[1. Allen, E.; Seaman, J.; Lederman, D.; Jaschik, S. (2012). Conflicted: Faculty and online education, 2012. Babson Survey Research Group. http://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/server_files/files/IHE-BSRG-Conflict.pdf (accessed 21.12.14).]Search in Google Scholar
[2. Allen, I.E. and Seaman, J. (2013). Changing course: Ten years of tracking online education in the United States. Babson Survey Research Group & Quahog Research Group, LLC. San Francisco. http://www.onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/changingcourse.pdf (accessed 21.12.14).]Search in Google Scholar
[3. Armellini, A.; Salmon, G.; Hawkridge, D. (2009). The Carpe Diem journey: Designing for learning and transformation. In T. Mayes, D. Morrison, H. Mellar, P. Bullen & M. Oliver (eds.), Transforming Higher Education through technology-enhanced learning. The Higher Education Academy, York.]Search in Google Scholar
[4. Bady, A. (2013). The MOOC moment and the end of reform. In Association of American Colleges and Universities, 99(4).]Search in Google Scholar
[5. Barber, M. and Rizvi, S. (2013). Asking more: The path to efficacy. Pearson, London, England. http://efficacy.pearson.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Asking-More-The-Path-to- Efficacy-high-res1.pdf]Search in Google Scholar
[6. Barber, M.; Donnelly, K.; Rizvi, S. (2013). An avalanche is coming: Higher education and the revolution ahead. Institute for Public Policy Research, London, England. http://www.ippr.org/publication/55/10432/an-avalanche-is-coming-higher-education-andthe- revolution-ahead (accessed 21.1214).]Search in Google Scholar
[7. Basir, H.M.; Ahmad, A.; Noor, N.L.M. (2010). Institutional strategy for effective blended elearning: HCI perspective of sustainable embedding. In the Proceedings of User Science and Engineering (i-USEr), 2010 International Conference, IEEE, (pp. 71-76).10.1109/IUSER.2010.5716726]Search in Google Scholar
[8. Bates, A.W. and Sangra, A. (2013). Managing technology in Higher education: strategies for transforming. Wiley.]Search in Google Scholar
[9. Beaudoin, M.F.; Kurtz, G.; Eden, S. (2009). Experiences and opinions of e-learners: What works, what are the challenges, and what competencies ensure successful online learning. In Interdisciplinary Journal of E-Learning and Learning Objects, 5(1), (pp. 275-289).10.28945/78]Search in Google Scholar
[10. Bell, M. and Bell, W. (2005). It’s installed … now get on with it! Looking beyond the software to the cultural change. In British Journal of Educational Technology, 36(4), (pp. 643-656).10.1111/j.1467-8535.2005.00541.x]Search in Google Scholar
[11. Bokor, J. (ed.) (2012). University of the Future: A thousand year old industry on the cusp of profound change. Ernst & Young. http://www.ey.com/AU/en/Industries/Government---Public- Sector/UOF_University-of-the-future (accessed 21.12.14).]Search in Google Scholar
[12. Bonaccorsi, A.; Daraio, C.; Geuna, A. (2010). Universities in the new knowledge landscape: Tensions, challenges, Change - An introduction. In Minerva, 48(1), (pp. 1-4). doi:10.1007/s11024-010-9144-010.1007/s11024-010-9144-0]Search in Google Scholar
[13. Brown, S. (2010). From VLEs to learning webs: The implications of Web 2.0 for learning and teaching. In Interactive Learning Environments, 18(1), (pp. 1-10). doi:10.1080/1049482080215898310.1080/10494820802158983]Search in Google Scholar
[14. Calvert, J. (2005). Distance education at the crossroad. In Distance Education, 26(2), (pp. 227-238).10.1080/01587910500168876]Search in Google Scholar
[15. Carey, T. and Trick, D. (2013). How online learning affects productivity, cost and quality in higher education: An environmental scan and review of the literature. Toronto, Canada: Higher Education Quality Council of Ontario. http://www.heqco.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/How_Online_Learning_Affects_Productivi ty-ENG.pdf (accessed 21.12. 14).]Search in Google Scholar
