How can technology be used to improve the learner experience at points of transition?

HOW CAN TECHNOLOGY BE
USED TO IMPROVE THE
LEARNER EXPERIENCE AT
POINTS OF TRANSITION?

REVIEW OF PEER REVIEWED ACADEMIC LITERATURE,
NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL RESOURCES AND EXAMPLES
OF PROJECTS AND INITIATIVES WITHIN HIGHER EDUCATION
INSTITUTIONS LITERATURE

Ruth Lefever & Becka Currant
University of Bradford
February 2010

1

CONTENTS

Contents.......................................................................................................................2 

Executive Summary .....................................................................................................4 

Background..................................................................................................................8 

Methodology ................................................................................................................9 

Overview of findings...................................................................................................11 

Introduction.............................................................................................................11 

Themes ......................................................................................................................14 

1  Pre-entry support and aiding early transition...............................................14 

2  Social interaction and integration ................................................................16 

3  Skills/academic development and ‘learning to learn’...................................18 

4  Information communication .........................................................................20 

5  Maintaining engagement and participation..................................................21 

6  Inclusivity and increased student diversity ..................................................24 

7  Student centred approaches .......................................................................25 

8  Connecting with student use of technology .................................................27 

9  Alternative, additional and blended approaches..........................................30 

10  Identifying ‘at risk’ students and student support.........................................33 

11  Staff Involvement.........................................................................................34 

12  Potential problems/concerns .......................................................................36 

Access and technical issues...............................................................................36 

Low participation/engagement with technological initiatives ..............................37 

Privacy, safety and concerns over public postings .............................................38 

Technology as disruptive and disengaging ........................................................39 

Encouraging dependency, spoon feeding and superficial learning ....................39 

13  Impact and outcomes on transition/retention...............................................40 

14  Student Feedback .......................................................................................43 

15  Wider issues to consider .............................................................................45 

2

Institutional and strategic approaches ................................................................46 

Consistency ........................................................................................................46 

Usability, design and purpose ............................................................................47 

Data and evaluation issues ................................................................................47 

Incorporating the student voice/perspective .......................................................48 

Further research is still needed ..........................................................................49 

Conclusions............................................................................................................50 

Key Projects/Studies..................................................................................................52 

References.................................................................................................................76 

3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The themes from the literature can be summarized as follows:

1 Pre-entry support and aiding early transition

A number of projects and studies have employed technology to aid the process of
transition into university by helping students to settle in and adjust, to reduce anxiety
and deal with change. Initiatives involve online activities and resources and the
opportunity to communicate with others prior to arrival, during induction and into the
early stages of university life. Distance learning models of induction can provide
guidance and work is often focused on helping students to feel prepared, ready and
connected, managing their expectations and allowing skills development to begin.

2 Social interaction and integration

Using technology to support social integration and engagement is seen as a key
benefit in improving transition experiences. Social Networking Sites in particular are
highlighted for addressing homesickness and allowing new connections to be made –
offering a sense of community and belonging. Other technology such as SMS, virtual
environments and Instant Messaging (IM) are also noted for their ability to offer social
‘presence’ and reassurance that others are experiencing similar problems and
challenges. The benefits of using technology to support interaction with students
already at university, for peer mentoring and for communication with staff are also
noted.

3 Skills/academic development and ‘learning to learn’

Various initiatives are using technology in transition for the development of skills,
both for academic and study purposes and also for personal development, self-
assessment and for ‘learning to learn’ at university. Reflection, motivation and
autonomy are raised as positive attributes that technology can foster as is its ability
to prepare students for life after graduation in terms of marketplace technologies and
the 21st century skills required by employers.

4 Information communication

The practical benefits in allowing general resources, information, regulations and
procedures to be readily available are often raised and this can be facilitated by
VLEs, edublogs or other mobile technology such as Instant Messenger (IM) and
SMS. Technology is being used to reach large numbers of students with course
information, announcements, events and reminders and can help provide timely
information at points during the transition process.

5 Maintaining engagement and participation

Studies discuss how technology and e-learning can aid ongoing participation and
motivation over the transition through the academic cycle. Various e-tivities are

4

being used to enhance engagement by providing richer learning environments and
innovative practice, flexible learning, ongoing peer collaboration and scaffolding
support, as well as aiding the engagement and transitions of remote students

6 Inclusivity and increased student diversity

The need to utilise technology is often associated with increased student diversity,
and notions of inclusion and widening participation are common, although not all
accept technology has a big impact on this. Technology can be aimed specifically at
non-traditional students and may be needed to support some with individual needs.
Yet studies stress possible access issues, that all learner needs should be
addressed and that universities should be mindful of the full range of diversity and
consider the possibility of technology creating new barriers as well as offering help.

7 Student centred approaches

Aiming to be student centred in approaches to the use of technology is a common
theme and key features of this revolve around offering flexibility of access, choice
and an increased sense of control and empowerment over learning. Personalising
experiences and valuing and utilizing the student voice are also seen as beneficial.
As is putting the technology into learners’ hands, fostering student creativity and
moving beyond passive learning. Technology is also seen as able to support
‘reluctant’ learners and as a tool for obtaining student feedback.

8 Connecting with student use of technology

A key feature of the literature is connecting with technologically aware and skilled
students and appealing to and learning from the ‘net generation’. Studies argue that
students use technology in their everyday lives and HEIs need to channel and
respond to their skills and preferences in order to engage them. However, skills
problems are raised by others, both around students not necessarily being able to
use devices for educational purposes and in terms of cautioning against treating
students as a homogenous, technically competent group who would all benefit from
technology. Learners are diverse, have different abilities, styles and needs and all of
these need to be taken into account when considering technology and transitions.

9 Alternative, additional and blended approaches

Initiatives can be seen as offering interesting alternatives in light of students’ lack of
engagement in the traditional classroom, or as part of an approach used alongside
face to face methods to support and enhance them. Provision for diverse learners
means that blended approaches may be seen as preferable; however some authors
urge the importance of realising the full possibilities of technology and its
transformative potential. Technology is also being used alongside other practices
and at various points throughout the student cycle as part of the transition process.

10 Identifying ‘at risk’ students and student support

The literature reveals potential for technology to highlight and support students seen
to be ‘at risk’ during transition by identifying those who may be struggling and

5

providing an opportunity for timely information and interventions. The ability and
potential of technology to aid all students is also noted – to troubleshoot issues, offer
individual support and to provide cohesive and integrated support services.

11 Staff Involvement

There are mixed views on staff involvement with students via technology, with some
suggesting staff use of, say, Social Networking Sites (SNS) can enhance
communication and help draw students into learning; and others concerned about
‘invading’ student space. Perceptions of the changing role of staff to facilitators,
rather than deliverers, of knowledge are also discussed, as are concerns over time,
expectations and skills.

12 Potential problems/concerns

Studies raise but also aim to address some of the following perceived problems:

• Access and technical issues

• Low participation/engagement with technological initiatives – including why

students may not participate and how this can be tackled by making the use

of technology meaningful and relevant

• Privacy, safety and concerns over public postings

• Technology as disruptive and disengaging

• Encouraging dependency, spoon feeding and superficial learning

13 Impact and outcomes on transition/retention

Evaluations tend to note the potential technology has and its impact is often
discussed in relation to the perceived benefits to the transitional process or in
addressing key retention issues/factors. Authors note that outcomes are difficult to
evidence due to being unable to isolate all the variables involved, but some impact is
discussed and demonstrated in terms of access to resources, improved student skills
or achievement and in relation to retention rates. These can be viewed alongside
JISC’s (2008) ‘tangible benefits’ of e-learning and, although evaluation of many
projects is still ongoing, the importance of both quantitative and qualitative
information and benefits is noted.

14 Student Feedback

A number of studies are utilising student feedback to evaluate and develop projects
involving the use of technology. Students have noted value in terms of
communication, access to information and feeling more prepared, confident and
positive. They also report advantages in social integration, flexibility and academic
engagement, with one study tracking the perceptions and benefits of technology over
the first year period. However, mixed, ambiguous and contradictory feelings towards

6

technology are also being uncovered, with negative views as well as positive to
consider.

15 Wider issues to consider

Wider issues are also identified within the literature, which may be important to
consider in terms of evaluating initiatives or for planning future developments or
research:

• Institutional and strategic approaches

• Consistency

• Usability, design and purpose

• Data and evaluation issues

• Incorporating the student voice/perspective

• Further evidence needed

7

BACKGROUND

During the last 20 years, higher education has undergone radical and unprecedented
change (Education Act, 1992; Dearing Report, 1997; Roberts Report, 2003; Leitch
Report, 2006). Today’s learners enter with very different expectations and
assumptions about their experience compared with previous cohorts. Increased
student numbers have placed exceptional strain on a system not designed to deliver
mass education (Rowley 2003). Scott (1995) calls this radical change “massification”.

The student body has become dramatically more heterogeneous (Toman et al 2005)
with Universities needing to adapt quickly to ensure inclusive provision. The student
body has fragmented, (Caldwell et al 2006) leading in some cases to disengagement.
Reasons for this are varied, but include issues of alienation (Quinn et al 2005) and
poor decision-making (STAR 2006; Yorke 1997). To assist students effectively, new
strategies must be implemented to ensure effective transition.

One way of responding to these issues has been to provide online opportunities for
students to engage in to assist with transition and retention activities. Many UK HEIs
now provide some form of online induction ranging from setting up groups in
Facebook, peer mentoring schemes in Bebo to institutionally owned and managed
social networks (e.g. Anagnostopoulou & Parmer 2008; Currant & Keenan 2009).
There are also examples of innovative uses of technology at points of transition e.g.
using alternate reality games to support information skills development (Whitton
2009)

However, much of the feedback associated with the use of online systems is
anecdotal. There was a need to identify studies which have undertaken rigorous
evaluations of the impact of their systems. Conducting a literature review into this
area has provided a body of evidence to help institutions considering this type of
approach on any potential benefits and issues. This literature review is therefore
intended to provide a snapshot of the types of activities that are taking place, the
technologies that have been utilized and any associated implications and issues, and
the results that have been obtained.

8

METHODOLOGY

The focus of the review is on peer reviewed academic literature, national and
international resources and examples of projects and initiatives within Higher
Education institutions. To begin with, educational databases were sourced for
abstracts and articles – notably ERIC and HEERD. The initial search terms used
produced too many general results and therefore these were refined, focusing
specifically on: technology and transitions/retention; using technology to support
transition/engagement/retention; online transitions; online inductions and social
networking sites. In addition resources were sourced from the Higher Education
Academy (hereafter ‘Academy’) website subject centre links, publications and
Evidence Net and from relevant journals such as Brookes e-journal, ALT-J and the
Journal of Computer Mediated Communications. Where searches uncovered links to
further references or additional search avenues, these were followed up individually
and further items included where relevant.

The searches identified a body of literature concerning the use of technology for
teaching and learning within Higher Education and on e-learning practices. A number
of resources were concerned with enhancing the learner environment and
experience; such studies involved: supporting a technology enabled curriculum; the
expansion of e-learning or moving to/implementing an online environment; transitions
from face to face or traditional teaching; online course/module delivery; distance
learning; staff and student attitudes to technology and the various advantages and
disadvantages of these various processes and schemes. Where possible, relevant
themes and areas related to transition have been drawn out from these. However it is
important to emphasise that the review is not focused on the evaluation of e-learning
or the effectiveness of technological initiatives per se; for example, it is not about the
benefits or impacts of these in teaching and learning, how to use technology as a
teaching tool or to enhance learning. Rather it centres on transition, its context and
engagement during points of this process. Discussion, analysis and review of
technology and e-learning for teaching, learning and assessment can be found
elsewhere. Therefore this review focuses on projects or studies that demonstrate the
use of technology in improving the learner experience during transition and the
possible impact of such uses on retention and student experience issues. Inevitably,
there was considerable crossover, and such materials have been incorporated.
Examples of this included research concerning pre-arrival and induction initiatives
and using technology for social integration, communication, skills development and
continued engagement. Although there was less to be found on the specific use of
technology for transitions and little in terms of demonstrable impact, there were a
number of articles and reports that focused on this aspect and the sources
themselves often both recognised and recommended the need for further research
work in this area.

From the outset, the project acknowledged that finding initiatives and work in this
field might also need to look towards the ‘grey literature’ and thus relevant
conference papers and presentations were searched for via sites such as JISC, ALT
and the Academy. In addition members of and practitioners within the higher

9

education community were asked for their input into the review. Requests for details
of work in this area were forwarded to the JISCmail groups ‘Student Retention and
Success’1 and LDHEN2, and to the ELESIG3 Ning community. Examples of
activities/projects for consideration were listed as:

• Online induction initiatives (including pre-arrival)
• Online peer mentoring schemes
• Institutional use of social networking sites
• Innovative uses of technology at points of transition – e.g. for skills development

It was highlighted that the review was particularly interested in studies/initiatives that
had undergone evaluation of their impact. This was in order to provide a body of
evidence to help institutions considering this type of approach on any potential
benefits and issues. Therefore examples of reports, conference papers and
presentations were especially welcomed. The request included a proforma to focus
responses to the topic areas but individuals were also able to forward general
comments and/or links. This interaction yielded a number of useful resources which
were included in the review alongside those found from more traditional sources.
Although a number of initiatives taking place nationally are in the early stages or
have yet to be evaluated and therefore cannot be considered in terms of meaningful
impact, they do provide a flavour of the activity being undertaken, underpinning
rationale and the anticipated benefits/outcomes on transitional experiences.

