To BlikBook or not to BlikBook: Exploring student engagement of an online discussion platform

References

• Abedin, B., Daneshgar, F., & D’Ambra, J. (2011). Enhancing non-task sociability of asynchronous CSCL environments. Computers & Education, 57, 2535–2547.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ang, S. H. (2014). Research design for business and management. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Biggs, J. (1996). Enhancing teaching through constructive alignment. Higher Education, 32, 347–364.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boling, E. C., Hough, M., Krinsky, H., Saleem, H., & Stevens, M. (2012). Cutting the distance in distance education: Perspectives on what promotes positive, online learning experiences. The Internet and Higher Education, 15, 118–126.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Charmaz, K. (2006). Constructing grounded theory. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Croy, S. R. (2018). Development of a group work assessment pedagogy using constructive alignment theory. Nurse Education Today, 61, 49–53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Deng, L., & Tavares, N. J. (2013). From Moodle to Facebook: Exploring students’ motivation and experiences in online communities. Computers & Education, 68, 167–176.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dixson, M. D. (2012). Creating effective student engagement in online courses: What do students find engaging? Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 10, 1–13.
   Google Scholar
• Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Lowe, A. (2002). Management research: An introduction (2nd ed.). London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Ferguson, P. (2011). Student perceptions of quality feedback in teacher education. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 36, 51–62.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fritschner, L. M. (2000). Inside the undergraduate college classroom: Faculty and students differ on the meaning of student participation. Journal of Higher Education, 71, 342–362.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Glaser, B. G. (1992). Basics of grounded theory analysis: Emergence vs forcing. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harper, S. R., & Quaye, S. J. (2015). Making engagement equitable for students in U.S. higher education. In S. J. Quaye & S. R. Harper (Eds.), Student engagement in higher education: Theoretical perspectives and practical approaches for diverse populations (Second ed., pp. 1–14). New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hattingh, A., & De Kock, D. M. (2008). Perceptions of teacher roles in an experience-rich teacher education programme. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 45, 321–332.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hilsdon, J. (2014). Peer learning for change in higher education. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 51, 244–254.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hou, H. T., Wang, S. M., Lin, P. C., & Chang, K. E. (2015). Exploring the learner’s knowledge construction and cognitive patterns of different asynchronous platforms: Comparison of an online discussion forum and Facebook. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 52, 610–620.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jankowicz, A. D. (2005). Business Research Projects (4th edn). London: Thomson Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, M., & Ryan, J. (2014). Learning in the practicum: Engaging pre-service teachers in reflective practice in the online space. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 42, 132–146.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kahu, E. R. (2013). Framing student engagement in higher education. Studies in Higher Education, 38, 758–773.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kassens-Noor, E. (2012). Twitter as a teaching practice to enhance active and informal learning in higher education: The case of sustainable tweets. Active Learning in Higher Education, 13, 9–21.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kuh, G. D. (2001). Assessing what really matters to student learning inside the national survey of student engagement. Change: the Magazine of Higher Learning, 33, 10–17.
   Google Scholar
• Kuh, G. D. (2003). What We’re learning about student engagement from NSSE: Benchmarks for effective educational practices. Change: the Magazine of Higher Learning, 35(2), 24–32.
   Google Scholar
• Kuh, G. D., Kinzie, J., Buckley, J. A., Bridges, B. K., & Hayek, J. C. (2011). Piecing together the student success puzzle: Research, propositions, and recommendations: ASHE Higher Education Report (116). San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Lyndon, S., & Hale, B. (2014). Evaluation of how the blended use of a virtual learning environment (VLE) can impact on learning and teaching in a specific module. Enhancing Learning in the Social Sciences, 6, 56–65.
   Google Scholar
• McCann, M. (2017). Constructive alignment in economics teaching: A reflection on effective implementation. Teaching in Higher Education, 22, 336–348.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McGill, T. J., & Hobbs, V. J. (2007). How students and instructors using a virtual learning environment perceive the fit between technology and task. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24, 191–202.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3, 1–7.
   Google Scholar
• Morabito, V. (2015). Big Data and Analytics: Strategic and Organizational Impacts. London: Springer International.
   Google Scholar
• Outsell (2013). Blikbooks: Addressing the UK market for higher Ed E-textbooks [online]. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20131213053912/http://outsellinc.net/Headline.aspx?ID=455070
   Google Scholar
• Pascarella, E. T. (2001). Identifying excellence in undergraduate education are we even close? Change: the Magazine of Higher Learning, 33, 18–23.
   Google Scholar
• Ritchie, J., & Spencer, L. (2002). Qualitative data analysis for applied policy research. In M. Huberman & M. B. Miles (Eds), The qualitative researcher’s companion (pp. 305–329). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Rogan, A. I., & De Kock, D. M. (2005). Chronicles from the classroom: Making sense of the methodology and methods of narrative analysis. Qualitative Inquiry, 11, 628–649.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stiggins, R., Chappuis, S., & Arter, J. (2014). Classroom assessment for student learning. Harlow: Pearson.
   Google Scholar
• Stricker, D., Weibel, D., & Wissmath, B. (2011). Efficient learning using a virtual learning environment in a university class. Computers & Education, 56, 495–504.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Thomas, D. R. (2006). A general inductive approach for analyzing qualitative evaluation data. American Journal of Evaluation, 27, 237–246.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tissington, P., & Orthodoxou, C. (2014). Study skills for business and management: How to succeed at university and beyond. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Wahab, M. M. A., & Mahboub, D. (2006). Students understanding and participation using ULearn: Dynamics case. European Journal of Engineering Education, 31, 407–420.
   Google Scholar
• Wang, Q., Woo, H. L., Quek, C. L., Yang, Y., & Liu, M. (2012). Using the Facebook group as a learning management system: An exploratory study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43, 428–438.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webb, N. M. (2009). The teacher’s role in promoting collaborative dialogue in the classroom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 1–28.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar