Using the Sakai Learning Management System to change the way Distance Education nursing students learn: are we getting it right?

References

• Abrami, P. C., Bernard, R., Bures, E., Borokhovski, E., & Tamim, R. (2011). Interaction in distance education and online learning: Using evidence and theory to improve practice. Journal of Computing for Higher Education, 23, 82–103.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agudo-Peregrina, A., Iglesias-Pradas, S., & Conde-González, M. (2014). Can we predict success from log data in VLEs? Classification of interactions for learning analytics and their relation with performance in VLE-supported F2F and online learning. Computers in Human Behaviour, 31, 542–550.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ali, A. (2003). Faculty adoption of technology: Training comes first. Educational Technology, 43(2), 51–53.
   Google Scholar
• Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., Poulin, R., & Straut, T. T. (2016). Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States. Babson Park: Babson Survey Research Group. Retrieved from Education Advisory Board Website http://onlinelearningsurvey.com/reports/onlinereportcard.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Ally, M. (2011). Foundations of educational theory for online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed., pp. 15–44). Canada: AU Press.
   Google Scholar
• Alves, P., Miranda, L., Morais, C., & Alves, E. (2012). Proposal of a learning styles identification tool for Sakai virtual learning environment. Computer Science and Engineering, 2, 47–54.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, T. (2003). Modes of interaction in distance education: Recent developments and research questions. In M. Moore & W. Anderson (Eds.), Handbook of distance education (pp. 129–143). London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, T. (2011). Towards a theory of online learning. In T. Anderson (Ed.), The theory and practice of online learning (2nd ed., pp. 45–68). Canada: AU Press.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson, T., & Felsenfeld, S. (2003). A thematic analysis of late recovery from stuttering. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12(2), 243–253.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arbaugh, J. B., & Benbunan-Fich, R. (2007). The importance pf participant interaction in online environment. Decision Support System, 43, 853–865.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative Case Study Methodology: Study Design and Implementation for Novice Researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544–559. Retrieved from: http://nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol13/iss4/2
   Google Scholar
• Beldarrain, Y. (2006). Distance Education trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27(2), 139–153.
   Google Scholar
• Bennett, J., & Bennett, L. (2003). A review of factors that influence the diffusion of innovation when structuring a faculty training programme. The Internet and Higher Education, 6, 53–63.
   Google Scholar
• Bernard, R. M., Abrami, P., Borokhovski, E., Wade, C., Tamim, R., Surkes, M., & Bethel, E. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in Distance Education. Review of educational research, 79(3), 1243–1289.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borokhovski, E., Tamim, R., Bernard, R., Abrami, P., & Sokolovskaya, A. (2012). Are contextual and designed student-student interaction treatments equally effective in distance education? Distance Education, 33(3), 311–329. doi:10.1080/01587919.2012.723162
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bouhnik, D., & Deshen, M. (2014). WhatsApp goes to school: Mobile instant messaging between teachers and students. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 13, 217–231. Retrieved from http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol13/JITEv13ResearchP217-23Bouhnik0601.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, M., Dehoney, J., & Millichap, N. (2015, July/ August). What’s next for the LMS? EDUCAUSE Review, 50(4),41–50.
   Google Scholar
• Butcher, H. K., Holkup, P. A., Park, M., & Maas, M. (2001). Thematic analysis of the experience of making a decision to place a family member with Alzheimer’s disease in a special care unit. Research in Nursing & Health, 24(6), 470–480.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cavus, N. (2013). Selecting a learning management system (LMS) in developing countries: Instructors’ evaluation. Interactive Learning Environments, 21(5), 419–437.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cavus, N. (2015). Distance learning and learning management systems. Procedia – Social and Behavioural Sciences, 191, 872–877.
   Google Scholar
• Chickering, A. W., & Gamson, Z. (1987). Seven principles for good practice in undergraduate education. AAHE Bulletin, 39(7), 3–7.
   Google Scholar
• Cho, M.-H., & Kim, B. (2013). Students’ self-regulation for interaction with others in online learning environments. Internet and Higher Education, 17, 69–75.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Church, K., & de Oliveira, R. (2013, August 27–30). What’s up with WhatsApp? Comparing mobile instant messaging behaviours with traditional SMS. Mobile HCI – Collaboration and Communication, Munich, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Clarke, V., & Braun, V. (2013). Teaching thematic analysis: Overcoming challenges and developing strategies for effective learning. The Psychologist, 26(2), 120–123.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Coates, H. (2005). Leveraging LMSs to enhance campus based student engagement. Educause Quarterly, 28(1), 66–68.