The involvement of the ELESIG community itself also adds a unique aspect to this
review – members were asked for examples of studies and had the opportunity to
comment on/add to the resources used via the online Ning community. In addition to
receiving projects updates, a review draft and being asked for input, a full list of
sourced references were stored in an Endnote Web database made available to
members who requested access. This review has therefore been interactive in its
development, both with the e-learning and technology communities and those
interested in retention and student success.

1
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/
group STUDENT-RETENTION-AND-SUCCESS@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
2
http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/, group LDHEN@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
3
http://elesig.ning.com/

10

OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS

Introduction

This review considers transition in a broad sense as beginning before entry to
university and continuing through the first semester, year and beyond. The
resources discussed offer examples of initiatives, activities and findings on the use of
technology at various stages or points involved in transition: pre-entry and induction,
early experiences, first year and later engagement and into employment. Projects
often aim to improve experience at/during these stages by engaging learners and
supporting their needs, and strive to address the factors influencing withdrawal,
retention and successful transition that have come from wider research.

A number of the examples included are contextualised by transition literature and in
particular the importance of both academic and social integration – with facilitation of
these a common feature in the studies and projects. Cook and Rushton (2008) write
that key dimensions of transition are independent learning, group work, motivation
and responsibility and numerous initiatives aim to encourage students to develop in
these areas and foster skills such as autonomy, critical thinking and self-directed
learning. Resources have been used where technology is pivotal to a transition
project or forms part of an overall approach. However, many others may not address
transition directly but have been included to highlight where technology is being used
for enhancing teaching and learning in general, to enhance learner experience or to
assist retention, and therefore can be seen as potentially beneficial to aspects of
transition. In a wider context technology is seen as playing a fundamental role in
Higher Education, e-learning is strongly encouraged and key drivers for technology
enhanced learning are seen as meeting student expectations and improving the
quality of teaching and learning (UCISA 2008).

Throughout the literature, technology can be shown as being used in an attempt to
improve the learner experience. This review outlines what some initiatives aim to
achieve or address, how technology can be beneficial and why its use could be
considered desirable.

The projects and studies involve a wide variety of initiatives and web tools, including:

• Social Networking Sites (SNS) – facebook, ning etc

• SMS

• Virtual Learning Environments (VLE)

• Gaming/Alternate Reality Games (ARGs)

• Online peer mentoring

11

• Online modules/programmes

• Online skills resources/development

• Blogs

• Wikis

• Podcasts and vodcasts

• Discussion forums and chatrooms

• Video and audio clips

• Folksonomies (tagging)

• Personalised Learning Environment (PLE) e.g. Second Life

• Web 3.0 technology

From these resources, a number of key themes and commonalities have been drawn
out and discussed. These include: dealing with preparedness and anxiety reduction;
social integration and peer interaction; academic skills development and early
through to ongoing engagement (to maintain participation throughout transition);
considering diversity and inclusion; being student centred and offering
personalisation; connecting to students’ use of and skills with technology; using
technology to identify and support students that may be ‘at risk’ during transition;
using alternative and blended approaches to learner needs; issues concerning staff
involvement in initiatives and possible problems and concerns with using technology.

Resources consider what has worked and how aspects of the technology have been
effective, beneficial, or have made an impact. However, possible problems and
concerns are also raised and the literature reveals some contrasting views on the
use of technology. Even where benefits are found, potential difficulties and barriers
can also arise. In particular, this can be caused by making generalisations or
homogenising students, but it also reflects a number of other issues such as low
participation rates in projects. Therefore there is a need to address diverse learner
styles, needs and experiences and making the use of technology meaningful and
relevant.

The review also includes sections on findings in terms of the impact of using
technology, although some evaluations can be limited to the perceived success of
the individual project rather than the wider impact of the scheme on, say, retention.
Yet a number of examples of impact have been reported and JISC (2008) emphasise
the importance of an e-learning approach and provide key “tangible benefits” such
as: savings in staff time or resources; increased student achievement and improved
student retention; benefits in skills and employment; and positives for inclusion and
widening participation. All of these issues feature within the review across the
themes. Both quantitative and qualitative feedback is considered important and the
section on student feedback in particular can highlight the value of technological

12

initiatives on experience during transition, although this section also notes mixed
views from students on their perceptions of technology.

The final section draws attention to wider issues for consideration in terms of using
technology such as institutional approach, consistency, design and evaluation and
highlights the need for further research in this area. It is clear from the resources that
there are no magic tools which by themselves can solve all the problems students
encounter during the transition process and the use of technology needs to be
carefully considered in light of diverse students, with many urging the importance and
centrality of the student voice. This perspective is highly valued and conclusions
argue that initiatives to aid learners and improve their experience acknowledge and
support all backgrounds, needs, preferences and transitions.

13

THEMES

From the review, a number of themes and commonalities have been developed –
from individual projects or initiatives, from studies into the use of technology and from
the general literature in the field of technology and education, distance education and
e-learning.

1 Pre-entry support and aiding early transition

A number of projects and studies have employed technology to aid the process of
transition into university by helping students to settle in and adjust, to reduce anxiety,
deal with change and develop generic skills (Laing et al 2005). The work is
frequently justified by and aimed at addressing key transition issues and facilitating
retention (Chalk et al n.d.) by enhancing the transition experience and offering
support before study begins.

Initiatives in this area regularly involve online resources, activities and the opportunity
to communicate with staff and other students prior to arrival, often from when
students are offered/accept a place. But many also include activities extended into
the early stages of university life. Examples include:

• Bridging the Gap at the University of Sunderland

• Step into Higher Education at the University of Manchester

• Stepping Stones 2HE at Bournemouth University

• Develop Me! at the University of Bradford.

• GO! At the University of Brighton

• Getting Started at the University of Lincoln

• MAPS at the University of Leeds

• Shock Absorber at Manchester Metropolitan University

• GettingonTrack at the University of Sydney

Key features of the schemes are to tackle issues such as lack of preparedness for
higher education, improving confidence levels, easing the burden of induction week,
avoiding information overload, demystifying jargon, and creating the opportunity for
students to ask questions. They strive to engage students early and increase their
confidence, knowledge and skills and alleviate the anxiety of starting university.
Anagnostopoulou and Parmar (2008) suggest that using technology may assist in
easing transition by linking students to support and managing expectations. A
number projects focus in part on bringing expectations in line with the reality of
academic study (Laing et al 2005) and to help students know what to expect, see

14

what university life will be like and to understand what it means to be a student (Hills
2006). Keenan (2009b) notes that offering information and resources before
students arrive, in students’ own space and time, spreads the load, helps them to
absorb information, gain confidence and can help develop early commitment,
engagement and perseverance. Students can find induction week overwhelming
and therefore such ‘transition mechanisms’ (Keenan 2006) are important and access
prior to induction – to other students, to the course and to the university – is seen as
a key step towards providing a successful student transitional experience.

Another aspect of online transition support involves improving orientation activities.
Several initiatives have used online games (Piatt 2009, Whitton, 2009 and Curran
and Forbes 2007) to tackle this by offering the chance to learn about and explore
services and features of the university and surrounding area. A different example is a
pre-induction package at the University of Salford, delivered via blackboard, which
included welcome podcasts, pre-course reading materials, direct contact information
for staff, maps and a helpline (Robinson et al. 2007). Another common feature
amongst the literature is the provision of opportunities to meet other students online
before arriving, experience social interaction, start to build a community and have
access to pastoral support provision (Daly and Thomas 2008). Early formation of
support networks and communities can allow students to share their fears with each
other and aims to manage/reduce anxiety and offer reassurance (Hills 2006, Watling
2009).

Initiatives are also responding to the need to lengthen support beyond induction,
such as the Extended Induction Strategy at Birmingham City University – which
covers pre-entry, registration week and beyond. Here technology is again used for
pre-arrival support via facebook for meeting others, pre-enrolment assignments and
podcasts for early engagement with the course material and then use of Moodle to
support learning beyond arrival. Wozniak et al (2009) provide an example of using
technology based on the notion of transition from everyday life to academic study
over time. ‘GettingOnTrack’ aims to address needs before, during and after
enrolment via three stages: Get Real before enrolment for reflections, engagement
and building skills, confidence and readiness; Get Started during enrolment including
‘how tos’; and Get Learning for post enrolment with online communication, activities
and guides to support learning.

Some examples involving technology to support induction can also be drawn from
distance or online programme’s inductions that have little opportunity for face to face
support. Harrell’s (2008) work too stresses a focus on readiness, orientations and
support and suggests induction should prepare students for participation and work,
help them to develop realistic expectations and educate them about skills needed.
Forrester et al (2005) also offer ‘START OUT’ as an example of an online induction
model from distance learning and offer a good practice guide and checklist that
considers the transitional aspects of induction. Many of the characteristics it involves
can be seen mirrored in the goals of initiatives in non-distance courses such as
Develop me! and Stepping Stones 2HE.

15

Not all studies involve comprehensive schemes or programmes for transition; some
have looked at utilising particular technology across various areas, with easing the
transition experience being one aspect. For example Chan and Lee (2005) used
podcasts to address pre-conceptions and concerns and also found that podcasts
used in distance learning reduced anxiety and isolation and gave a sense of
inclusivity to students (Lee and Chan 2007). A number of initiatives are being used
at the University of Leeds: Morris et al (2009) discuss the use of the VLE to improve
the induction experience where students were encouraged to make posts with books
being offered as prizes. ‘Countdown to University Studies’ uses short videos clips of
welcomes from key staff – their research, what they teach and photo storyboards of
field trips. Pugh (n.d.) also looks at the use of a Facebook group once places are
confirmed which aims to build familiarity before arrival with new and current students
and staff.

New technology is therefore being used in managing the process of transition
beginning from the point of offer, through enrolment and induction and into the early
stages of university life, all of which are seen to help students to make sense of their
‘new context’ (Kennan 2009a).

2 Social interaction and integration

Using technology to support social integration and engagement during transition, by
using the VLE or, in particular, via social networking sites (SNS), is a recurring theme
in the literature. Once students have arrived it allows them to keep in touch with
friends and family at home and is therefore part of the ‘social glue’ (Madge et al
2009) that helps students settle in to university life. Additional studies have
suggested the benefits of social networking sites in addressing ‘friendsickness’
(Ellison et al 2007 and Madge et al 2009) or homesickness (Eberhardt 2007) by
supporting existing friendships and therefore helping to reduce anxiety and promote
well-being by keeping in contact with those from home.

The use of such technology can also help to establish new relationships and a sense
of connectedness and a commitment to a community (Horsmanshof, 2004). For
example the use of facebook prior to registration can provide a way of making new
friends especially with people in the same halls or on the same course and can take
some of the work out of meeting others (Smailes et al. 2009). Several projects state
the benefits of social networking in terms of offering a sense of belonging
(Horsmanshof 2004, TAG at the University of Central Lancashire) and for providing
opportunities for social engagement in informal and relaxed environments where, for
example, students can share experiences and see that others are feeling the same
as them (Eberhardt 2007). Such opportunities, it appears, can facilitate successful
socialisation during transition (Robinson et al 2009) and similarly can build and
maintain ‘social capital’ (Ellinson et al 2007).

Interestingly, Prior and Fitzgibbon (2009) discuss how, although social interaction is
important to engagement with the university, the nature of this is changing and that
students are not using traditional socialising events, activities and clubs etc or
socialising at the SU bar. This was found not to be due to lack of time but rather lack

16

of interest and they speculate this could be due to increased social networking
online. The implication of this is that universities need to meet and manage changing
needs and habits. Trinder et al (2008) also recommend rethinking induction in
relation to social networking and championing the socio-cultural benefits of a campus
rich in this activity.

Other studies highlight how it is not just social networking sites that can offer social
interaction. Harley et al (2007) consider the use of texting to support transition in
terms of fostering social integration and noted that students were already using SMS
with each other such as to check information and seek reassurance. The importance
of offering a sense of each others ‘social presence’ is a common theme – helping to
establish connectedness and community and again reducing anxiety as students
were aware others were experiencing the same problems and challenges or were in
the ‘same boat’ (Heaton-Shrestha et al 2009). Other technology can offer this too,
such as twitter (Dunlap and Lowenthal 2009), a virtual classroom (Reushle and Loch
2008) or a virtual ‘lounge’ (Harrell 2008). Xie and Sharma (2005) also note that
weblogs can aid building a sense of community with their personal tone creating a
warm academic environment. Plus Kadirire (2007) and Little et al (2008) look at the
use of ‘Instant Messaging’ (IM) and its importance in providing ‘presence’ – with
students appreciating being aware if other users are logged on, that others are
around, and being able to send messages in real time.