[16. Chow, B. (2013). Deeper learning. . In M. Barber & S. Rizvi (eds.), Asking more: The path to efficacy, (pp. 11-16). Pearson, London, England.]Search in Google Scholar
[17. Christensen, C.M. and Horn, M.B. (2013). How disruption can help colleges thrive. In The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 4, (p. B30).]Search in Google Scholar
[18. Christensen, C.M.; Horn, M.B.; Caldera, L.; Soares, L. (2011). Disrupting College: How Disruptive Innovation Can Deliver Quality and Affordability to Postsecondary Education. Center for American Progress, Innosight Institute. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED535182.]Search in Google Scholar
[19. Christensen, C.M. and Raynor, M.E. (2013). The innovator’s solution: Creating and sustaining successful growth. Harvard Business School Press.]Search in Google Scholar
[20. Colbert, V. (2013). Improving quality and equity in education. In M. Barber & S. Rizvi (eds.), Asking more: The path to efficacy, (pp. 37-42). Pearson, London.]Search in Google Scholar
[21. Crow, M.M. (2013). The new American university. In M. Barber & S. Rizvi (eds.), Asking more: The path to efficacy, (pp. 49-53). Pearson: London.]Search in Google Scholar
[22. Cruz, J.L. (2013). What are the barriers to innovation? In Forum discussion paper, The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 4, (p. B43).]Search in Google Scholar
[23. Daniel, J. (2012). Making Sense of MOOCs: Musings in a maze of myth, paradox and possibility. In Journal of Interactive Media in Education, (pp. 1-20). 10.5334/2012-18]Search in Google Scholar
[24. Dutton, W.H.; Blank, G.; Groselj, D. (2013). Cultures of the internet: The internet in Britain. Oxford Internet Survey 2013. Oxford Internet Institute, University of Oxford.]Search in Google Scholar
[25. Edgecombe, N.; Cormier, M.; Bickerstaff, S.; Barragan, N. (2013). Strengthening developmental education reforms: Evidence on Implementation efforts from the Scaling Innovation Project. CRCC Working Paper No. 61. http://www.scalinginnovation.org/wpcontent/ uploads/2013/06/strengthening-developmental-education-reforms.pdf (accessed 21.12 .14).]Search in Google Scholar
[26. Fallon, J. (2013). Preface. In M. Barber & S. Rizvi (eds.), Asking more: The path to efficacy, (pp. 2-5). Pearson, London, England.]Search in Google Scholar
[27. Ferrão, S.; Galván, R.; Rodrigues, S. (2009). E-knowledge, e-learning towards e-competence: The development of a model that illustrates the acquisition of competences on virtual learning environments. In the Proceedings of the European Conference on Intellectual Capital, (pp. 200-209).]Search in Google Scholar
[28. Garcia, B.C. (2004). Digitally enhanced learning in a knowledge capital: the Manchester universities experience. In the Proceedings of the Online Educa Conference, Berlin (Berlin, ICWE), (pp. 426-431).]Search in Google Scholar
[29. Gardner, L. (2013). Colleges adapt (slowly) to classrooms 2.0. In The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 4, (p. B22).]Search in Google Scholar
[30. Goolnik, G. (2012). Change management strategies when undertaking elearning initiatives in higher education. In E Journal of Organizational Learning & Leadership, 10(2), (pp. 16-28).]Search in Google Scholar
[31. Gregory, J. and Salmon, G. (2013). Professional development for online university teaching. In Distance Education, 34, (pp. 256-270).10.1080/01587919.2013.835771]Search in Google Scholar
[32. Grimmelmann, J. (2014). The Merchants of MOOCs. In Seton Hall Law Review, 44, University of Maryland Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2014-6. http://ssrn.com/abstract=2358253 (accessed 21.12.14).]Search in Google Scholar
[33. Guri-Rosenbilt, S. (2013). Open/distance teaching universities worldwide: Current challenges and future prospects. In EDUAKCJA, 2(4), (pp. 4-13). http://wyrwidab.come.uw.edu.pl/ojs/index.php/eduakcja/article/view/80/50 (accessed 21.12.14).]Search in Google Scholar
[34. Hamel, G. and Valikangas, L. (2003). The quest for resilience. In Harvard Business Review, 81(9), (pp. 52-63).]Search in Google Scholar
[35. Hart, C. (2012). Factors associated with student persistence in an online program of study: A Review of the literature. In Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 11(1), (pp. 19-42).]Search in Google Scholar
[36. Harvard Magazine (2012). Classroom in the Cloud. In John Harvard’s Journal, November- December, 2012. http://harvardmagazine.com/2012/11/classroom-in-the-cloud (accessed 21.12.14).]Search in Google Scholar
[37. Herbst, S. (2013). What are the barriers to innovation? Forum discussion paper. In The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 4, (p. B45).]Search in Google Scholar
[38. Hixon, E.; Buckenmeyer, J.; Barczyk, C.; Feldman, L.; Zamojski, H. (2012). Beyond the early adopters of online instruction: Motivating the reluctant majority. In Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), (pp. 102-107).10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.11.005]Search in Google Scholar
[39. Hopkins, R. (2009). Resilience thinking. Resurgence, London ]Search in Google Scholar
[40. Hrabowski, F.A. (2011). Institutional change in higher education: Innovation and collaboration. Policy paper: Strategies to increase STEM achievement in higher education. McGraw-Hill Research Foundation. https://www.mheonline.com/assets/pdf/STEM/WhitePapers/institutional_change_in_high er_education_white_paper.pdf (accessed 21.12.14).]Search in Google Scholar
[41. Iwata, J. (2013). A new era of learning efficacy on a planet of smarter systems. In M. Barber & S. Rizvi (eds.), Asking more: The path to efficacy, (pp. 23-27). Pearson, London, England.]Search in Google Scholar
[42. Jaggars, S.S. (2011). Online learning: Does it help low-income and underprepared students. CCRC Working Paper No. 26. http://ccrc.tc.columbia.edu/media/k2/attachments/online-learninghelp- students.pdf (accessed 21.12.14).]Search in Google Scholar
[43. Jaipal Jamani, K. and Figg, C. (2013). The TPACK-in-practice workshop approach: A shift from learning the tool to learning about technology-enhanced teaching. In the Proceedings of The International Conference on E-Learning, (pp. 215-223).]Search in Google Scholar
[44. Johnson, L.; Adams Becker, S.; Cummins, M.; Freeman, A.; Ifenthaler, D.; Vardaxis, N. (2013). Technology outlook for Australian tertiary education 2013-2018: An NMC Horizon Project regional analysis. The New Media Consortium, Austin, TX.]Search in Google Scholar
[45. Johnston, R.; Fitzgerald, L.; Markous, E.; Brignall, S. (2001). Target setting for evolutionary and revolutionary process change. In International Journal of Operations and Production Management, 21(11), (pp. 1387-1403).10.1108/01443570110407409]Search in Google Scholar
[46. Keohane, N.O. (2013). Higher education in the Twenty-First Century: Innovation, adaptation, preservation. In PS: Political Science and Politics, 46(1), (pp. 102-105).]Search in Google Scholar
[47. Laurillard, D. (2012). Teaching as a Design Science: Building pedagogical patterns for learning and technology. New York and London: Routledge.]Search in Google Scholar
[48. Lipson, K. (2013). Dealing with megaclasses in an online environment. Paper presented at the 59th ISI World Statistics, Hong Kong, China. http://www.statistics.gov.hk/wsc/IPS040-P3-S.pdf (accessed 21.12.14).]Search in Google Scholar
[49. Liyanagunawardena, T.; Adams, A.; Williams, S. (2013). MOOCs: A systematic study of the published literature 2008-2012. In International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 14(3), (pp. 202-227).10.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1455]Search in Google Scholar
[50. Mackenzie, B. (2013). Critical success factors for public-private partnerships in entirely digital higher education. Paper presented at the Online Educa Berlin, December 4-6, 2013.]Search in Google Scholar