   Google Scholar
• Coates, H., James, R., & Baldwin, G. (2005). A critical examination of the effects of learning management systems on university teaching and learning. Tertiary Education & Management, 11(1), 19–36.
   Google Scholar
• Collins, K. M., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Jiao, Q. G. (2007). A mixed methods investigation of mixed method sampling designs in social and health science research. Journal of mixed methods research, 1(3), 267–294.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Costa, C., Alvelos, H., & Teixeira, L. (2012). The use of Moodle e-learning platform: A study in a Portuguese University. Procedia Technology, 5, 334–343.
   Google Scholar
• Coyne, I. (1997). Sampling in qualitative research: Purposeful and theoretical sampling, merging or clear boundaries? Journal of Advanced Nursing, 26, 623–630.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Croxton, R. A. (2014). The role of interactivity in student satisfaction and persistence in online learning. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 10(2), 314–324.
   Google Scholar
• Cruzes, D. S., & Dybå, T. (2011). Recommended steps for thematic synthesis in software engineering. International Symposium on Empirical Software Engineering and Management, ESEM, 2011, 275–284. Washington DC: IEE Computer Society.
   Google Scholar
• DeBourgh, G. (2003). Predictors of student satisfaction in distance-delivered graduate nursing courses: What matters most? Journal of Professional Nursing, 19(3), 149–163.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dube, S., & Scott, E. (2014). An empirical study on the use of the Sakai Learning Management System (LMS): Case of NUST, Zimbabwe. Proceedings of the e-Skills for Knowledge Production and Innovation Conference 2014 (pp. 101–107). Cape Town, South Africa. Retrieved from http://proceedings.e-skillsconference.org/2014/e-skills101-107Dube851.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Engstrom, C., & Tinto, V. (2008). Access without support is not opportunity. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 40(1), 46–50.
   Google Scholar
• Fathema, N., Shannon, D., & Ross, M. (2015). Expanding the technology acceptance model (TAM) to examine faculty use of Learning Management Systems (LMSs) in higher education institutions. Merlot Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11(2), 210–232.
   Google Scholar
• Finch, D., & Jacobs, K. (2012, September). Online education: Best practices to promote learning. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics societyannual meeting, 56(1), 546–550. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Floersch, J., Longhofer, J. L., Kranke, D., & Townsend, L. (2010). Integrating thematic, grounded theory and narrative analysis: A case study of adolescent psychotropic treatment. Qualitative Social Work, 9(3), 407–425.
   Google Scholar
• George, T., DeCristofaro, C., Murphy, P., & Sims, A. (2017). Student perceptions and acceptance of mobile technology in an undergraduate nursing programme. Healthcare, 35(5), 1–8.
   Google Scholar
• Gonen, A., Sharon, D., Offir, A., & Lev-Ari, L. (2014). How to enhance nursing students’ intention to use information technology: The first step before integrating it in nursing curriculum. CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 32(6), 286–293.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gosmire, D., Morrison, M., & Van Osdel, J. (2009). Perceptions of interaction in online courses. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 5(4), 609–617.
   Google Scholar
• Hillman, D. C., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner‐interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and strategies for practitioners. American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30–42.
   Google Scholar
• Iqbal, S., & Qureshi, I. (2011). Learning management systems (LMS): Inside matters. Information Management and Business Review, 3(4), 206–216.
   Google Scholar
• Jaggers, S., & Xu, D. (2016). How do online course design features influence student performance? Computers & Education, 95, 270–284.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Järvelä, S., Kirschner, P. A., Panadero, E., Malmberg, J., Phielix, C., Jaspers, J., … Järvenoja, H. (2015). Enhancing socially shared regulation in collaborative learning groups: Designing for CSCL regulation tools. Education Technology Research Development, 63, 125–142.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jarvis, P. (2009). Learning to be a person in society: Learning to be me. In K. Illeris (Ed.), Contemporary theories of learning: Learning theorists in their own words (Chapter 2, pp. 32–46). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, C., Corazzini, K., & Shaw, R. (2011). Assessing the feasibility of using virtual environments in distance education. Knowledge management & E-Learning: An International Journal, 3(1), 5–22.
   Google Scholar
• Kang, M., & Im, T. (2013). Factor of learner-instructor interaction which predict perceived learning outcomes in online learning environment. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29, 292–301.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kanuka, H. (2011). Interaction and the online distance classroom: Do instructional methods affect the quality of interaction? Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 23, 143–156.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kelley, L., Swanson, E., Maas, M., & Tripp-Reimer, T. (1999). Family visitation on special care units. Journal of Gerontological Nursing, 25(2), 14–21.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kellogg, D., & Smith, M. (2009). Student-to-student interaction revisited: A case study of working adult business students in online courses. Decision Sciences Journal of Innovative Education, 7(2), 433–456.
