Background & Theory of Hybrid Learning Spaces

  1. Blaschke, L.M. (2012). Heutagogy and lifelong learning: A review of heutagogical practice and self-determined learning. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13, 56-71. 
  2. Cook, J., Ley, T., Maier, R., Mor, Y., Santos, P., Lex, E., Dennerlein, S., Trattner, C. & Holley, D. (2016). Using the hybrid social learning network to explore concepts, practices, designs and smart services for networked professional learning. In State-of-the-Art and Future Directions of Smart Learning (pp. 123–129) . Springer . 
  3. Ellis, R. A., & Goodyear, P. (2016). Models of learning space: integrating research on space, place and learning in higher education. Review of Education, 4(2), 149-191.‏
  4. Hilli, C., Nørgård, R., & Aaen, J. (2019). Designing Hybrid Learning Spaces in Higher Education. Dansk Universitetspædagogisk Tidsskrift15(27), 66-82. Hentet fra
  5. do Mejía Gallegos, C. G., el Michalón Dueñas, D. E., Acosta, M., Andrés, R., López Fernández, R., & el Sánchez Gálvez, S. (2017). Hybrid learning spaces. Towards an education of the future at the Guayaquil University. MediSur, 15(3), 350-355.‏
  6. Stommel, J. (2012). Hybridity, pt. 2: What is Hybrid Pedagogy?. Hybrid Pedagogy
  7. Tanner, C. K. (2000). The influence of school architecture on academic achievement. Journal of Educational Administration, 38, 309-330. 
  8. Trentin, G. (2016). Always-on Education and Hybrid Learning Spaces. Educational Technology, 56(2), 31-37.‏

Educational Data Science

  1. Cohen, A. (2017). Analysis of student activity in web-supported courses as a tool for predicting dropout. Educational Technology Research and Development, 65(5), 1285-1304. 
  2. Cukurova, M., Luckin, R., Millán, E., Mavrikis, M. & Spikol, D. (2017). Diagnosing collaboration in practice-based learning: Equality and Intra-individual variability of physical interactivity. European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning (p./pp. 30-42). 
  3. du Boulay, B., Poulovasillis, A., Holmes, W. & Mavrikis, M. (2018). Artificial Intelligence And Big Data Technologies To Close The Achievement Gap. In R. Luckin (ed.), Enhancing Learning and Teaching with Technology (pp. 256–285) . UCL Institute of Education Press . 
  4. Ferguson, R. (2012). Learning analytics: drivers, developments and challenges. International Journal of Technology Enhanced Learning, 4, 304-317. 
    Hernández-Leo, D., Rodriguez Triana, M. J., Inventado, P. S. & Mor, Y. (2017). Preface: Connecting Learning Design and Learning Analytics. Interaction Design and Architecture (s) Journal-IxD&A, 33, 3-8. 
  5. Levi-Gamlieli, H., Cohen, A., & Nachmias, R. (2015). Detection of overly intensive learning by using weblog of course website. Technology, Instruction, Cognition and Learning (TICL), 10(2), 151-171.
  6. Lim, J. M. (2016). Predicting successful completion using student delay indicators in undergraduate self paced online courses. Distance Education, 37(3), 317-332. doi:
  7. Mor, Y., Ferguson, R. & Wasson, B. (2015). Editorial: Learning design, teacher inquiry into student learning and learning analytics: A call for action. British Journal of Educational Technology, 46, 221-229. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12273 
  8. Prieto, L., Sharma, K., Kidzinski, Ł., Rodríguez-Triana, M. & Dillenbourg, P. (2018). Multimodal teaching analytics: Automated extraction of orchestration graphs from wearable sensor data. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12232 
  9. Toetenel, L. & Rienties, B. (2016). Analysing 157 learning designs using learning analytic approaches as a means to evaluate the impact of pedagogical decision-making. British Journal of Educational Technology, (Early View). 

Design Patterns

  1. Dimitriadis, Y., Goodyear, P. & Retalis, S. (2009). Using e-learning design patterns to augment learners’ experiences. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 997 – 998. doi: DOI: 10.1016/j.chb.2009.02.001 
  2. Falconer, I., Finlay, J. & Fincher, S. (2011). Representing practice: practice models, patterns, bundles …. Learning, Media and Technology, 36, 101-127. doi: 10.1080/17439884.2011.553620 
  3. Köppe, C., Nørgård, R. T., & Pedersen, A. Y. (2017). Towards a Pattern Language for Hybrid Education. In Proceedings of the Vikingplop 2017 Conference.
  4. Mor, Y. (2013). SNaP! Re-using, sharing and communicating designs and design knowledge using Scenarios, Narratives and Patterns. In R. Luckin, P. Goodyear, B. Grabowski, S. Puntambekar, N. Winters & J. Underwood (ed.),Handbook of Design in Educational Technology (pp. 189-200) . Routledge . 
  5. Mor, Y. & Warburton, S. (2014). Assessing the value of design narratives, patterns and scenarios in scaffolding co-design processes in the domain of technology enhanced learning. In S. Bayne, C. Jones, M. de Laat, T. Ryberg & C. Sinclair (eds.), Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Networked Learning 2014,  ISBN: 978-1-86220-304-4 
  6. Mor, Y., Mellar, H., Warburton, S. & Winters, N. (eds.) (2014). Practical Design Patterns for Teaching and Learning with Technology. Rotterdam/Boston/Taipei: Sense. 
  7. Mor, Y. & Winters, N. (2007). Design approaches in technology enhanced learning. Interactive Learning Environments, 15, 61-75. 
  8. Retalis, S., Georgiakakis, P. & Dimitriadis, Y. (2006). Eliciting design patterns for e-learning systems. Computer Science Education, 16, 105-118. 
  9. Warburton, S. & Mor, Y. (2015). Double Loop Design: Configuring Narratives, Patterns and Scenarios in the Design of Technology Enhanced Learning. In Y. Mor, M. Maina & B. Craft (ed.), The Art and Science of Learning Design. Sense publishers