As well as initiatives that allow interaction and community development between
prospective/new students, a number are aiming to link students with peers already at
university. One example utilises the “hot knowledge” of other students via podcasts
to enhance transition by capturing their informal and social knowledge (IMPALA4T at
the University of Leicester). The use of peers is seen as particularly beneficial as
other students trust them (Round, in Pugh n.d.). The University of Reading’s ‘Student
Stories’ uses clips of current and past students talking about aspects of transition and
others use the experience of second and third year students via networking sites.
Little et al (2008) discuss BuddySpace at the Open University which offers peer-to-
peer interaction and community building through Instant Messenger (IM) on a
facebook-like site and the University of Glasgow’s ‘Student Network’ gives advice
and guidance from current students via e-mentoring. Others discuss the benefits of
using online peer mentoring (Hall 2009a on De Monfort University’s CoTIL project)
and Smailes et al (2008) outline using the VLE, SNS and even Personal Learning
Environments (PLE) such as Second Life for peer mentoring, with virtual mentors
being used for student support with social, accommodation and academic issues.
Also MAPS at the University of Leeds uses peer mentors in its facebook discussion
groups as did another project at the university using level 2 students to interact with
new students via the online discussion forum (Morris et al 2009).

Communication from staff is also intended to tie into this process, such as the
‘Student Messenger’ (Harley et al 2007) initiative to facilitate integration – with staff
sending messages on organisational matters or general items like ‘happy new year’.
It was reported that the students felt a sense of belonging from this and although
messages were received en masse, were felt to be personal. Therefore using
technology to offer the opportunity for making early contacts and to support social

17

interaction with peers and with staff is perceived to be a key benefit to transition, with
technology able to offer additional and innovative ways of fostering this support and,
in theory, making it easier for students to integrate and enhancing their experience of
transition.

3 Skills/academic development and ‘learning to learn’

A number of projects suggest that it is not just the social aspects of transition that are
important, but that initiatives also need to include academic tasks and/or those linked
to disciplines (Oliver 2008). Therefore the development of skills and attributes form
aspects of several pre-induction schemes (Currant and Keenan 2009) and online
skills resources are being offered via a number of technological initiatives for:

• academic and writing skills (Cohen and Bobrowicz 2009 and the University of

Hull’s Academic Writing)

• maths skills (Leeds Metropolitan University’s Virtual Maths – Dickenson et al.

2008)

• information literacy skills (Whitton 2009, Glass et al. 2006)

• critical thinking (Hills 2006, Burgess 2009)

• e-portfolios (Heath 2008)

Resources can address the development of course/discipline specific skills or
knowledge and an understanding of expected study, which may include online
assignments prior to arrival (Stepping Stones 2 HE, Wingate 2007, and ‘Countdown
to University Studies’ at the University of Leeds – Pugh n.d.). Some initiatives offer
an ‘academic tool box’ including mock lectures for experience of the classroom
environment (Fishman and Decandia 2006) or ‘snapshots’ of academic practice
(Watling 2009). Cohen and Bobrowicz (2009) discuss the use of an online
‘Assignment Survival Kit’ (ASK) – an essay planning and writing tool covering
referencing, reading and note-making skills and time management. Information and
resources usually continue to be available after the early stages of transition for
further skills development, and for sharing advice; for example, the University of
Leeds ESSL study skills pages.

Keenan (2008) discusses the role of Stepping Stones 2HE in Personal Development
Planning (PDP) and subject engagement, starting from pre-induction with an ‘About
You’ survey and going through to the first assignment. This aims to enhance self-
awareness, reliance and reflection, so such activity becomes routine and just
‘something we do’. The ability of technology to facilitate independent learning and
help students monitor their own development is a recurrent theme throughout several
studies (Harley et al 2007, SaPRA at the University of Bradford) and a common
feature of this is the testing or profiling of skills (TAG at the University of Central
Lancashire, Develop Me! at the University of Bradford, Stepping into Higher
18

Education at the University of Manchester and Bell 2009). These are often in the
form of self-assessment tools offering a ‘health check’ (University of Birmingham) to
students, with self-diagnosis seen as able to empower students and help them
develop a sense of ownership (Laing et al 2005) over their learning. Early profiling is
considered important (Stone 2009a) for transition support, particularly as it can help
students in ‘learning to learn’ (Laing et al 2005, Wingate 2007, TAG at University of
Central Lancashire), learning how to ‘play the game’ (Currant and Keenan 2009) or
‘learning the system’ (Harley et al 2007). Recording progress and development is
also important and ‘Leeds for Life’ at the University of Leeds encourages students to
keep a ‘live CV’ of their achievements and experiences.

Various work stresses the value of encouraging the skills to reflect on learning and
experience (University of Reading’s CETL, Stepping Stones2 HE ) and self-created
content via new technologies is believed to help foster reflective skills (IMPALA4T at
the University of Leicester) and the development of student identity (SPLASH at the
University of Sussex). Xie and Sharma (2005) found weblogs and virtual
environments beneficial for individual and reflective work and deeper learning – as
students could track their own changes and see their growth in thinking. Marples
discusses using the VLE at the University of Leeds for student quizzes to assess
their own progress and obtain feedback on their standard of work and Armstrong et
al. (2009) suggest comparing their work with others via podcasts gives students a
useful insight into their own abilities and can inspire them. In addition, Prior and
Fitzgibbon (2009) look at ‘Early Days’, an online tool to self-assess transition and
orientation carried out in week 6 of the first term, and suggest that even the process
of allowing students to put their feelings into their own words can be important. Such
skills development, further enabled by the use of technology, is seen as valuable in
terms of students understanding and recognising their skills, development and
growth and therefore as potentially able to improve the transition process and impact
upon retention.

In a similar vein, the importance of fostering motivation and confidence and
developing skills such as autonomy and self-efficacy are raised by a number of
studies. Stone (2009b), discussing the WOLF project, notes the possibility of using
technology to provide tools for reflection and improve motivation and Shroff and
Vogel (2009) consider intrinsic motivation – the readiness to engage in learning and
achievement – and found that when comparing online and face to face discussions,
online ones were preferable for perceived student choice and competence – both of
which helped motivation, self-determination and autonomy. Wang and Fang (2005)
also suggest weblogs can assist in developing learner autonomy, increasing self
confidence and the ability to self-direct/manage learning. JISC (2007) also stress the
value of e-learning in increasing learner autonomy and Bowers-Campbell (2008)
looks at the benefits of facebook in developing social skills through increased
interconnectedness with peers and staff and how this may be helpful in improving
self-efficacy which can impact on motivation, persistence and therefore likelihood to
succeed.

The literature also reveals how the use of technology can develop the ability for
group work and peer collaboration and how online activities can foster other practical

19

skills required for the modern employment market. JISC (2009a and 2009b) stress
the importance of developing 21st century employability skills such as
communication, participation and networking (all high on the government agenda)
and that employer demands for ‘soft skills’ like self-direction and teamwork can be
facilitated by social web technologies. HEFCE (2009) also advocate that HEIs
provide ‘higher-order’ skills such as evaluation and refection required for the
‘information economy’. This employability and marketability is highlighted in a number
of studies. Armstrong et al. (2009) suggest podcasts can be used for critical analysis
of information, technical and literacy skills and planning, and Logan Rich et al (2009)
note how technology such as wikis can develop project management and
organisation skills. Others believe weblogs help time management, cooperative
learning and knowledge management - creating, judging and evaluating knowledge
(Wang and Fang 2005 and Namwar and Rastgoo 2008). Finally, Sharpe et al
(2009), looking at projects concerned with transitions, stress the need for students to
develop not just information and learning skills but also the organisational skills to
balance multiple demands – such as study, family and employment.

Considering the environment after university is a recurrent theme, with technology
seen as offering an experience of multi-media applications and web awareness that
can therefore prepare students for the digital world they will graduate into (JISC
2009a&b and Cann 2008). Technology can also offer more real life experience (such
as the Virtual site at Leeds Metropolitan University – Dickenson et al. 2008) and 3D
environments can be used to simulate real environments (Farrell et al 2007) or
mobile technology can enable learning on the job (such as at Southampton Solent
University as reported in JISC 2009b). Steele (2008) suggests time spent in the
traditional classroom does not actually apply to the job market and that we need to
mirror the world outside academia and prepare students for marketplace
technologies. Therefore technology offers the chance to develop new skills and to
gain experience of Internet tools that may be needed for employment or required by
employers (Williams and Chinn 2009, Jowallah 2008, Reushle and Loch 2008). The
implication here is that all these skills will be of benefit in the transition from university
to employment/life after study.

4 Information communication

As well as using technology in transitional support for facilitating social and academic
integration it can also be used to introduce general resources, policies and
procedures. Practical benefits in terms of information communication using
technology are raised by several projects and Cook and Rushton (2008) note that
part of an effective induction is providing information about administrative policies,
course and institutional information. For example online resources can offer generic
information on registration and accommodation (‘Countdown to University Studies’),
and provide a repository for documents (University of Birmingham); Step into Higher
Education (Chalk et al n.d.) presents information on the course, the city and for
study, and aims to offer accessible and consistent resources– a ‘one stop shop’ for
information and keeping in touch with admin staff. Similarly MAPS at the University
of Leeds attempts to provide an all-encompassing resource of information for new

20

students and to reduce the feeling of ‘overload’ (Pugh and Taylor n.d.). Mitchell et al
(n.d.) looked at the use of an online package including library and plagiarism tutorials
and an e-tutor to help students use WebCT and a number of projects are using the
VLE to host frequently asked question banks (Getting Started at University of Lincoln,
Robinson et al 2007) or glossaries and gateways to other resources (Bell 2009). In
addition, Akbulut and Kiyici (2007) raise the benefits of ‘Edublogs’ in providing
information on relevant topics, news updates and archive information which are
accommodating of busy lifestyles and are more readily available than paper copies
and again can prevent information overload as students can search for relevant titles
and brief summaries. Such initiatives are also beneficial after the early stages of
transition; Laing et al’s (2005) Spiral programme runs during the first 6 weeks of the
course but also extends beyond this to provide timely information over the transition
process, such as for assessment regulations, plagiarism, mitigating circumstances
procedures, report writing and referencing.

As well as online information, SMS is being used by staff for communication, for
example in the Mobiles Enhancing Learning and Support (MeLAS) project at the
University of Wolverhampton, which recommended its use for administrative
purposes such as cancelled lectures, room changes and assessment deadlines
(Brett 2008). Jones et al (2009) also consider the use of SMS messaging, noting that
students paid more attention to SMS than email, thus making it more effective in
communicating information that was read on time. Salas and Alexander (2008) note
that student service professionals are using IM and can ‘chat’ with several students
at one time and therefore technology is being utilised to reach large numbers of
students with course information, regulations, announcements, events or reminders.
It can also be deployed at critical points during the transition process (Nix et al 2006)
such as before assignment deadlines or after the Christmas break. This provision of
timely information is seen as particularly important (Whittaker 2008) - from pre-entry
to induction and beyond, with technology being used to provide students with
relevant information when they need it and in accessible forms.

5 Maintaining engagement and participation

The literature revealed many studies discussing the use of technology to engage
learners and although not specifically focusing on transition, some examples are
nonetheless relevant to longer term transitions over the academic year or cycle. This
section will not focus on the evaluation of e-learning practices and methods, but has
drawn on studies involving technology that aim to keep student interest and
engagement going throughout university, considering how it can be used to motivate
and sustain learning (Cann 2008). Using technology can be seen to have benefits
not just for initial social and academic integration but, by enabling this to continue, to
help participation and success and to build on development in early transition.

Web 2.0 technology is seen as being suited to encouraging engagement by providing
richer learning environments and flexibility (JISC 2009a, Williams and Chinn 2009),
something that HEFCE encourages, with a stated interest in innovation in e-learning
and the design of technology for students to manage individual and shared learning

21

(2005). Studies highlight a whole host of e-learning initiatives involving online
environments and various ‘e-tivities’ (Jones and Peachey 2005 and Slevin 2008) that
are used to foster collaboration and control and to support ongoing engagement and
participation.

Some examples from the literature include:

• using classroom response systems such as EVS, iClicker and Qwizdom to
increase interaction in lectures (Draper and Brown 2004 and Salas and
Alexander 2008)
• web-conferencing such as Elluminate (McBrien et al. 2009 and Reushle and
Loch 2008)
• e-based PDP (Hefce 2005)

• e-assessment initiatives and ‘just-in time’ assessment (Hefce 2009)

• online continuous assessment to help students stay involved with a module
(Ni Bheachain 2005)
• wikis and blogs to help students retain information longer and allowing
students to learn from delivering to real audiences (Steele 2008)
• iTunes for class podcasts (Salas and Alexander 2008)

• technology to support problem based learning (Juwah 2002) – including
discussion tools, mind mapping and knowledge forum software

JISC (2009b) also report the benefits of technology in problem based learning as
students can learn from their mistakes quickly; similarly, in sites such as Second Life
they can investigate solutions, test out hypotheses and reflect on their choices. de
Byl and Taylor (2007) urge going beyond web 2.0 to using Web3D to provide a richer
learning experience and learner controlled environment where learners can negotiate
meaning based on their own experiences and direct their own learning – such as
online collaboration with others as themselves or as an avatar. Collaboration and
control appear as key themes in the literature on engagement, with technology being
seen as being able to facilitate and foster these effectively, and potentially, being
able to spark activity and motivation and further develop skills and confidence. One
point of interest from the literature is that the use of new technology itself can be
seen as motivating in that students acknowledged the need to develop the skills
involved (Anagnostopoulou et al. 2008 and Wang and Fang 2005). They saw it as an
exciting, new and attractive experience (Xie and Sharma 2005 and Edirisingha et al
2007).