[51. Mangan, K. (2013). Inside the flipped classroom. In The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 4, (p. B18).]Search in Google Scholar
[52. McGonigal, J. (2011). Reality is Broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world. Penguin Group, New York.]Search in Google Scholar
[53. Miller, G.; Benke, M.; Chaloux, B.; Ragan, L.C.; Schroeder, R.; Smutz, W.; Swan, K. (2014). Leading the e-learning transformation of Higher Education: Meeting the challenges of technology and distance education. Stylus Publishing, Sterling, VA.]Search in Google Scholar
[54. Morgan, J. (2013). Universities challenged: The impact of digital technology on teaching and learning. Universitas 21, An Educational Innovation Position Paper. http://www.universitas21.com/RelatedFile/Download/494 (accessed 21.12.14).]Search in Google Scholar
[55. Mulgan, G. (2013). Reality checks. In M. Barber & S. Rizvi (eds.), Asking more: The path to efficacy, (pp. 17-22). Pearson, London. ]Search in Google Scholar
[56. New Media Consortium (2013). NMC Horizon Report: 2014 Higher Education Preview. http://www.nmc.org/pdf/2014-horizon-he-preview.pdf (accessed 21.12.14).]Search in Google Scholar
[57. Norman, D.A. and Verganti, R. (2014). Incremental and radical innovation: Design research vs. technology and meaning change. In Design Issues, 30(1), (pp. 78-96). doi:10.1162/DESI_a_0025010.1162/DESI_a_00250]Search in Google Scholar
[58. Olivier, B.; Yuan, L.; Millwood, R.; Kamtsiou, V. (2013). Adaptive Roadmapping. In F. Wild, P. Lefrere & P. Scott (eds.), Advances in Technology Enhanced Learning. The Open University.]Search in Google Scholar
[59. Pertusa-Ortega, E.M.; Molina-Azorín, J.F.; Claver-Cortés, E. (2010). Competitive strategy, structure and firm performance: A comparison of the resource-based view and the contingency approach. In Management Decision, 48(8), (pp. 1282-1303).10.1108/00251741011076799]Search in Google Scholar
[60. Pittard, V. (2004). Evidence for digitally enhanced learning policy. In Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 13(2), (pp. 181-193).10.1080/14759390400200179]Search in Google Scholar
[61. Richards, R.; O’Shea, J.; Connolly, M. (2004). Managing the concept of strategic change within a higher education institution: the role of strategic and scenario planning techniques. In Strategic Change, 13, (pp. 345-359).10.1002/jsc.690]Search in Google Scholar
[62. Ritala, P. and Hurmelinna-Laukkanen, P. (2013). Incremental and Radical Innovation in Competition: The Role of Absorptive Capacity and Appropriability. In Journal of Product Innovation Management, 30(1), (pp. 154-169). doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00956.x10.1111/j.1540-5885.2012.00956.x]Search in Google Scholar
[63. Salaman, G. and Asch, D. (2003). Strategy and capability: Sustaining organizational change. Blackwell Publishing, Oxford.]Search in Google Scholar
[64. Salmon, G. (2005). Flying not flapping: A strategic framework for e-learning and pedagogical innovation in higher education institutions. In ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 13(3), (pp. 201-218).]Search in Google Scholar
[65. Salmon, G. (2011). E-moderating: The key to teaching and learning online, third ed. Routledge, New York.]Search in Google Scholar
[66. Salmon, G. (2013a). E-tivities: The key to active online learning, second ed. Routledge, New York.10.4324/9780203074640]Search in Google Scholar
[67. Salmon, G. (2013b). Public meets private. Online Educa Berlin. http://www.onlineeduca. com/OEB_Newsportal/public-meets-private/ (accessed 23.01.14).]Search in Google Scholar
[68. Salmon, G. and Angood, R. (2013). Sleeping with the enemy. In British Journal of Educational Technology, 44, (pp. 916-925).10.1111/bjet.12097]Search in Google Scholar
[69. Salmon, G. and Wright, P. (2014). Transforming future teaching through ‘Carpe Diem’ learning design. In Education Sciences, 4(1), (pp. 52-63). Retrieved 14 January, 2014, from http://hdl.handle.net/1959.3/36775110.3390/educsci4010052]Search in Google Scholar
[70. Salmon, G.; Gregory, J.; Lokuge Dona, K.; Ross, B. (in press). Experiential online development for educators: The example of the Carpe Diem MOOC. In British Journal of Educational Technology.]Search in Google Scholar
[71. Scharmer, O. (2009). Theory U: Leading from the future as it emerges. San Francisco: Berrett- Kochler.]Search in Google Scholar
[72. Schneckenberg, D. (2009). Understanding the Real Barriers to Technology-Enhanced Innovation in Higher Education. In Educational Research, 51(4), (pp. 411-424).10.1080/00131880903354741]Search in Google Scholar
[73. Selingo, J. (2013). Presidents and professors largely agree on who should lead innovation. In The Chronicle of Higher Education, October 4, (p. B15). ]Search in Google Scholar
[74. Simpson, O. (2012). Supporting students for success in online and distance education, third ed. Routledge: New York & London.]Search in Google Scholar
[75. Swinburne Online (2014). About us. http://www.swinburneonline.edu.au/about-us (accessed 21.12.14).]Search in Google Scholar
[76. Tamim, R.M.; Bernard, R.M.; Borokhovski, E.; Abrami, P.C.; Schmid, R.F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order metaanalysis and validation study. In Review of Educational Research, 81(1), (pp. 4-28). doi:10.3102/003465431039336110.3102/0034654310393361]Search in Google Scholar
[77. Tham, C.M. and Werner, J.M. (2005). Designing and evaluating digitally enhanced learning in higher education: a review and recommendations. In Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies, 11, (p. 15).]Search in Google Scholar
[78. Watson, W.R.; Watson, S.L.; Reigeluthb, C.M. (2013). Education 3.0: Breaking the mold with technology. In Interactive Learning Environments, 21. doi:10.1080/10494820.2013.76432210.1080/10494820.2013.764322]Search in Google Scholar
[79. Weller, M. and Anderson, T. (2013). Digital resilience in Higher Education. In European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 16(1). http://www.eurodl.org/index.php?p=archives&year=2013&halfyear=1&abstract=559 (accessed 15.01.14).]Search in Google Scholar
[80. Westera, W. (2004). On strategies of educational innovation: between substitution and transformation. In Higher Education, 47, (pp. 501-517).10.1023/B:HIGH.0000020875.72943.a7]Search in Google Scholar
[81. Wheeler, M. (2009). Developing the Media Zoo in second life. In British Journal of Educational Technology, 40(3), (pp. 427-443). doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00942.x10.1111/j.1467-8535.2009.00942.x]Search in Google Scholar
[82. Whitworth, A. (2012). Invisible Success: Problems with the grand technological innovation in higher education. In Computers & Education, 59(1), (pp. 145-155).10.1016/j.compedu.2011.09.023]Search in Google Scholar
[83. Winslett, G. (2012). Resisting innovation talk in higher education teaching and learning. In Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 35(3), (pp. 163-176). doi:10.1080/01596306.2012.74572810.1080/01596306.2012.745728]Search in Google Scholar
[84. Zemsky, R. (2013). Checklist for change: Making American Higher Education a sustainable enterprise. Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, NJ.10.36019/9780813561356]Search in Google Scholar
[85. Zemsky, R. and Massy, W.F. (2004). Thwarted innovation: what happened to digitally enhanced learning and why. Final report for the weatherstation project of the Learning Alliance, University of Pennsylvania.]Search in Google Scholar
[86. Zentel, P.; Bett, K.; Meiter, D.M.; Rinn, U.; Wedekind, J. (2004). A changing process at German universities-innovation through information and communication technologies? In Electronic Journal on digitally enhanced learning, 2(1), (pp. 237-246). ]Search in Google Scholar
