[
1. Australian Academy of Science (2016). The mathematical sciences in Australia: A vision for 2025. Canberra, Australia: Australian Academy of Science.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
2. Bali, M. (2014). MOOC pedagogy: gleaning good practice from existing MOOCs. Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10, 44-56.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
3. Biggs, J. (1987). The study process questionnaire (SPQ): Manual. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 395-407.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
4. Biggs, J. (1999). What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. Higher Education Research & Development, 18, 57-75.10.1080/0729436990180105
]Search in Google Scholar
[
5. Biggs, J., Kember, D., & Leung, D. Y. (2001). The revised two-factor study process questionnaire: R-SPQ-2F. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 133-14910.1348/000709901158433
]Search in Google Scholar
[
6. Boyd, W., Foster, A., Smith, J., & Boyd, W. E. (2014). Feeling good about teaching mathematics: Addressing anxiety amongst pre-service teachers. Creative Education, 5, 207-217.10.4236/ce.2014.54030
]Search in Google Scholar
[
7. Bozkurt, A., Akgün-Özbek, E., & Zawacki-Richter, O. (2017). Trends and patterns in Massive Open Online Courses: Review and content analysis of research on MOOCs (2008-2015). The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 18(5). doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v18i5.3080.10.19173/irrodl.v18i5.3080
]Search in Google Scholar
[
8. Bralić, A., & Divjak, B. (2018). Integrating MOOCs in traditionally taught courses: achieving learning outcomes with blended learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1). doi: 10.1186/s41239-017-0085-7.10.1186/s41239-017-0085-7
]Search in Google Scholar
[
9. Bressoud, D. M. (2014). Attracting and retaining students to complete two-and four-year undergraduate degrees in STEM: The role of undergraduate mathematics education. Commissioned paper prepared for the Committee on Barriers and Opportunities in Completing 2-Year and 4-Year STEM Degrees. Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
10. Brookhart, S. M. (2008). How to give effective feedback to your students. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
11. Bruer, J. T. (2016). Where Is Educational Neuroscience? Educational Neuroscience, 1, 1-13.10.1177/2377616115618036
]Search in Google Scholar
[
12. Burdman, P. (2015). Degrees of freedom: Diversifying math requirements for college readiness and graduation. Oakland, CA: Learning Works and Policy Analysis for California Education.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
13. Bureau of Labor Statistics (2011). 2010–11 Occupational Outlook Handbook. Retrieved from https://www.bls.gov/ooh/home.htm
]Search in Google Scholar
[
14. Burnheim, C., & Harvey, A. (2016). Far from the studying crowd? Regional and remote students in higher education. In A. Harvey, C. Burnheim & M. Brett (Eds.), Student equity in Australian higher education (pp. 143-162). Singapore: Springer.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
15. Champaign, J., Colvin, K. F., Liu, A., Fredericks, C., Seaton, D., & Pritchard, D. E. (2014). Correlating skill and improvement in 2 MOOCs with a student’s time on tasks. Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning @ scale conference, ACM, New York, USA, 11-20.10.1145/2556325.2566250
]Search in Google Scholar
[
16. Chen, O., Woolcott, G., & Sweller, J. (2017). Using cognitive load theory to structure MOOCs and other computer-based learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33(4), 293-305. doi:10.1111/jcal.1218810.1111/jcal.12188
]Search in Google Scholar
[
17. Chubb, I., Findlay, C., Du, L., Burmester, B., & Kusa, L. (2012). Mathematics, engineering and science in the national interest. Canberra, Australia: Office of the Chief Scientist.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
18. Clarà, M., & Barberà, E. (2014). Three problems with the connectivist conception of learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 30, 197-206.10.1111/jcal.12040
]Search in Google Scholar
[
19. Croft, A., Harrison, M., & Robinson, C. (2009). Recruitment and retention of students–an integrated and holistic vision of mathematics support. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 40, 109-125.10.1080/00207390802542395
]Search in Google Scholar
[
20. Daza, V., Makriyannis, N., & Rovira Riera, C. (2013). MOOC attack: closing the gap between pre-university and university mathematics. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 28(3), 227-238.10.1080/02680513.2013.872558
]Search in Google Scholar
[
21. Deloitte Report (2012). Measuring the economic benefits of mathematical science research in the UK. London, UK: Deloitte MCS Ltd.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
22. DiSalvo, C. (2017). Viewing participatory design from the learning sciences and the field of design. In B. DiSalvo, J. Yip, E. Bonsignore & C. DiSalvo (Eds.), Participatory design for learning: Perspectives from practice and research (pp. 28-42). New York, NY: Routledge.10.4324/9781315630830
]Search in Google Scholar
[
23. Diseth, A. (2003). Personality and approaches to learning as predictors of academic achievement. European Journal of Personality, 17, 143-155.10.1002/per.469
]Search in Google Scholar
[
24. Dollinger, M., Lodge, J., & Coates, H. (2018). Co-creation in higher education: Towards a conceptual model. Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, 28(2), 1-22. doi: 10.1080/08841241.2018.1466756.10.1080/08841241.2018.1466756
]Search in Google Scholar
[
25. Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 109-132.10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153
]Search in Google Scholar
[
26. El-Hmoudova, D. (2014). MOOCs motivation and communication in the cyber learning environment. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 131, 29-34.10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.04.074
]Search in Google Scholar
[
27. Entwistle, N., Tait, H., & McCune, V. (2000). Patterns of response to an approaches to studying inventory across contrasting groups and contexts. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 15, 33-48.10.1007/BF03173165
]Search in Google Scholar
[
28. Finkel, A. (2018). Winning the game of Faculty. Universities Australia Higher Education Conference Dinner Address, Parliament House, Canberra, Wednesday 28th February 2018. Retrieved from http://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/wp-content/uploads/Universities-Australia-dinner-address.pdf
]Search in Google Scholar
[
29. Fishman, B. J., Penuel, W. R., Allen, A. R., Cheng, B. H., & Sabelli, N. O. R. A. (2013). Design-based implementation research: An emerging model for transforming the relationship of research and practice. National Society for the Study of Education, 112, 136-156.10.1177/016146811311501415
]Search in Google Scholar
[
30. Freitas, A., & Paredes, J. (2018). Understanding the faculty perspectives influencing their innovative practices in MOOCs/SPOCs: a case study. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 15(1). doi: 10.1186/s41239-017-0086-6.10.1186/s41239-017-0086-6
]Search in Google Scholar
[
31. Galligan, L. (2013). A systematic approach to embedding academic numeracy at university. Higher Education Research & Development, 32, 734-747.10.1080/07294360.2013.777037
]Search in Google Scholar
[
32. Gašević, D., Kovanović, V., Joksimović, S., & Siemens, G. (2014). Where is research on massive open online courses headed? A data analysis of the MOOC Research Initiative. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(5).
]Search in Google Scholar
[
33. Geary, D. C. (2012). Evolutionary educational psychology. In K. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), APA Educational Psychology Handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 597-621). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
34. Groen, L., Coupland, M., Langtry, T., Memar, J., Moore, B., & Stanley, J. (2015). The mathematics problem and mastery learning for first-year, undergraduate STEM students. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 11, 141-160.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
35. Hanushek, E., & Woessmann, L. (2010). The High Cost of Low Educational Performance: The Long-Run Economic Impact of Improving PISA Outcomes. Paris, France: Author.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
36. Hew, K. F. (2015). Promoting engagement in online courses: What strategies can we learn from three highly rated MOOCs. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47, 320-341.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
37. Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. (2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 371-406.10.3102/00028312042002371
]Search in Google Scholar
[
38. Holdren, J., & Lander, E. (2012). Report to the President – Engage to excel: Producing one million additional college graduates with degrees in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Washington, DC: President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology:
]Search in Google Scholar
[
39. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (2000). Incorporating learner experience into the design of multimedia instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 126-136.10.1037/0022-0663.92.1.126
]Search in Google Scholar
[