Several examples of using technology to engage students come from distance
learning and particular benefits and potential here are seen to be the flexibility
offered, as students can learn/progress at their own pace and on devices that they
are used to having with them (Yousuf 2007). Lee and Chan (2007) found students
listened to podcasts on the move and linked them to other devices such as iPods,

22

PDAs and MP3 players. These were used to access re-caps, tips and progress
checks in their own time. This flexibility is seen as of benefit to revision (JISC 2009b
and Parson et al. 2009) and in preparing for and engaging learners on the move and
at the point of need. Rismark et al (2007) looked at students using mobile phones to
prepare for lectures and noted that although preparation may have been last minute
this was better than no preparation at all, and conclude that such opportunities with
technology may have improved participation. Edirisingha et al (2007) look at
podcasts which talk through tasks and allow students to revisit materials – arguing
that they stimulate interest and motivation and help students to stay focused. There
is a notion amongst the literature here of ‘just in time’ learning (Juwah 2002, JISC
2009b) – access at the point of need, offering students more informal and engaging
ways of learning which are ‘relaxing’ and where ‘learning just happens’ (Edirisingha
et al 2007).

A number of studies consider the continued importance of student interaction beyond
the early stages – not just to make friends or settle in, but for learning, developing
group work and collaborative skills and for facilitating engagement. Virtual
environments can be seen to have similar benefits to social networking sites and can
continue discussion, collaboration and community, sustain motivation and
participation, offer a safe and supported environment for exchange and promote
taking an active role in learning (Jones and Peachey 2005 and Ng 2007). Miller
(2009) asserts that students naturally want to socialise and that it keeps them
engaged and satisfied. Logan Rich et al. (2009) also found that wikis and IM
promoted peer interaction and facilitated the sharing and distribution of knowledge,
as students worked together – noting that students liked discussion more than
lectures and felt it helped them to learn. In addition, Walton (2009) looks at using
social networking and online collaborative learning to get students to evaluate each
other’s work by posting comments and feedback; this is seen to promote active
engagement as well as deep learning. Finally, Bowers-Campbell (2008) notes how
SNS themselves can offer acceptance by being less formal and intimidating and able
to provide positive affirmation between students, such as by posting gifts. In this
sense the class is seen to continue outside of lessons and creates a group of
learners who care about each others’ success and feel responsible for their learning.

The concept of scaffolding to support and engage learners is also raised in research
(Juwah 2002 and Watling 2009), as is how technology can play a role in this process.
The University of Central Lancashire’s online community based support project aims
to provide a scaffold of tailored e-resources within an academic online social
networking framework. Bowers-Campbell (2008) suggests adopting practices that
hold promise for scaffolding student success, and stresses the need to engage
students in order to scaffold their potential. Stone (2004) looks at ‘mobile
scaffolding’, reporting that research at Kingston University has identified that first
year students desire support in managing their time and activities in both physical
and virtual space. SMS text messaging was used to support these needs and guide
students towards independent self-management and to create a personal mobile
support context for learning and acting.

23

An additional benefit raised is the use of technology for remote students such as
those on placement or fieldwork, with flexibility of e-portfolios, podcasting, virtual chat
and blogging seen to be of benefit here in supporting students (Wilford et al. 2009).
Similarly the Mobilising Remote Student Engagement (MoRSE) project at Kingston
University used technology for collaboration and reflection and noted its potential on
the transition of students returning from placement by using blackboard to anchor
them back to university life (Linsey et al. 2009).

Technology and e-learning then is seen as providing benefits to the experience of
transition throughout the learning process by enhancing engagement and
participation through richer learning environments and innovative practice, furthering
skills development, providing flexible learning and control, supporting ongoing peer
collaboration and scaffolding support, as well as aiding the engagement and
transitions of remote students.

6 Inclusivity and increased student diversity

The need to utilise technology in points of transition is often justified at least in part
by increased diversity – of students, modes of study, experience and needs.
Technology is seen as not just able to attract new audiences, but the flexibility it
offers can widen participation to overseas students, those who need to fit study
around work (especially adults, Hewitt-Taylor 2003), work-based learning students,
‘non traditional’ students as defined in the UK government’s widening participation
targets and can foster lifelong learning (JISC 2009a). Notions of inclusion are
common amongst the studies, with technology being seen as having the potential for
furthering online and distance provision and thereby offering inclusion to those who
wouldn’t normally come to university (Kadirire 2007, Ferrell et al. 2007). Similarly the
National Student Forum report (2009) notes that the benefits of technology enhanced
learning are increased flexibility in learning and increased access (for off campus and
part-time students) and HEFCE (2005) report that e-learning strategies can meet the
greater diversity of student needs and increase the flexibility of provision.

It is worth noting though that some authors have raised potential problems with this
approach. Selwyn et al (2004), discussing access to university, challenge notions of
using technology to support widening participation and suggest individuals already
have a pattern of learning which influences engagement in education and suggest
ICT is not necessarily impacting significantly on equality; but rather that age, gender,
class, and educational background have a bigger impact. In addition, Slevin (2008)
suggests the use of technology has wider implications on marginalisation and
exclusion, not just in terms of local access and diverse learners but in terms of
responsibility in a global context - noting that much of the world is excluded access to
technology.

In terms of transition activity, authors do refer to a changing student demographic
and widening participation issues, with studies highlighting that a ‘one size fits all’
approach is no longer adequate (Laing et al 2005, Currant et al 2008). Some
projects are specifically aimed at non-traditional students (e.g. PASSPORT to Higher
Education – Daly and Thomas 2008) or at providing new routes such as Foundation

24

degrees (e.g. UsPaCe at the University of Plymouth – McDermott and Witt 2009; and
Step Into Higher Education Higher Education at the University of Manchester).
However, in Step into Higher Education, Chalk et al (n.d.) reported the scheme was
for students deemed to be more ‘at risk’ in relation to retention, but noted that these
students were similar to other students, implying its potential for a wider audience.
Wingate (2007) also stresses that it is not just non-traditional students that are
potentially unprepared for university, lack understanding of what the experience
involves and need support during transition. Therefore, what may initially be aimed
at supporting non-traditional students and/or increased diversity, can be seen to have
wider benefits. HEFCE (2009) suggest that institutions consider learner entitlement
in the context of access and flexibility but also be aware that all students should be
able to benefit from what they provide (2009).

Pre-entry programmes often aim to address the needs of all students and some
stress valuing, accommodating and taking into account a wide range of pre-HE
experience and treating students as individuals (Keenan 2006, 2009a and Hilsdon
2009). However, other studies highlight how technology can be of particular help to
disabled students or in supporting students with special needs (Ferrell et al 2007).
Hardy et al (2009) offer good examples of disabled students using audio technology,
such as iPods to listen to lectures, and mature students doing the same on long
commutes to and from university. In addition, Sharpe et al (2009) note that access to
electronic resources is essential for some learners with disabilities who need
personalised materials to participate – adding that learners who are used to having to
use technology for learning can actually stand out in such circumstances as adept
users who understand the functional benefits of the technology.

Inclusivity also appears in relation to practical issues of access and the ability to use
technology, which can be enabling in terms of autonomy and engagement, but also
constraining if students lack the skills required to use it (Slevin 2008). Further details
of learner types and skills will be discussed in a later section. Selwyn et al (2004)
argue technology should not be seen as a single variable that can be used to deal
with non-participation and it should not detract from non-technological necessities of
providing inclusive education. Therefore, although many studies reveal the potential
of technology for increased transition support, universities should be mindful of the
wide range of student diversity, the purpose and benefit of technological initiatives
and the risk of making new barriers verses the potential to help (Oliver 2008).
Various works assert the importance of understanding that there is no single student
experience but rather a multiplicity of experiences that can evolve and change, and
that learners’ relationship with technology also changes over time (Sharpe et al
2009).

7 Student centred approaches

Several authors stress their intention to be student centred in their approach to
transition. Technology has the potential to help people understand and respond to
students’ needs better and offer to offer a more personalised experience (McDermott
and Witt 2009 and Hall 2009a), especially in light of increased student numbers and

25

mass higher education (Harvey et al 2006). Initiatives are seen as being user
centred and therefore able to enhance a sense of empowerment by being flexible,
personalised and focused on students generating knowledge and valuing their voice.

The flexibility technology offers is viewed as enabling students to study according to
their preferred way, in their own time and therefore offers a sense of ownership and
control (Heaton-Shrestha et al. 2009). The benefits are often noted in work looking
at mobile learning, such as the University of Leicester’s IMPALA4T project, which
highlighted this as being able to further enhance student centred-ness. Yousuf
(2007) notes that mobile devices are being used to listen to lectures, store and
transfer data, are cheap and easy for students to use and can be interfaced with
other technology. Chan and Lee’s work on podcasting (2005) argues that students
are most likely to access bite sized, quick and relevant information in their ‘deadtime’.
Others too note the benefits of students being able to use and revist resources in
their own space and ‘down time’ (Edirisingha et al 2007, JISC 2007). McConatha et
al (2008) considered the use of m-learning to prepare for exams and reported that
students enjoyed the ability to pause and segment lectures, absorb them in their own
time and that in this sense m-learning is seen to liberate – providing students with a
choice of when and where to access resources and learning.

This anytime, anywhere learning links to the concept of providing personalised
learning (Rismark et al 2007) and to studies that view technology as able to offer
control and autonomy to students by putting tools into their hands. HEFCE (2009)
report that technology can allow access to personalised services provided by the
institution but also advocate the use of personal tools to suit individual needs. For
example Ravenscroft et al (2009) discuss digital dialogue games for inclusive and
personalised learning – especially if in contexts common to students such as via their
mobile devices and Shroff and Vogel (2009) suggest online resources are perceived
as offering more choice and that students match these to their personal preferences
and use them to support their individual learning goals.

Including and championing the student voice is also a key part of personalisation.
SPLASH at the University of Sussex, for example, strives to personalise learning
using student blogs and personal homepages which students customise. Xie and
Sharma (2005) suggest weblogs also allow personalisation and customization and
Raths (2009) too notes the value of personalizing the experience – for example the
“myGettysburg” part of the Gettysburg College site where students open their own
account in order to receive personalized messages and items of interest such as
extra curricula information. Attempting to offer more student orientated resources is
also a feature of some projects, such as TAG at the University of Central Lancashire,
which provides an alternative guide for students that aims to be different from typical
‘marketing’ approaches; similarly, the University of Leicester’s IMPALA4T and
‘Student Stories’ at the University of Reading are providing information using the
knowledge of students already at university, who are seen as equals, as opposed to
‘cold’ faculty/university messages.

The literature therefore suggests valuing student expertise and awareness and
making use of their knowledge and experience. Edirisingha et al (2007) note that

26

student produced podcasts allow students to learn from their peers and Beetham et
al. (2008) even suggest rewarding the expertise that digitally proficient students can
bring to others. Several studies refer to students as ‘experts’ (Armstrong et al. 2009,
Bowers-Campbell 2008 and Juwah 2002) whose knowledge can be utilized and
again suggest that placing technology in student hands is truly student centred and
empowering. These approaches emphasise the value of students learning through
creating, not just from receiving; they value the use of technology such as podcasts
and weblogs as an outlet for the student voice and to express creativity (Armstrong et
al. 2009, Miller 2009, Akbulut and Kiyici 2007). This literature highlights the possibility
this raises in moving beyond passive learning – to not just delivering direct instruction
but offering learner centred (Slevin 2008) knowledge and practice. Namwar and
Rastgoo (2008) note that knowledge made by students, not transmitted by tutors,
empowers the individual voice and brings learning into everyday life – stressing that
power lies not with the technological tools but those who use them. Cann (2008)
goes further to suggest that staff need to let go of their grip on technologies and
utilise the power of web 2.0 technology by allowing users to generate and
disseminate content – proposing that using Personalised Learning Environments
(PLEs) would further this.

Other aspects of student-centredness found in the literature relate to addressing
learning styles and how technology can potentially engage/benefit students less
willing to, or comfortable with, engaging, including those seen as ‘reluctant’ learners
(Schroeder and Greenbowe 2009 and Kadirire 2007). Technology such as SNS and
podcasts are felt to make some learning seem less formal or intimidating and more
friendly (Edirisingha et al 2007) and Shroff and Vogel (2009) felt students participated
more online as inhibitions were removed and they could get their whole point across
in discussions. Similarly, McBrien et al. (2009) suggest virtual technology can allow
students to speak without being exploited and takes the pressure off giving opinions
as students can make comments without feeling awkward, shy or judged. Again the
potential of PLEs is raised, implying that interaction in these environments could
remove discrimination issues (Smailes et al 2008).