   Google Scholar
• Koszalka, T., & Ganesan, R. (2004). Designing online courses: A taxonomy to guide strategic use of features available in course management systems (CMS) in distance education. Distance Education, 25(2), 243–256. doi:10.1080/0158791042000262111
   Google Scholar
• Kuo, Y.-C., Walker, A., Schroder, K., & Belland, B. (2014). Interaction, Internet self-efficacy, and self-regulated learning as predictors of student satisfaction in online education courses. Internet and Higher Education, 20, 35–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kupczynski, L., Ice, P., Wiesenmayer, R., & McClusky, F. (2010). Student perceptions of the relationship between indicators of teaching presence and success in online courses. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 9(1), 23–43.
   Google Scholar
• Ladyshewsky, R. (2013). Instructor presence in online courses and student satisfaction. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 7(1), 1–23.
   Google Scholar
• Lai, A., & Savage, P. (2013). Learning management systems and principles of good teaching: Instructor and student perspectives. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 39(3), 1–21.
   Google Scholar
• Lee, R., & DePue, J. (2010). Using baldrige method frameworks, excellence in higher education standards, and the Sakai CLE for the self-assessment process. In: Proceedings of the 38th annual fall conference on Special Interest Group on University and College Computing Services (SIGUCCS) (pp. 165–170). New York: ACM.
   Google Scholar
• Lonn, S., & Teasley, S. (2009). Saving time or innovating practice: Investigating perceptions and uses of Learning Management Systems. Computers & Education, 53, 686–694.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lonn, S., Teasley, S. D., & Krumm, A. (2011). Who needs to do what where? Using learning management systems on residential vs. commuter campuses. Computers & Education, 56(3), 642–649.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lou, Y., Bernard, R., & Abrami, P. (2006). Media and pedagogy in undergraduate distance education: A theory-based meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Educational Technology Research & Development, 54(2), 141–176.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Malikowski, S. R., Thompson, M. E., & Theis, J. G. (2007). A model for research into course management systems: Bridging technology and learning theory. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 36(2), 149–173.
   Google Scholar
• Marks, R. B., Sibley, S., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2005). “A structural equation model of predictors for effective online learning “. Journal of Management Education, 29(4), 531–563.
   Google Scholar
• Merriam, S. (2000). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Franscisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Merriam, S. (2008). Adult learning theory for the twenty-first century. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 119(Fall), 93–98.
   Google Scholar
• Merriam, S., Caffarella, R., & Baumgartner, L. M. (2007). Learning in adulthood: A comprehensive guide (3rd ed.). USA: Wiley Publishers.
   Google Scholar
• Monarch Media. (2010). Open-source learning management systems: Sakai and Moodle (Business White Paper). Santa Cruz, CA: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction [editorial]. American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1–7. doi:10.1080/089236489526659
   Google Scholar
• Morgan, G. (2003). Faculty use of course management systems. Denver: Educause Centre for Applied Research.
   Google Scholar
• Munoz, A., Lasheras, J., Capel, A., Cantabella, M., & Caballero, A. (2015). OntoSakai: On the optimization of a learning management system using semantics and user profiling. Expert Systems with Application, 42, 5995–6007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ngeze, L. (2016). Learning management systems in higher learning institutions in Tanzania: Analysis of students’ attitudes and challenges towards the use of UDOM LMS in teaching and learning at the University of Dodoma. International Journal of Computer Applications, 136(11), 9–12.
   Google Scholar
• O’Hara, K., Massimi, M., Harper, R., Rubens, S., & Morris, J. (2014, February 15–19). Everyday dwelling with WhatsApp. CSCW’14. Baltimore, MD, USA.
   Google Scholar
• Onwuegbuzie, A., Dickinson, W., Leech, N., & Zoran, A. (2009). A qualitative framework for collecting and analysing data in focus group research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(3), 1–16.
   Google Scholar
• Patton, M. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Patton, M. (2002). Two decades of developments in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Social Work, 1(3), 261–283.
   Google Scholar
• Piña, A. 2010. An overview of learning management systems. In Y. Kats (Ed.), Learning management system technologies and software solutions for online teaching: Tools and application (Information Science Reference). New York: Hershey.
   Google Scholar
• Piña, A., Green, S., & Eggers, M. (2008). Learning management systems: Lessons from the frontlines. Paper presented at the Annual Technology in Education (TechED) Conference, Ontario, CA.