40. Kay, R., & Kletskin, I. (2012). Evaluating the use of problem-based video podcasts to teach mathematics in higher education. Computers & Education, 59, 619-627.10.1016/j.compedu.2012.03.007
]Search in Google Scholar
[
41. Keast, R., & Mandell, M. (2014). The collaborative push: Moving beyond rhetoric and gaining evidence. Journal of Management and Governance, 18, 9-28.10.1007/s10997-012-9234-5
]Search in Google Scholar
[
42. Kennedy, J. P., Lyons, T., & Quinn, F. (2014). The continuing decline of science and mathematics enrolments in Australian high schools. Teaching Science, 60, 34-46.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
43. King, D., & Cattlin, J. (2015). The impact of assumed knowledge entry standards on undergraduate mathematics teaching in Australia. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 46(7), 1032-1045.10.1080/0020739X.2015.1070440
]Search in Google Scholar
[
44. Knox, J. (2016). Posthumanism and the massive open online course. New York, NY: Routledge.10.4324/9781315674032
]Search in Google Scholar
[
45. Kuenzi, J. (2008). Science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education: Background, federal policy, and legislative action. Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33434.pdf
]Search in Google Scholar
[
46. Lake, W., Boyd, W., Boyd, W., & Hellmundt, S. (2017). Just another student survey? Point of contact survey feedback enhances the student experience and lets researchers gather data. Australian Journal of Adult Learning, 57, 82-104.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
47. Lake, W., Wallin, M., Boyd, W. E., Woolcott, G., Boyd, W., Foster, A., & Markopoulos, C. (2018). Optimising the efficacy of hybrid academic teams: Lessons from a systematic review process. Australian Universities’ Review, 60(1), 16-24.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
48. Lake, W., Wallin, M., Woolcott, G., Boyd, W. E., Foster, A., Markopoulos, C., & Boyd, W. (2017). Applying an alternative mathematics pedagogy for students with weak mathematics: Meta-analysis of alternative pedagogies. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 48, 215-228.10.1080/0020739X.2016.1245876
]Search in Google Scholar
[
49. Lakhani, J., Benzies, K., & Hayden, K. A. (2012). Attributes of interdisciplinary research teams: A comprehensive review of the literature. Clinical & Investigative Medicine, 35(5), E260-E265.10.25011/cim.v35i5.18698
]Search in Google Scholar
[
50. Lawson, D., Croft, T., & Waller, D. (2012). Mathematics support past, present and future. Proceedings of the International Conference on Innovation, Practice and Research in Engineering Education, 18-20. Loughborough University, UK: Centre for Engineering and Design Education.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
51. Liyanagunawardena, T. R., Adams, A. A., & Williams, S. A. (2013). MOOCs: A systematic study of the published literature 2008-2012. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14, 202-227.10.19173/irrodl.v14i3.1455
]Search in Google Scholar
[
52. Lyons, T., Cooksey, R., Panizzon, D., Parnell, A., & Pegg, J. (2006). Science, ICT and mathematics education in rural and regional Australia: The SiMERR national survey. A research report prepared for the Department of Education, Science and Training. Armidale, Australia: National Centre of Science, ICT and Mathematics Education for Rural and Regional Australia, and the University of New England.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
53. Mack, J., & Walsh, B. (2013). Mathematics and science combinations NSW HSC 2001-2011 by gender. Technical paper. Retrieved from http://www.maths.usyd.edu.au/u/SMS/MWW2013.pdf
]Search in Google Scholar
[
54. Mackness, J., Waite, M., Roberts, G., & Lovegrove, E. (2013). Learning in a small, task– oriented, connectivist MOOC: Pedagogical issues and implications for higher education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 14(4). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/1548/2636?utm_source10.19173/irrodl.v14i4.1548
]Search in Google Scholar
[
55. Mason, M. (2008). Complexity theory and the philosophy of education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 40(1), 4-18.10.1111/j.1469-5812.2007.00412.x
]Search in Google Scholar
[
56. McAndrew, P., & Scanlon, E. (2013). Open learning at a distance: Lessons for struggling MOOCs. Science, 342(6165), 1450-1451.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
57. McAuley, A., Stewart, B., Siemens, G., & Cormier, D. (2015). The MOOC model for digital practice (2010). Retrieved from http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/MOOC_Final.pdf
]Search in Google Scholar
[
58. Means, B., & Anderson, K. (2013). Expanding evidence approaches for learning in a digital world. Washington, DC: US Department of Education Office of Educational Technology.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
59. van Merriënboer, J. J., & De Croock, M. B. (1992). Strategies for computer-based programming instruction: Program completion vs. program generation. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 8, 365-394.10.2190/MJDX-9PP4-KFMT-09PM
]Search in Google Scholar
[
60. Mesoudi, A. (2016). Cultural evolution: Integrating psychology, evolution and culture. Current Opinion in Psychology, 7, 17-22.10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.07.001
]Search in Google Scholar
[
61. Moe, R. (2015). MOOCs as a Canary: A Critical Look at the Rise of EdTech. Proceedings of the E-Learn: World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education (Vol. 2015, No. 1, pp. 1037-1042). Hawaii: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA
]Search in Google Scholar
[
62. Office of the Chief Scientist (2012). Mathematics, engineering and science in the national interest. Canberra, Australia: Office of the Chief Scientist.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
63. Office of the Chief Scientist (2016). Australia’s STEM Workforce: Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
64. Okimoto, H., & Heck, R. (2015). Examining the impact of redesigned developmental math courses in community colleges. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 39, 633-646.10.1080/10668926.2013.873004
]Search in Google Scholar
[
65. Paas, F. G., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 122-133.10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.122
]Search in Google Scholar
[
66. Parikh, A., McReelis, K., & Hodges, B. (2001). Student feedback in problem based learning: A survey of 103 final year students across five Ontario medical schools. Medical Education, 35, 632-636.10.1046/j.1365-2923.2001.00994.x
]Search in Google Scholar
[
67. Penney, C. G. (1989). Modality effects and the structure of short-term verbal memory. Memory & Cognition, 17, 398-422.10.3758/BF03202613
]Search in Google Scholar
[
68. Penuel, W. R., Allen, A. R., Coburn, C. E., & Farrell, C. (2015). Conceptualizing research– practice partnerships as joint work at boundaries. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 20, 182-197.10.1080/10824669.2014.988334
]Search in Google Scholar
[
69. Penuel, W. R., Coburn, C. E., & Gallagher, D. J. (2013). Negotiating problems of practice in research-practice design partnerships. Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, 112, 237-255.10.1177/016146811311501404
]Search in Google Scholar
[
70. Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Cheng, B. H., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational researcher, 40, 331-337.10.3102/0013189X11421826
]Search in Google Scholar
[
71. Penuel, W. R., Fishman, B. J., Cheng, B. H., & Sabelli, N. (2016). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Annual Review of Policy Design, 4, 1-10.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
72. Penuel, W. R., Roschelle, J., & Shechtman, N. (2007). Designing formative assessment software with teachers: An analysis of the co-design process. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 2, 51-74.10.1142/S1793206807000300
]Search in Google Scholar
[
73. Peters, M. L. (2013). Examining the relationships among classroom climate, self-efficacy, and achievement in undergraduate mathematics: A multi-level analysis. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 11, 459-480.10.1007/s10763-012-9347-y
]Search in Google Scholar
[
74. Petronzi, D., & Hadi, M. (2016). Exploring the factors associated with MOOC engagement, retention and the wider benefits for learners. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-learning, 19(2), 112-129.10.1515/eurodl-2016-0011
]Search in Google Scholar
[
75. Renkl, A., Atkinson, R. K., & Große, C. S. (2004). How fading worked solution steps works– a cognitive load perspective. Instructional Science, 32, 59-82.10.1023/B:TRUC.0000021815.74806.f6
]Search in Google Scholar
[
76. Richardson, J. T. (2005). Instruments for obtaining student feedback: A review of the literature. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 30, 387-415.10.1080/02602930500099193
]Search in Google Scholar
[
77. Rodriguez, C. O. (2012). MOOCs and the AI-Stanford like courses: Two successful and distinct course formats for massive open online courses. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning, 15(2). Retrieved from http://www.eurodl.org/materials/contrib/2012/Rodriguez.pdf
]Search in Google Scholar
[
78. Scott, A., Woolcott, G., Keast, R., & Chamberlain, D. (2018). Sustainability of collaborative networks in higher education research projects: Why complexity? Why now? Public Management Review, 20(7), 1068-1087.10.1080/14719037.2017.1364410
]Search in Google Scholar
[