Less common, but still interesting to note is using the technology itself to obtain
student feedback and thus incorporate the student voice into evaluation and
planning. Traxler and Riordan (2003) examined using SMS text questions for
gathering student feedback and Wames and Warman (2008) discuss using online
evaluation tools such as E-valU8 at the University of Central Lancashire which allows
students to evaluate their learning, understand how their view is valued and offer
collaborative action planning. Munro (2006) too considers ‘e-feedback’ as a
continuous process, able to ‘monitor the pulse’ of engagement and potentially reduce
the possibility of issues festering. Therefore attempting to place the student centrally
can be viewed as enhancing the learner experience through transition by offering
flexibility, personalisation and the chance to be creators of knowledge. Plus, by
championing the student voice learners can feel in control of their learning, feel
empowered and believe that their views are being listened to.

8 Connecting with student use of technology

27

A key idea in much of the literature is that students are using web 2.0 technology, so
for universities to use this technology too is seen as positioning the student centrally.
Approaches focus on modern students and their use of technology, with authors
stressing that we now face increasingly technologically aware students (Wilson and
Butterfield 2009) who want and expect to use their own devices in institutions
(HEFCE 2009). Steele (2008) asserts that tutors need to understand how to teach
students who do not learn as they once did and have grown up with high intensity
stimuli such as games, downloads, iPods, blogs, websites, texts and who often have
to ‘power down’ for class. Therefore much of the literature focuses on this existing
use of technology as part of students’ everyday life/activities and advocate
connecting with this, embracing it and bringing it into the classroom
(Anagnostopoulou and Parmar 2009, McNeill, Harley et al 2007, SPLASH at the
University of Sussex, Miller 2009). As students are already using social networking
sites, the mobile devices to access them and conducting their lives via text, projects
aim to build on what students are familiar with – both in terms of the
environments/packages and the skills they have to use them (McDermott and Witt
2009). Studies urge learning from these ‘digital natives’ (Trinder et al. 2008), tapping
into the ‘game generation’ (Curran and Forbes 2007), or offering meaningful learning
to the ‘net generation’ (Williams and Chinn 2009). They stress the need to harness
and channel the skills of contemporary students, to understand and respond to their
experiences (Munro 2006).

The notion that technology can weave into students’ everyday life means using it in
the initial stages of transition is seen as useful in terms of offering familiarity. But
also as it can give an institution a presence in a large networking world and inspire
students about their university and faculty (Countdown to University Studies at the
University of Leeds – Pugh n.d.) and can even give it the ‘cool’ factor (Raths 2009).
Technology is also seen as appropriate for ‘today’s’ students who have different
styles and expectations and who process information differently – such as preferring
interactivity and immediacy (Williams and Chinn 2009) and who are using mobiles,
IM and SMS more than (say) ‘traditional’ email (Kadirire 2007 and Hardy et al. 2009).
Similarly some suggest students prefer using their own choice of technology that
links with their extra-curricular activities and peers (Dempster et al. 2007), arguing
that students are using these technologies whether staff like it or not (Cann 2008)
and so institutions cannot ignore technology such as SNS if they want to engage
these students and make meaningful connections (Bowers-Campbell 2008).

However, literature also reveals that there are considerable skills issues to address.
JISC (2009a) state that we may live in a digital age but that a ‘digital divide’ still exists
in terms of access and engagement with technology and individual ability. This divide
may be narrowing but it is still there (Hardy et al. 2009) and the National Student
Forum notes that there is a ‘skills gap’ where certain groups of students, such as
mature students or those from poorer backgrounds, may not have had the same
access to technology or be as familiar with its language, and may consequently feel
intimidated or lacking in confidence when confronted with the need to use it. Selwyn
et al. (2004) argue that the option of ICT does not necessarily alter motivation or
disposition. Anderson (2007) too, looking at self-produced knowledge, notes some
argue it makes learning more compelling but ‘techno-centric’ assumptions can hide

28

that many don’t have the motivation to engage and that technology may even remove
initial attraction. McDermott and Witt (2009) found that their assumptions of a skilled
‘Google generation’ did not readily apply with the students involved in their UsPaCe
project, but that involving them in the design process from an early stage was
effective in helping users understand the use of the proposed tools. Students
therefore don’t necessarily have the assumed skills and institutions need to ensure
access, provide skills development and support learners as they start to use
technology and learn online (Sharpe and Benfield 2005 and Anagnostopoulou et al.
2008).

Other work stresses that even if students are using technology regularly, they are
doing so to suit their own purposes, not necessarily those of the university. Students
do not automatically know how to use technology in an academic way and need to be
taught how to engage with it appropriately in an educational setting (Brown 2007 and
Sharpe et al. 2009). Wozniak et al. (2009) interestingly consider transitioning
between personal lives and academic study and how this is being blurred as the
same technology is used in both. They suggest students face a threshold that is
mediated by technology common to both contexts which can both enable the
transition process but simultaneously introduce its own barriers. Students may show
high levels of use of social networking, chat and messaging but not all are ready to
adapt internet tools to broader situations like university learning. Tutors can perceive
students to be more competent than they actually are and in fact many only use
limited features or basic functions of their gadgets; they may not see their potential
as a learning device or may be reluctant to explore such capabilities (Hardy et al.
2009 and Beetham et al. 2008). It has been noted that students may appreciate
laptops and WebCT but that many do not understand the term e-learning and have a
lack of familiarly with some web 2.0 technologies – such as listening to podcasts,
contributing to wikis, sharing bookmarks (Edirisingha et al 2007) and using
technology to be creators of knowledge (Akbulut and Kiyici 2007). Therefore
students need support and guidance from staff (Sharpe et al. 2009) and need to be
encouraged or persuaded to think differently about how to use these tools for
education.

Not only do a number of studies stress that students are not necessarily as computer
savvy or technologically sophisticated as believed, but also that there are many types
of learner and styles of learning (Stone 2009a and Howe et al 2009) and different
preferences and needs. The literature draws attention to the dangers of assuming all
students are young and part of the ‘net generation’, and cautions against over-
generalising or treating them as a homogenous group, a position which is
incompatible with notions of growing diversity (such as growing numbers of
international and mature students). Hardy et al (2009) argue that students are
complex and assumptions cannot be made about their abilities and preferences, and
moreover that skills do not belong to a set generation. Instead, students learn from
each other and will use technology if it useful and if there is a need. They also
suggest that attitudes can depend on previous experiences (say, at school) and that
students have a personal comfort zone and find and use technology to suit their
learning and to support their preferences.

29

The application and benefits of technology appear to be diverse then, and reflective
of individual differences in abilities, attitudes and personal contexts. For example,
Jones et al (2009) write that the use and experience of SMS is not uniform and that
some may benefit more than others from communication via this medium. Heaton-
Shrestha et al. (2007) note that various learning styles and approaches will affect the
use of VLEs and Ni Bheachain (2005) suggests the flexibility of e-learning works well
for those that are motivated, organised and self-directed but is less effective for those
who need more support and consequently doesn’t affect all students in the same
ways. Some students dislike online initiatives, can lack IT or English skills, or have
outside pressures that can affect performance or engagement with technology; and
for some, learning difficulties could be compounded by moving online (Hughes 2007).
As well as a possible ‘digital divide’ in terms of access and skills, there are also
potential ‘digital inequalities’ around issues of inclusivity, so practitioners considering
using technology need to be careful not to alienate some students or increase
widening participation disadvantages.

To summarise, the idea that institutions should adopt technology to support
transitions because it reflects what students are using in other parts of their life turns
out not to be as simple or obvious a belief as it may seem. There is no homogenous
‘student’ or ‘student experience’, but rather a variety of learners, preferences and
needs. Therefore a ‘one size fits all’ model that focuses on ‘traditional’ students or
learning cannot simply be replaced with a new, albeit alternative, ‘one size fits all’
model that assumes all students use, value and benefit from new technology. Currant
et al (2008) assert that students have diverse expectations and experiences of
technology and that we cannot make assumptions about what they want from and do
with technology. They propose four types of leaner each with their own profile and
requiring personalised support (first addressed in pre-induction). Similarly
McShannon (2001) discusses four types of interaction for learning styles and urges
that we need to be aware of these and create opportunities for diverse students and
preferences. JISC (2009a) stresses that the online lifestyles of young people are
inescapable and that there has been a definite change in pre-entry experience. They
argue that it is therefore important that institutions appeal to and harness this, and
indeed consider students who prefer a participatory approach and who have grown
up with digital technology. However, it is also crucial to take into account those who
have not grown up in this way, or who prefer more traditional methods. Studies
suggest the need to balance the advantages and disadvantages of technology (Xie
and Sharma 2005). Although initiatives need to capitalise on the current use of
technology, this should not be at the expense of those who do not (Minocha 2009
and Currant et al 2008).

9 Alternative, additional and blended approaches

With these views in mind, across the literature initiatives can be seen as part of a
system/approach – one aspect of supporting transition and enhancing the learning
experience. For example online gaming was used as an interesting alternative
(Whitton 2009, Piatt 2009 and Curran and Forbes 2007) to induction and was not
designed to wholly replace face-to-face activities. ‘Traditional’ induction may be seen

30

as ineffective and lacking, passive and limited (Laing et al 2005), therefore using
technology can provide a different way for students to engage in and enjoy induction
or to be introduced to skills development. Authors also suggest that students are
reluctant to attend classes, lectures and tests; that they prefer active learning, skip
classes or don’t engage when they do come; and are increasingly choosing not to
attend on-campus activities (Miller 2008, Steele 2008, Harvey et al 2006 and de Byl
and Taylor 2007). Therefore certain technologies can offer different ways to
stimulate learning (Chan and Lee 2005). McBrien et al (2009) note that students felt
their virtual experience gave them a break from the traditional classroom experience
and an opportunity to learn in different ways.

Using technology to enhance engagement and participation has been discussed in
more detail in a previous section, yet other work has considered the importance of
combining and balancing these newer technologies and methods with more
traditional approaches to ensure support and provision that is appropriate for diverse
learners. The National Student Forum report (2009) recommends using new
technology to enhance traditional methods and several studies suggest technology
should be used alongside traditional or face to face learning (Namwar and Rastagoo
2008 and Heaton-Shrestha et al 2009), to complement it (Rismark et al 2007), offer
something different or to enrich the resources available (Edirisingha et al 2007). For
example, Ng (2007) describes Interwise – online tutorials, video, chat, slides and
iMeetings in distance learning as a supplement to face to face learning that can
further meet students’ needs and enhance their study.

Here, notions of blended learning or in this case, blended approaches to
support/provision, are seen as preferable. Hardy et al. (2009) reported that students
value tried and tested teaching methods, wanted face to face interaction and saw the
use of technology as being to support this. Simiarly, Raths (2009) suggests letting
students decide what to use, for example offering IM/blogs but also the choice to go
and see a tutor in person. Authors recognise that online and face to face approaches
can be seen to have advantages and disadvantages and suggest the value of a
combination or mix of the two modes so as to balance teaching and learning for
different kinds of students (Ng 2007 and Jowallah 2008). Interestingly, Howe et al
(2009) evaluated e-learning at the University of Northampton and found student
views revealed ‘darklight moments’ concerning the overuse of technology – which
could be seen as a barrier (rather than an enabler, as had been presumed). They
found that it was not valued as a replacement for face to face learning. This
information was used to reflect on balance and bring blended learning into their
programmes.

However, an additional theme relating to the use of technology comes from those
that argue for more progressive and dynamic use of technology, suggesting that it
should not just replicate or supplement face to face activities, or be just an
electronic/online version of traditional methods. McCracken (2009) argues for a re-
vision, not re-design, of approaches; something more than just a ‘web-inizing’ of
existing services. Similarly de Byl and Taylor (2007) urge moving beyond a re-
creation of the classroom via 3D environments and virtual reality to approaches that
facilitate learner centred collaborative experiences. Slevin (2008) too notes that VLEs

31

can tend to just mirror the traditional classroom or are simply used to store materials
and stresses technology should not just be a simple alternative means of distribution
but offer different forms of action and interaction. Some argue that mobile
technologies are likely to be most effective when their transformative potential is
acknowledged rather than being seen as a substitute or enhancement of current
practice (Williams 2009) and therefore that web 2.0 needs to realise its full potential
by offering something new (Akbulut and Kiyici 2007). With some authors believing it
has the potential to provide a new breed of learning technology (Edirisingha et al
2007), ‘new metaphors’ of learning based on collaboration (Ni Bheachain 2005) or a
new discourse, with tools seen as supporting students in integrating academic topics
into their lives (Steele 2008). None of these are strictly focused upon using
technology in transition yet it seems that initiatives in this area are striving to offer
something different, beyond the scope of traditional inductions – such as pre-entry
provision and preparation, valuing students’ knowledge and their use of technology.
Such approaches may offer more learner collaboration and control over teaching as
well as student-centred initiatives to empower and engage students.

The literature therefore shows mixed perceptions of blended approaches.
Consequently it is important that methods are properly integrated – not just situated
awkwardly on top of or next to each other (Wozniak et al. 2009). The use of
technology to improve learner experience is not just viewed as supplementary, but
can be seen as complementary to other activity and able to connect and link
provision. In the case of prior induction initiatives, it may be seen as the start of a
process of interaction, to be followed up and reinforced with face to face interaction
(Robinson et al 2009). Technologically facilitated interaction between students and
the university is seen as additional to classroom activity and can work towards
improving relationships between students, educators and resources (Griffith and
Liyanage 2008). Studies also discuss the benefits of linking or bridging formal and
informal learning (Trinder et al 2008) and how web tools can fuse or connect informal
work with formal (Hall 2009b). Anagnostopoulou and Parmar (2008) recommend
linking the physical and the virtual, Daly and Thomas (2008) suggest that the formal
complemented by informal can ‘loosen’ learning and the importance of blended
learning approaches is indicated across various projects. In light of the previous
discussion of different learners, styles, needs and preferences, a blended approach
towards using technology in the transition experience offers further benefits for
supporting diversity and inclusivity.

The evidence suggests that technology can work well alongside other practices
throughout the transition process. For example, KUBE at Kingston University aims to
use mobile technology to enrich learning and teaching and address the lifestyle and
vocational needs of students. This initiative shows how technology is used across
aspects of the transitional process such as diagnostic testing, improving attendance,
use of technology in the classroom, provision of information on progression,
supporting group work and providing frequent and relevant learner support. It maps
where technology is used in each of these areas – such as podcasts, quizzes, wikis,
blogs, discussion boards, individual learning plans, e-portfolios, streaming video,
SMS and online peer observation. Similarly KRADLE at Kingston college shows how
technology is used through the student lifecycle and offers a comprehensive model of

32

transition from pre-enrolment to exit and beyond, highlighting the supportive use of
technology throughout.

10 Identifying ‘at risk’ students and student support

The literature reveals a considerable potential for technology to highlight and support
students felt to be ‘at risk’ during transition. It is therefore seen to have the potential
to improve retention by being able to identify and pick up students who may be
struggling and provide an opportunity for timely information and interventions (Jones
et al 2009, Bailey 2009, University of Birmingham). Anagnostopoulou and Parmar
(2008) use e-learning data such as monitoring the use of the VLE to track usage and
participation to try to improve retention, suggesting that ‘at risk’ students can manifest
indications of their problems online (although they note that ‘lurkers’ may be active
but not participating). They also compare cohorts and withdrawers with ‘persisters’ in
an attempt to understand e-learning behaviour and how this may relate to transitional
experiences. However, crucially, they stress that data accuracy is important in
operating such a monitoring system.

One project even raised technology’s potential use to predict success by not just
recording but by rating engagement. The Spiral programme proactively used
technology to identify and target at risk students (Laing et al 2005). Their tracking
system suggested who was likely to succeed, who needed assistance and who was
likely to fail – producing a ‘measure of risk’ for each student which then starts a
process of negotiation between student and staff to offer support and solutions.

Such studies suggest that technology can provide an ‘early warning system’
(Fishman and Decandia 2006) and so help programmes to make timely interventions
and offer resources. This can start prior to arrival by looking at online participation in
discussion boards (Robinson et al 2009) or the results of online self-assessment
such as Stepping Stones 2 HE’s ‘About You’ survey – a self-profile questionnaire that
highlights those who may be at risk of withdrawing early so pastoral care can be
targeted fast and appropriately (Keenan 2006). Technology can also be used at
other vulnerable times (Jones et al. 2009) as well as to address problems in ‘real’
time. Texting, for example, allows students to ask questions and get quick
responses; it can be used to alert them to issues and thus offer ‘just-in-time’ support
or interaction (Dunlap and Lowenthal 2009 and Chan and Lee 2005) at key
transitional/danger points. Similarly ‘Student Messenger’ (Harley et al 2007) was
seen to be able to reach out and offer timely or instant assistance, tailored and
personalised to the ‘at risk’. Salas and Alexander (2008) also note that online,
interactive technology can help identify and contact students who may not feel
comfortable seeking help themselves. Individual text messages of concern are seen
to be effective in tackling drop-outs. Nix et al (2006) sent messages such as “we
missed you today” and felt this could help keep students in the system and offer a
chance for following issues up with learning support. Horsmanshof (2004) also
suggests that the use of SMS can help students feel valued, especially if it has been
noticed that they have missed a class. Mobile learning is noted as additionally
beneficial in offering proactive interventions (Yousuf 2007) as it aims to be

33

spontaneous and unstructured and can offer a mixture of WAP, SMS and WWW
support for those ‘at risk’ (Traxler and Riordan 2003).

Other e-activities implemented for teaching and learning practices may also have the
additional benefit of being able to help support those who may be struggling. Lawton
and Purnell (2009) reported unexpected outcomes of their use of e-portfolios as the
early identification of those ‘at risk’ as well as increasing assignment submission
rates (as tasks were assessed). The reflective nature of the ePDP work got students
writing about themselves and opened up a dialogue with tutors and this contact
enabled the identification of support needs and non-academic issues which could be
addressed before it was too late for students to finish their work.

The literature also raises using technology for offering support to all students, not just
those deemed to be ‘at risk’. For example, the National Student Forum Annual
Report (2009) highlighted that personalised support can offer rapid feedback as a
benefit of technology enhanced provision and HEFCE (2009) noted that technology
can be harnessed to help identify specific learner needs. Raths (2009) reports on
some use of facebook-like sites to troubleshoot personal and academic issues such
as accommodation problems, homesickness and exam anxiety, after which students
were directing to relevant resources. Similarly Yousuf (2007) notes that mobile
technology can offer links to other resources, Harrell (2008) suggests offering online
mentoring or counselling provision and Lawton and Purnell (2009) suggest the
possibility of using student advisors to contribute to the ePDP process to offer an
extra layer support for students. Others note the importance of providing cohesive
and integrated academic support services that support communication, participation,
interaction and representation for (all) students, with McCracken (2009) suggesting
inclusive access to the university community via a ‘high touch/high tech’, environment
which also focuses on value added and relationship building. Finally, McCarthy et al.
(2008) look at the use of text, skype and blog technology at the University of East
London, where text tools, which can act like emails, are used for reminders,
advertising workshops and where students can book support sessions. Skype is also
used for peer to peer communication, for individual support consultations and to
support distance learners. It is noted that while this enables access for disabled
learners, it also has further potential in the provision of support for all students via
technology.

11 Staff Involvement

The literature reveals mixed findings about staff using technology and in particular
their involvement in social networking or out of class interaction. Some students did
not want staff participating, yet others welcomed staff presence (McNeill,
forthcoming) and reacted positively to their involvement; they saw this involvement as
showing that they cared and allowing them to offer support (Bowers-Campbell 2008).
Some staff felt that disclosure on facebook could make students more likely to
communicate with them as it made them seem more approachable and less of a
‘mysterious wonder’; this was seen to help draw them into the course better and
open up the door to better understanding and learning (Sturgeon and Walker 2009).

34

In this sense facebook is seen to enrich communication and influence classroom
participation. Similarly Mazer et al. (2007) considered tutor self-disclosure on
facebook to improve credibility, foster relationships and have some potential impact
on motivation, but caution over it potentially being seen as ‘invading’ or violating
student space. Others query the ‘friend’ status which is not necessarily reflective of
the relationship and causes concern over the erosion of a ‘professional’ relationship
(Jones and Jones 2009 and Sturgeon and Walker 2009). The latter also reported
staff developing a ‘persona’ to maintain professionalism and found that some
students were wary of academics seeing their profile because they were concerned
that this might affect their academic outcome; others also note the potential ethical
debates about surveillance (Jones and Jones 2009). It also appears from the studies
that tutor involvement was acceptable for some activities such as general messages
or reminders and for informal communication, but that students were less keen on
academic related uses, preferring emails for this. Also apparent is that some staff
were not necessarily ready to go into the virtual world, remained hesitant or didn’t
see the value of engaging with students in this way.

A common issue across the literature is that there are implications for the role of staff
as a result of technological innovations to support the learning experience. The
perceived notion of staff becoming facilitators rather than deliverers of education, as
guiders rather than givers of knowledge (Minocha 2009, Wang and Fang 2005 and
Namwar and Rastagoo 2008) or as e-moderators (Jones and Peachey 2005, Ng
2007 and Slevin 2008) is often raised. JISC (2009a) feel tutors need to recognise
the experience and expertise of students and the relationship between students and
tutors may need re-negotiating. As well as some reservations over this there appear
to be positive views of the reappraisal of the tutor role. Sturgeon and Walker (2009)
note that tutors can still generate discussion about academic issues and coursework
and Hewitt-Taylor (2003) asserts that the role isn’t diminished – tutors need to be
skilled in guiding discussion, challenging views and encouraging participation. Cann
(2008) adds that facilitating student generated knowledge and learning means tutors
become learning advisers rather than mere ‘production supervisors’. However,
Slevin (2008) cautions against seeing tutors as e-moderators who facilitate and
encourage participation in an environment where there are no experts. He instead
suggests that participants are faced with many experts and therefore queries who
would have authority. Similarly, Anderson (2007) raises the issue of hierarchy and
authenticity in self-produced knowledge and the potential difficulties in shared
authorship and obtaining online consensus.

Other studies also raise potential workload problems for staff; that technology may
create new opportunities for communication but also create new demands for
teachers (Williams 2009), leading to time management issues of setting up and
maintaining initiatives and fears over the time taken to trace and monitor students,
give support and make referrals (Minocha 2009 and Ng 2007 and Jones and Jones
2009). However, Hughes’ (2007) study found that although there was a perception
that this would be time consuming, this was not actually the case as the technology
allowed for the whole group to be contacted at once to answer questions and only a
small number were found to be ‘at risk’ and in need of greater support. In addition,

35

various evaluations note that time can be saved via technology in terms of contacting
large numbers or via e-assessment and feedback.

Investigation into the effect of technology in transition has frequently flagged up the
need for staff buy in (Stone 2009a). Badge et al (2005) argue that staff need to
consider e-learning, not e-teaching, and use systems for more than electronic
repositories – making use of the pedagogic advantages not just treating them as a
quick way to disseminate information/material. However, such use of technology
inevitably has implications for staff development and training – both in having the
confidence to use technology (Wilson and Butterfield (2009) and, just as importantly,
how to use it appropriately (Anagnostopoulou and Parmar 2009), including relating it
to learning outcomes (Howe et al 2009). Steele (2008) notes that some staff may
feel out of their comfort zone or that they don’t have the time to be trained, but assert
that technology is here to stay and staff must change and adapt. Free online training
programmes are suggested, and the QAA (2008) highlight in-depth staff training,
formal staff development and e-learning seminar series as examples of good
practice. JISC (2008) too suggests that staff need exposure to technologies to see
how they can be applied to learning and teaching, and Ferrell et al (2007) propose
including technology in the PGCE so staff do not feel they are ‘playing catch-up’.
The KASTANET project (Williams 2009), for example, recommends a series of
initiatives to support tutors in embedding and sustaining mobile technologies
involving time for development and maintenance and dedicated faculty based
support and training. In addition to these, the learner perspective could be used to
motivate staff. One interesting case study (Fishman and Decandia 2006) considered
both students and staff in its approach and incorporated staff success as well as
student success into their largely online transition programme by the introduction of a
‘College Coach’ who motivates the participants, keeps them connected and helps to
solve problems and explore resources. The feedback from staff revealed that it
made them feel valued and empowered, with a greater understanding of the
students. Therefore it seems that although there are mixed feelings towards staff
use of technology, in order to effectively use it to support the learner experience, staff
need to not just be trained and skilled but engaged in its possible value and benefits
for transition.

12 Potential problems/concerns

Studies raise but also aim to address some of the perceived problems and concerns
associated with the use of new technology.

Access and technical issues

Notions of ‘digital inequalities’ have been raised previously. Here again, some urge
not to over-emphasise the convenience of using technology but instead to consider
access or inclusion issues or usability and technical problems. JISC (2007) note that
concern over the digital divide still exists and authors argue these issues of access
need to be addressed; for example, the National Student Forum (2009) recommends
free laptop surgeries and Steele (2008) suggests free laptop check-out schemes for

36

students. Other studies note potential technical problems – administrative, university
or student based (McBrien et al. 2005 and Miller 2009). This includes inadequate
technical support, reliability (Kukulska-Hulme 2007) or stability of internet connection
(Ng 2007). In addition, some students are not engaging with technology; Brett (2008)
found from the MeLAS project that not all students have mobile phones or wanted
SMS contact and raised the possible need for an ‘opt out’. Miller (2009) notes that
not all students use facebook and there are differences in the usage of social
networking sites due to culture/ethnicity, language or age. Sturgeon and Walker
(2009) also note differences according to ethnicity and the difficulty of selecting which
social network site to use, or whether to use multiple sites, especially with a large
international student intake. Kukulska-Hulme (2007) warns against methods that are
reliant on inaccessible mobile technology for learners with disabilities and also raises
usability issues that can prevent some learners from engaging, since the use of
technology is dependent on human factors (psychological, ergonomic, organisational
and social). As raised before, devices are not designed for education/teaching
(Jones and Peachey 2005) and students will obtain them for their own specific
purposes and may never use all the features –even if they are able to, they must also
want to use them. Therefore HEIs need to consider not just access and technical
support, but also the desire to participate.