   Google Scholar
• Posey, L., & Pintz, C. (2017). Transitioning a bachelor of science in nursing programme to blended learning: Successes, challenges and outcomes. Nurse Education in Practice, 26, 126–133.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rambe, P., & Chipunza, C. (2013). Using mobile devices to leverage student access to collaboratively-generated resources: A case of WhatsApp instant messaging at a South African University. International Conference on Advanced Information and Communication Technology for Education (ICAICTE). South Africa: Atlantis Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rhode, J. F. (2009). Interaction equivalency in self-paced online learning environments: An exploration of learner preferences. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(1), 1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Rodriguez, P., & Armellini, A. (2013). Interaction and effectiveness of corporate e-learning programmes. Human Resource Development International, 16(4), 480–489.
   Google Scholar
• Romero, C., Ventura, S., & Garcia, E. (2008). Data mining in course management systems: Moodle case study and tutorial. Computers & Education, 51, 368–384.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schnetter, V. A., Lacy, D., Jones, M., Bakrim, K., Allen, P., & O’Neal, C. (2014). Course development for web-based nursing education programs. Nurse Education in Practice, 14, 635–640.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shackelford, J., & Maxwell, M. (2012). Contribution of Learner-instructor interaction to sense of community in graduate online education. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 8(4), 248–260.
   Google Scholar
• Sher, A. (2009). Assessing the relationship of student-instructor and student-student interaction to student learning and satisfaction in Web-based online learning environment. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 8(2), 102–121.
   Google Scholar
• Sit, J., Chung, J., Chow, M., & Wong, T. (2005). Experiences of online learning: Students’ perspective. Nurse Education Today, 25, 140–147.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Soo, K., & Bonk, C. (1998, June 20–23). Interaction: What does it mean in online distance education? Paper presented at the Ed-Media and EdTelecom 98 Conference, Freiburg, Germany.
   Google Scholar
• Sowan, A., & Jenkins, L. (2013). Designing, delivering and evaluating a distance learning nursing course responsive to students need. International Journal of Medical Informatics, 83, 553–564.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stake, R. E. (1994). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 236–247). Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
   Google Scholar
• Su, B., Bonk, C., Magjuka, R., Liu, X., & Lee, S.-H. (2005). The importance of interaction in web-based education: A programme-level case study of online MBA courses. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 4(1), 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Swan, K. (2001). Virtual interaction: Design factors affecting student satisfaction and perceived learning in asynchronous online courses. Distance Education, 22(2), 306–331.
   Google Scholar
• Swan, K. (2002). Building learning communities in online courses: The importance of interaction. Education, Communication & Information, 2(1), 23–35.
   Google Scholar
• Thurmond, V. A., & Wambach, K. (2004). Understanding interactions in Distance Education: A review of the literature. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance learning, 1(1), 9–26.
   Google Scholar
• Tuovinen, J. (2000). Multimedia distance education interactions. Education Media International, 37(1), 16–24.
   Google Scholar
• Vaismoradi, M., Jones, J., Turunen, H., & Snelgrove, S. (2016). Theme development in qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis. Journal of Nursing Education and Practice, 6(5), 100–110.
   Google Scholar
• Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2013). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences, 15, 398–405.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vrasidas, C. (2000). Constructivism versus objectivism: Implications for interaction, course design, and evaluation in distance education. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 6(4), 339–362.
   Google Scholar
• Vrasidas, C. (2004, March, 14–17). Issues of pedagogy and design in e-learning systems. 2004 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, Cyprus: Nicosia.
   Google Scholar
• Vygostsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and Society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wagner, E. D. (1997). Interactivity: From agents to outcomes. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 71(Fall), 19–26.
   Google Scholar
• West, R. E., Waddoups, G., & Graham, C. (2007). Understanding the experiences of instructors as they adopt a course management system. Educational Technology Research and Development, 55(1), 1–26.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White, B., & Larusson, J. (2010).Strategic directives for Learning Management System planning. ECAR Research Bulletin, 19, 1279–1288. Colorado: USA.
   Google Scholar
• Williamson, K., & Muckle, J. (2018). Students’ perception of technology use in nursing education. CIN: Computers, Informatics, Nursing, 36(2), 70–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiao, J. (2017). Learner-content interaction in distance education: The weakest link in interaction research. Distance Education, 38(1), 123–135.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yilmaz, R., & Keser, H. (2016). The impact of interactive environment and metacognitive support on academic achievement and transactional distance in online learning. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 55(1), 95–122.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yin, R. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• York, C., & Richardson, J. (2012). Interpersonal interaction in online learning: Experienced online instructors’ perception of influencing factors. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(4), 83–92.
   Google Scholar
• Zimmerman, T. (2012). Exploring learner to content interaction as a success factor in online courses. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(4), 152–165.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar