014.
   Google Scholar
• Cercone K. Characteristics of adult learners with implications for online learning design. AACE Journal. 2008;16:137–159.
   Google Scholar
• Kim C, Park SW, Cozart J. Affective and motivational factors of learning in online mathematics courses. Br J Educ Technol. 2014;45;171–185. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01382.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merriam SB, Caffarella RS. Learning in adulthood: a comprehensive guide. San Francisco (CA): Jossey-Bass; 1991.
   Google Scholar
• Wlodkowski RJ. Enhancing adult motivation to learn: a comprehensive guide for teaching all adults. San Fransisco (CA): Wiley; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Palloff RM, Pratt K. The virtual student: a profile and guide to working with online Learners. San Fransisco (CA): Wiley; 2003.
   Google Scholar
• Yuan L, Powell S. MOOCs and open education: Implications for higher education. Bolton: University of Bolton, Centre for Educational Technology, Interoperability and Standards & JISC. Available from: http://publications.cetis.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/MOOCs-and-Open-Education.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Kizilcec RF, Piech C, Schneider E. Deconstructing disengagement: analyzing learner subpopulations in massive open online courses. In: Suthers D, Verbert K, Duval E, Ochoa X, editors. Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge. 2013 April 8–12; Leuven, Belgium. New York (NY): ACM; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Ko S, Rossen S. Teaching online: a practical guide. Boston (MA): Taylor & Francis; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Wiggins GP, McTighe J. Understanding by design. 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Pearson; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Smith RM. Conquering the content: a step-by-step guide to online course design. San Francisco (CA): Wiley; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• James P, Quinn D, Dansie B. Re-engineering for Australia's engineering skill shortage. In: Williams G, Statham P, Brown N. Cleland B, editors. ASCILITE 2011: changing demands, changing directions. Proceedings; 2011 Dec 4–7; Hobart (Australia): Wrest Point; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Thiel T, Peterman S, Brown M. Addressing the crisis in college mathematics: designing courses for student success. Change Mag Higher Learn. 2008;40(4):44–49.
   Google Scholar
• Chickering AW, Gamson ZF. Development and adaptations of the seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. New Dir Teach Learn. 1999;1999(80):75–81.
   Google Scholar
• Kirschner P, Strijbos J-W, Kreijns K, et al. Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Educ Technol Res Dev. 2004;52(3):47–66.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lynch G, Paasuke P. Key elements of the tutorial support management model. Aust J Educ Technol. 2011;27(1):28–40.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Open Universities Australia. Unit review rubric: a rubric for the evaluation of online teaching and learning designs. Melbourne: Open Universities Australia; 2011.
   Google Scholar
• Quinn D, Amer Y, Lonie A, et al. Leading change: applying change management approaches to engage students in blended learning. Aust J Educ Technol. 2012;28(1):16–29.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Quinn D, Wedding B. Responding to diversification: preparing naive learners for university study using time budgets. In Brown M, Hartnett M, Stewart T, editors. ASCILITE 2012: future challenges, sustainable futures. Proceedings; 2012 Nov 25–28; Wellington (New Zealand); 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Kolb A, Kolb D. Experiential learning theory. In: Seel N, editor. Encyclopedia of the sciences of learning. Boston (MA): Springer; 2012. p. 1215–1219.
   Google Scholar
• Kolb AY, Kolb DA. Learning styles and learning spaces: enhancing experiential learning in higher education. Acad Manag Learn Educ. 2005;4(2):193–212.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kolb DA. Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Englewood Cliffs (NJ): Prentice Hall; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• McCutcheon G, Jung B. Alternative perspectives on action research. Theory Pract. 1990;29(3):144–151.
   Google Scholar
• Boaler J. Ability and mathematics: the mindset revolution that is reshaping education. Forum. 2013;55(1):143–152.
   Google Scholar
• Borko H, Whitcomb J, Liston D. Wicked problems and other thoughts on issues of technology and teacher learning. J Teach Educ. 2009;60(1):3–7.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wingard RG. Classroom teaching changes in web-enhanced courses: a multi-institutional study. Educause Q. 2004;27(1):26–35.
   Google Scholar