Low participation/engagement with technological initiatives

A number of initiatives encountered engagement problems, particularly if activities
were not compulsory or subject related (Mitchell et al n.d., Jones and Peachey 2005
and Edirisingha et al. 2007). For example projects reported low sign up to voluntary
online games (Piatt 2009 and Whitton 2009) or, as Pugh (n.d.) notes, students may
join facebook groups but don’t actually contribute to them. However, Slevin (2008)
argues that if there are a lot of ‘lurkers’, institutions may need to re-design what they
are using to improve engagement, rather than abandoning such initiatives.

Various research offers reasons that may explain low participation and it is widely
recognised that time pressures are common. Sharpe and Benfield (2005) found
some students were concerned about having enough time to devote to online
activities and have to change their study habits if an activity requires more than just a
‘one off’ contribution in a face to face session. Others suggest students don’t join a
facebook group because they don’t want to take time to contribute to yet another
online discussion, or didn’t want to use their personal technology for educational
purposes (Sturgeon and Walker 2009 and Edirisingha et al 2007), which draws on
previous discussion about students not being able or willing to use technology in an
educational way.

As well as lack of time, low engagement could be due to perceived lack of need
(Akbulut and Kiyici 2007). Students often adopt ‘just enough’ and ‘just in time’
approaches or last minute preparation (Goold et al. 2006) and their use of technology
is needs based (Mitchell et al n.d. and Edirisingha et al 2007). Students are also
reluctant to use technology if they don’t think they need to or it isn’t interesting or
relevant. Currant (2007) found that students don’t use online study support as they
don’t think they need it, don’t know what they need or are unaware of what is on

37

offer, and so advocates better promotion and marketing of services/resources and
linking with academics to close gaps in referrals.

There is some discussion regarding whether activities should be made compulsory
and if so, how to still make them fun rather than negative and how to market or target
them to students. Clear recommendations coming from existing studies suggest that
institutions need to state explicitly why the technology is being used
(Anagnostopoulou and Parmar 2008) and should attempt to engage students from
the start (Anagnostopoulou and Parmar 2009, University of Birmingham). Projects
can’t just hope for a match, they need to be explicit in the purpose and expectations
of online work and detail the skills students will develop (Sharpe and Benfield 2005).
Howe et al (2009) also note the need for early engagement with tutors to secure
commitment and stress the value of rewarding and recognising student involvement
(such as offering small gifts, vouchers or even MP3 players).

Many note that technology should not just be used for the sake of it, nor should it be
assumed that technology is preferable (Currant et al 2008) or that it will motivate
students to engage without prompting (Whitton 2009). Rismark et al (2007) note that
technology will be incorporated or rejected depending on students’ established study
habits. Students therefore need to be aware of the point and benefit of participation
(Robinson et al 2009), with the use of technology being meaningful – otherwise they
won’t be motivated. Some propose the need to be relevant to discipline (for example
the Virtual Site at Leeds Met is contextualised to Construction and Built Environment
courses – Dickenson et al. 2008) and/or with subject and assessment related tasks
(Kukulska-Hulme 2007, Miller 2009, Dunlap and Lowenthal 2009 and Whitton 2009).
Students should be able to see the value of investing in the initiatives and be able to
recognise the advantages of engagement in terms of learning outcomes (SPLASH at
the University of Sussex). For example, the KASTANET project concluded that
students were positive and responsive to the use of SMS and podcasts when they
understood the real benefit in terms of supporting their studies and when tutors had
given a clear message about its value (Williams 2009). Therefore students need
more training, support and awareness of the educational benefits and importance of
digital literacies, with activities being authentic and not just a ‘bolt on’ (Beetham et al.
2008 and Blair 2005). Universities are cautioned against the ‘seduction’ of
technology and urged not to lose sight of its purpose for enhancing learning
environments (and transitions) and to create real relationships (Raths 2009). It is
argued that initiatives should not centre on the technology itself, which is just a tool in
the process, nor should technology overshadow the student view or experience
(Jones et al 2009, Munro 2006).

Privacy, safety and concerns over public postings

Possible concerns, negatives or hazards of online technology such as SNS are
identified as security, privacy and safety issues and Oliver (2008) states that
communities are not always positive or conducive to learning. Studies noted
downsides of safety and students’ fear of public access to their information and
concerns over saying/doing anything too controversial (Xie and Sharma 2005 and
Akbulut and Kiyici 2007). Sharpe and Benfield (2005) found students have worries

38

over exposing views publicly and Miller (2009) noted that some were reluctant to
contribute to online environments as they fear the reaction of others. Another issue
concerns how students can develop or experience negative identities and may face
the possibility of disciplinary action over potentially defamatory postings.
Interestingly, in addition, Eberhardt (2007) discusses online prejudice where students
assume they won’t like someone by their interests or profile, so refuse to interact with
certain students and therefore miss out on skills/personal development.

Studies suggest that HEIs need to have clear and up to date policies and procedures
on the use of technology such as SNS and PLEs, and also that students need to
understand their public nature, be aware of the potential dangers and be helped to
develop ethical and appropriate use of technology (Ferrell et al. 2009, Smailes et al
2008, Bowers-Campbell 2008 and JISC 2007). Some noted their institutions’ duty of
care to students. One possible way to address some of these issues is by promoting
a university created SNS – for example, ning, used for Develop Me! at the University
of Bradford, which was also felt to contextualise social networking to the university
environment and community. Similarly BuddySpace at the Open University is
facebook-like but linked to the educational environment Open Learn (Little et al
2008).

Technology as disruptive and disengaging

A number of projects note cons as well as pros in the use of technology – which can
be viewed as potentially disruptive as well as enabling, with students reporting that
social networking or SMS can act as a distraction to studies (Madge et al 2009) or
even create an impersonal atmosphere if the focus is on the technology and not each
other (Munro 2006). Heaton-Shrestha et al (2009) report less positive views of VLEs
from staff, who fear they could empower students to make the wrong choices and
could result in disengagement and a decrease in social interaction with students.
Heath (2008) also notes the reluctance of some students to introduce themselves in
class may be due to increasing use of social networking sites and web 2.0 but
suggests using e-portfolios during induction for improving social integration. Selwyn
(2009) highlights how social networking sites are subject to debate with some
celebrating their potential to (re)engage learners and others fearing that they disrupt
engagement with ‘traditional’ learning. He argues that use should be seen as part of
the ‘identity politics’ of being a student and where conflicts between university work,
staff, academic conventions and expectations can be worked through in their private
space. However, McBrien et al. (2009) raised the issue of potential over-stimulation
and confusion that might arise from all the types of communication such as audio,
typed chat, emoticons etc; they note that some students miss face-to-face and non-
verbal communication and that lack of these reduced the educational experience for
some students and meant they felt disconnected. In addition, Eberhardt (2007)
notes, echoing previous inclusivity issues discussed above, that those who don’t
engage in SNS may be separated from others or the university experience, so again
the potential to alienate is a concern.

Encouraging dependency, spoon feeding and superficial learning

39

A few studies discuss the worry of technology use leading to ‘spoon feeding’ students
and limited or superficial learning. JISC (2007) note that there are concerns that the
demand for rapid, bite-sized communication or cutting and pasting information
without thinking about it can reduce reflective and evaluative skills or understanding
of the broader picture. Blair (2005) suggests that the use of online resources for
students who found transition to university difficult might instigate more problems by
creating a culture of dependency and surface learning. Others found that students
use only a limited range of online articles and general websites, plus concerns are
noted of a clash over academic and internet knowledge cultures – with possible
issues of plagiarism and originality (Beetham et al. 2008). But perhaps, again, clear
explanations and expectations of use and purpose could help overcome some of
these issues and some suggest technology such as weblogs can even help counter
plagiarism via peer pressure as students develop respect for each other’s work
(Namwar and Rastgoo 2008).

Others fear the possible growing of dependency of students on reminders and
updates delivered by web 2.0 and the expectation of 24/7 contact and support
(Munro 2006), which could therefore result in less independence in learning (Jones et
al. 2009) not more. However, Horstmanshof (2004) suggests introducing negotiated
rules, including no constant availability, and reports that students did not see
initiatives as ‘mothering’ them. Hewitt-Taylor (2003) too argues the need to establish
ground rules and make availability and usage clear so as not to overburden staff or
make students feel neglected.

13 Impact and outcomes on transition/retention

Some of the resources claim little is known on the impact of technology and therefore
projects have been embarked upon to ascertain this. However, evaluation or
consideration of impact often centres on the project itself whereby the initiative is
seen as a useful experience with some positive feedback and outcomes reported, but
with little written on wider effects or longer term student experience or retention.
Some work makes suggestions or theoretical links to these, often using them as a
justification for the projects, but do not conclude or demonstrate any evidence of the
impact on these, only the potential to – that it “should make a substantial impact”
(Wingate 2007).

Some evaluations are based (at least initially) on access to resources, such as
MAPS and pre-arrival VLE use in the Faculty of Biological Sciences at the University
of Leeds (Pugh and Taylor n.d. and Pugh n.d.) – the latter which found encouraging
results with peak access being in the first two weeks of September. Morris et al
(2009) note online resources were accessed by a large number of students and
reflected that pre-arrival use of the VLE was successful in providing students with
information – which reduced the number of enquiries from the previous academic
year. Burgess (2009) too evaluated the use of WebCT for improving engagement
and critical thinking by looking at levels of participation and task completion but also
tried to assess students’ depth of understanding by monitoring online conversations,

40

concluding there was anecdotal evidence that it had an effect and again that the
technology was seen as having potential.

There are, however, some interesting findings in terms of improved student
achievement or skills. The SUCCESS@Seneca programme, which included online
support and information prior to the first semester, reported that generally those who
participated were more successful and had higher grades than those who did not
(Fishman and Decandia 2006). McConatha et al (2008) found that those who used
mobile technology to prepare for exams had higher scores than those who had only
used traditional methods such as hand outs and review lectures. In addition,
Sturgeon and Walker (2009) concluded there was an indirect connection between
staff use of facebook and academic performance, with relationship building offering
more open communication, an improved learning environment and more
engagement in the classroom. Curran and Forbes (2007) compared players and
non-players of online games and found the former to be more confident and likely to
interact. Plus Hughes (2007) discusses module retention involving a third year
module blending e-learning and classroom teaching, which included tutor monitoring
and support for the ‘at risk’. It was suggested that this increased motivation to hand
in coursework on time and Board of Examiner data was used to measure retention –
finding higher submission rates compared with those students on the face to face
only module. Cohen and Bobrowicz (2009) also looked at achievement, and
compared before and after results for their Assessment Survival Kit, reporting a rise
in the grades of participants. However, overall they felt findings were inconclusive
and only that the tool may help develop self-regulated/independent learning.

Some studies then, highlight that the evaluation of the use of technology is often
problematic and it may be difficult to learn “the truth” (Traxler and Riordan 2003,
p.55). The SEEL project at the University of Greenwich reviewed retention and
progression statistics in an attempt to measure the impact of technology and Devine
(2008) concluded that if it had an impact, then it was a small impact. She noted
comparisons were not conclusive as the influence of other initiatives or interventions
could not be discounted, such as action taken from the National Student Survey or
alterations to courses or student intake. It may not therefore be possible to
demonstrate a causal link (Jones et al, 2009) to improved transition and some say
the role of technology should not be overplayed or privileged (Madge et al 2009) as
there are too many other factors/variables at play that cannot be isolated (Hills 2006).
However, others stress that they are not looking for a causal link to retention
(Robinson et al. 2009), but rather how the use of technology may have a positive
effect on areas of transition such as socialisation or identifying those that may be at
risk and in need of closer support when they begin the programme or during their
studies. So there is often an implied connection to retention – with Minocha (2009)
suggesting that it could be influenced by the ability to pick up and support struggling
students as early interventions are seen to help decrease withdrawals, although no
quantitative evidence was offered for this.

Many pre-arrival programmes discussed previously are developed from research and
evidence-based findings on the causes of student drop-out in the early stages.
Robinson et al (2007) note that the University of Salford’s pre-arrival package was

41

based on their own research into students’ concerns before starting university such
as dislike of inconsistent information received, being passed around with queries and
wanting information early. So it was felt that by addressing these there would be a
positive impact on transition and retention and they even aimed to evaluate the
project’s success by achieving a higher retention target. Again, Heaton-Shrestha et
al (2009) explore the VLE in terms of factors known to play a role in students’
decision to withdraw – such as the importance of peer interaction and social
engagement/support, with ICT seen as playing a key role in enhancing
communication. Similarly, Round (in Pugh n.d.) suggests online pre-arrival activities
that provide the opportunity to be part of a community help orientation which
ultimately helps retention.

Much of the impact of projects can be found in their perceived benefits to the
transitional process. Minocha’s (2009) comprehensive study of the use of social
software reviewed various case studies to conclude that benefits of technology
included: better understanding of students’ needs, socialisation, collaborative
learning and development of a community (both within and outside the course
environment), engaging students in ‘fun’ activities, overcoming isolation, early
feedback and interventions and developing skills for independent learning. Therefore,
positive benefits often appear to relate to the theories, issues and factors
underpinning transition, with technology being seen as able to play a role in the
process. Jones et al’s (2009) evaluation of using SMS to support the first year
environment found no direct measures of success on transition but contended that
using SMS between tutors and students to offer personalised communication and to
stimulate out-of-class activity “aligns well with strategies for supporting a successful
transition” (p.212) and plays a small but important role. Any disadvantages were
thought to be outweighed by the advantages; if the vulnerable benefited and others
were not adversely affected then it was worthwhile (although no information was
offered about whether this was the case). In addition, Daly and Thomas (2008)
concluded that the PASSPORT to Higher Education programme at Lancaster
University (which used technology in pre-entry, student and staff experimentation
with learning styles and for social life and pastoral support) had an effect on attrition
as it addressed these key retention issues and retention rates had since exceeded
the average for the university. They concluded that the programme was not the
cause of students’ success but was a contributing factor to it.