79. Siemens, G. (2008). MOOC or mega-connectivism course. Retrieved from http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/connectivism/?p=53
]Search in Google Scholar
[
80. Siemens, G. (2013). Massive open online courses: Innovation in education. Open Educational Resources: Innovation, Research and Practice, 5, 5-15.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
81. Steffens, K., Bannan, B., Dalgarno, B., Bartolomé, A. R., Esteve-González, V., & Cela-Ranilla, J. M. (2015). Recent developments in technology-enhanced learning: A critical assessment. RUSC: Universities and Knowledge Society Journal, 12(2). 73-86.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
82. Stone, M. L., Kent, K. M., Roscoe, R. D., Corley, K. M., Allen, L. K., & McNamara, D. S. (2017). The design implementation framework. In R. D. Roscoe, S. D. Craig & I. Douglas (Eds.), End-User considerations in educational technology design (pp. 76-98). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
83. Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). Cognitive load theory. New York, NY: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4419-8126-4
]Search in Google Scholar
[
84. Sweller, J., & Cooper, G. A. (1985). The use of worked examples as a substitute for problem solving in learning algebra. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 59-89.10.1207/s1532690xci0201_3
]Search in Google Scholar
[
85. Verstegen, D. M., Spruijt, A., Dolmans, D., & van Merriënboer, J. J. (2016). Problem-based learning in a MOOC – Exploring an innovative instructional design at a large scale. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Education – Volume 2, CSEDU, 369-377. doi: 10.5220/0005757003690377.10.5220/0005757003690377
]Search in Google Scholar
[
86. Waldrop, M. M. (2013). Campus 2.0. Nature, 495(7440), 160-163.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
87. Watson, S. (2003). Closing the feedback loop: Ensuring effective action from student feedback. Tertiary Education and Management, 9, 145.10.1080/13583883.2003.9967099
]Search in Google Scholar
[
88. Woolcott, G., & Chamberlain, D. (2018). Measuring a university-community collaboration using social network analysis. International Journal of Learning and Change, 11(1), 18.10.1504/IJLC.2019.097168
]Search in Google Scholar
[
89. Woolcott, G., Chamberlain, D., Whannell, R., & Galligan, L. (2018a). Examining undergraduate student retention in mathematics using network analysis and relative risk. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology TMES, 50(3). doi: 10.1080/0020739X.2018.1520932.10.1080/0020739X.2018.1520932
]Search in Google Scholar
[
90. Woolcott, G., Keast, R., Tsasis, P., Charles, M., Farr-Wharton, B., Kivits, R., & Chamberlain, D. (2018b). A network connectivity framework for person-centred service models. Panel paper presented at the 22nd Annual International Research Society for Public Management Conference, IRSPM2018, University of Edinburgh Business School, Edinburgh, UK, 11-13 April 2018.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
91. Woolcott, G., Mason, R., Markopoulos, C., Boyd, W., Chen, O., Seton, C., Lake, W., Whannell, R., Foster, A., Galligan, L., Marshman, M., Schmalz, J., & Sultanova, N. (2017a). Bite size maths—Building mathematics low SES student capability in regional/remote Australia. Final Report 2017 for the Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Programme (HEPPP) 2015 National Priorities Pool, Australian Government Department of Education and Training. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
92. Woolcott, G., Scott, A., Norton, M., Whannell, R., Galligan, L., Marshman, M., Pfeiffer, L., & Wines, C. (2017b). It’s part of my life: Engaging university and community to enhance science and mathematics education. Final report for Enhancing the Training of Mathematics and Science Teachers. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education and Training.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
93. Woolcott, G., Scott, A., Norton, M., Whannell, R., Galligan, L., Marshman, M., Pfeiffer, L., & Wines, C. (2017c). The Enhancement-Lesson-Reflection process: A resource manual for science and mathematics learning and teaching. Companion Report to the Final report: It’s part of my life: Engaging university and community to enhance science and mathematics education. Canberra, Australia: Department of Education and Training.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
94. Yin, R. K. (2013). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
]Search in Google Scholar
[
95. Zheng, S., Rosson, M. B., Shih, P. C., & Carroll, J. M. (2015). Understanding student motivation, behaviors and perceptions in MOOCs. Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing, 1882-1895. ACM.10.1145/2675133.2675217
]Search in Google Scholar