Some of the most useful examples of evaluation are schemes derived from Student
Transition and Retention (STAR) projects such as the ‘Bridging the Gap’ module at
the University of Sunderland. Hills (2006), reports that the project was evaluated by
an external consultant and has been rolled out across the institution and is adaptable
for other HEIs. The project offers statistics on how the students thought the module
had impacted on the way they felt about coming to university and although Hills
concludes that a causal link to retention cannot be stated, it could be said that the
initiative was a “creative way of tackling social isolation, poorly formed expectations
and lack of knowledge of the Higher Education culture”. Plus it had a positive impact
on students’ understanding of university life and on making them feel less anxious
about being at university and their course selection. Chalk et al’s (n.d.) Step into
Higher Education at the University of Manchester (which also follows STAR and

42

builds on Sunderland and Bournemouth’s Stepping Stones 2HE) offers a
comprehensive evaluation methodology including tracking the usage of individuals
and sections on WebCT, content analysis, comparative analysis, focus groups,
questionnaires, interaction with student representatives and statistical analysis where
retention rates were compared. Again impact was seen as hard to evaluate due to
other factors but a significant reduction from 28% to 12% from 05/06 to 06/07 was
noted. In addition they found 50% less enquiries to the office which impacted on staff
time – both of which reflect some of the suggested ‘tangible benefits’ highlighted by
JISC’s review of e-learning in general (2008). This review also offers case studies
highlighting examples of benefits such as cost saving and resource efficiency (mainly
offered by e-assessment initiatives), recruitment and retention, skills and
employability and student achievement – with some evidence of improved marks.
They also provide examples of the impact on inclusion through offering support for
blind students, those with mobility difficulties or those who have problems engaging
in on-campus activity.

Many other projects from this review are ongoing, are still to be evaluated or are
undergoing evaluation. Some intend to employ more unusual evaluation methods
such as confidence logs in the UsPaCe project at University of Plymouth (McDermott
and Witt 2009) and TAG at the University of Central Lancashire is using Google
Analytics. However, projects also used student feedback, focus groups and
anecdotal evidence for evaluation and the literature highlights both the importance of
quantitative and qualitative information (Whittaker 2008, Ferrell et al. 2007) and
similarly of quantitative and qualitative benefits (JISC 2008).

14 Student Feedback

A number of studies are utilising student feedback to evaluate and develop projects
involving the use of technology. JISC (2007) produced an entire report focusing on
the importance of hearing the learner’s voice and offering student feedback on
various case studies. Findings showed students value communication and
networking opportunities, ease of access to information and choice and control.
Through questionnaires, focus groups, student interviews and surveys several
projects are also reporting positive feedback in their evaluations relating to themes
identified within this review. This is particularly the case regarding students feeling
better prepared (University of Lincoln’s ‘Getting Started’ programme) and being ‘part
of something’ (Piatt 2009). Currant and Keenan (2009) state that students reported
how pre-arrival initiatives made them feel more comfortable and confident, less
nervous, addressed their queries and concerns, allowed them to meet others and
gave the university a friendly face. Fishman and Decandia (2006) noted that
students who engaged in the ‘SUCCESS@Seneca’ programme felt it helped their
motivation, that they had a more positive attitude, more confidence and a stronger
sense of belonging and understanding of college expectations and resources. Chalk
et al (n.d.) add that particularly useful aspects of pre-registration resources identified
by students were practical information about the city and the course such as reading
lists, topics and preparation work to do before coming to university – which had
helped with familiarity. Similarly Keenan (2009) reported that feedback from

43

Stepping Stones 2HE showed improved student confidence, that it was fun and
helped early bonding, made students feel part of the university before they arrived,
helped their motivation and gave them positive feelings about university life.

There is also evidence of positive feedback for online networking and that students
value the opportunity to engage in discussion with peers (Kadirire 2007).

McNeil (forthcoming) reported from student feedback that facebook for pre-induction
was positive in three main areas: preparedness for induction week, helping anxiety
levels and for their perception of the course and university. Others reported that
students felt facebook was important to their integration, helping them to find and
develop new friendships, keep in touch with those at home and to ask work related
questions and share information (Hardy et al. 2009 and Madge et al 2009). Similarly
students saw facebook as an innovative way of socialising and learning (Wilson and
Butterfield 2009) and that it had helped them to find friends and was important to
their integration (Madge et al 2009). From student surveys Wang and Fang (2005)
found that students felt asynchronous chat improved their academic development
and that using blogs with their groups increased their confidence in learning and
helped develop their social and teamwork skills.

So feedback from students is showing they value technology in social and skills
development but also report enhanced engagement (Johnston and Kochanowska
2009). Cohen and Bobrowicz (2009) reported that students found the Assessment
Feedback Kit a useful tool useful, especially in terms of time management and
understanding how much work was involved. Interestingly they note that 100% of the
international students found the resource useful. Jowallah (2008) looked at using
online tasks in a first year module to engage students and reported that students felt
tasks motivated them, increased their self-esteem and that they became more
actively involved in their own learning – increasing their participation. Heaton-
Shrestha et al (2009) also show that the VLE helped students to be more actively
involved and gave positive feedback about it enhancing their effectiveness – with
readily available tips, hints, notes and website links allowing better organisation,
tracking of their own learning and an awareness of ‘what’s going on’. The majority
also felt they had more control and choice over what, when and where to study.
Flexibility is identified in some studies as something students want (Johnston and
Kochanowska 2009) as is accessible information, with Howe et al (2009) noting that
students valued the VLE as a source of information and liked bite-sized, interactive
chunks of material that fitted with their lifestyles. In terms of tutors using technology
to monitor engagement, Hughes (2007) reports that it helped students to focus, to
see if they were going in the right direction and allowed them to know the tutor was
there when they needed them.

However, a number of individual evaluations found mixed feelings and responses
from students on the use of technology. For example Xie and Sharma (2005)
reported positive experiences of weblogging in terms of helping them to think outside
of the classroom and creating community, but others found it difficult and stressful
and were uncertain about how to use weblogs and had concerns over privacy issues.
Goold et al (2006) also reveal mixed experiences with students reporting positives

44

and negatives of various technologies – some felt they learnt more through online
discussions with peers and staff than from the prescribed texts or from reading alone,
but others felt it led to misunderstandings and was harder to communicate than face
to face. Johnston and Kochanowska (2009) again show ambiguous responses to
interactive learning and computerised coursework – with some students wanting
more, and some feeling it was already overused. Sharpe and Benfield’s (2005)
review of the literature on the student experience of e-learning focuses on self-
identified student impact. They too found inconsistencies in student perceptions and
contradictory and complex results that were difficult to predict. Again some students
wanted more, some none at all, some found it inspiring, some frustrating, some
appreciated work being student led, others wanted more ‘model answers’, some felt
online interaction gave them the chance to consider their answers more, others were
concerned over the amount of time needed to contribute, some had their fears eased
and some felt vulnerable. Importantly they highlight the emotional experience of
using technology – the highs and lows – and note that individual differences and
reasons are possible factors in the success of technological initiatives. The influence
of prior experience and background is important (Xie and Sharma 2005) and can
impact upon student feedback as well as practice.

One study gives a useful overview of student perspectives of technology over the
transition process. Hardy et al.’s (2009) comprehensive study maps the use and
impact of technology over the keys stages of transition at the University of Edinburgh,
focusing on the student views of technology at each of these and following a group of
students throughout the first year. Key findings show positive responses to
information being located centrally in “MyEd” and to pre-arrival resources for giving
an insight into the university and allowing for personal contacts to be made. Later in
the year technology is still seen as useful for information and also for revision (e.g.
mind map software) or going over material, asking each other questions and getting
confirmation. In Semester 2 students had more awareness of their growth and
change in study styles/habits and had learnt how to make technology work for them,
such as by using it to keep track of what needed doing. Other interesting results
were that students have high expectations and see technology as part of their lives,
but that they do not actually expect novel or innovative use of technology at
university and do not want it to intrude on personal space. Students arrived with and
maintained a positive view of technology in education, many came equipped with
skills but some needed help. Interestingly students were adopting the technology
that was necessary into their daily lives, which reflects previous discussions on
needs based use of technology and the possibility that students may need to be
persuaded to use technology for education related purposes.

15 Wider issues to consider

Finally, some wider issues were drawn upon within the literature which, although
more broadly relevant to the use of technology in HE in general, may be important to
consider in terms of evaluating initiatives or for planning future developments or
research into the use of technology to improve the learner experience during
transition:

45

Institutional and strategic approaches

UCISA (2008) found lack of available time and staff skills as key challenges. The
National Student Forum report (2009) also notes lack of time and support but also
restrictive university policies and practices as possible barriers to technology-
enhanced provision – arguing for the need for a strategic approach. QAA (2008) also
identified as good practice a strategic approach to the use of VLEs to support
blended and flexible learning. Several authors stress the value of considering the
use of technology as part of overall teaching, learning and assessment strategies
and to support wider aims (e.g. HEFCE 2009) such as widening participation or
retention strategies. Similarly, the importance of institutional infrastructure is a
common theme – its funding, staffing and technology – the use of which needs to be
integrated throughout the institution's environment with the commitment of key
personnel to build an inclusive e-culture (McCracken 2009). Studies suggest that
transitional support should not be an ‘add on’, but rather coordinated and integral to
and embedded into the learning experience (Whittaker 2008). This applies not just to
strategies for transition but also to the use of technology within them, with technology
forming part of the overall student transition and experience, again instead of as an
‘add on’ (Oliver 2008).

In relation to this, technology is noted as regularly being used by pockets of
enthusiastic or willing staff, with its success often a result of individual enthusiasm
and ground up development rather than the organisation striving for excellence
(Slevin 2008). JISC (2008) note the use of technology frequently involves individual
projects and suggest initiatives are better if driven by the desire to improve learning
and teaching and with the institution providing the tools and support. Although
studies call for the need for strategic support in institutions they also stress that
initiatives can be counter-productive if turned into ‘quotas’ (Ferrell et al. 2009 and
JISC 2008). Rather they require embedding of strategies for retention and success
(and perhaps transition) into formal quality assurance procedures, such as in the
Shock Absorber project at Manchester Metropolitan University. They could also
consider polices to integrate institutional and personal technology and address the
digital divide (JISC 2007). In addition, Cook and Rushton (2008) suggest the value
of undertaking transition audits – to reflect on processes and move towards improved
practice.

Consistency

Consistency in the use of technology across the institution is also raised as
important, with the literature noting that students can dislike experiencing different (or
absent) applications of technology either in different curriculum areas or by different
staff. It has also been suggested that inconsistent use of technology through learner
journeys could be detrimental (Howe et al 2009). For example, Sharpe et al (2009)
found that students wanted more consistency across courses; that they expect
services to be robust, accessible, reliable, predictable, high quality and visible; and
that they want clear explanations of what technology to use. The National Student
Forum report (2009) advocates whole campus provision for technology and a
programme for staff and student development in technological skills. Reushle and

46

Loch (2008) too propose using a consistent approach and tools at university level
and JISC (2007) suggests a minimum standard of VLE information. In addition, it is
also seen as important to consider joined up approaches for learning, teaching,
support and administrative systems (HEFCE 2009) to achieve continuity.

Usability, design and purpose

Several studies raise the need to consider and plan usability features (Ferrell et al
2007 and Kukulska-Hulme 2007), such as memory, hardware/software, speed, and
the time it takes to learn how to use. In terms of students’ engagement with
technology, it cannot be taken for granted that online initiatives will increase
engagement and modules/delivery may need to be redesigned to suit technology
rather than technology just being inserted into modules. Design is seen as important
as interaction doesn’t ‘just happen’ and practitioners need to think about the layout,
style and theory of initiatives (Jowallah 2008). Salas and Alexander (2008) also
discuss undertaking ‘technology utilization assessments’ to ensure that it will be
helpful and easy to use. Yet it is apparent that technology itself is constantly
changing with different versions and updates becoming available (Akbulut and Kiyici
2007). Thus institutions need to keep up to date with rapid techno-social change and
respond quickly and flexibly to new capabilities and skills (Beetham et al. 2008).

As discussed earlier, technology is often not designed or used for educational
purposes so if utilised in student transition its purpose needs to be based on sound
principles, research findings and best practice (Edirisingha et al 2007). E-tivities are
seen as often being drawn from practical experience or interest, but authors stress
that positive arguments for using technology should be required – not just information
or facts about what it can do (Slevin 2008) and usage therefore should be needs
driven not product driven (Hardy et al. 2009). JISC (2009b) advocate that pedagogy
rather than technology should be the guiding factor and a number of authors note
there is too much use of technology for its own sake and not for pedagogical
advantage (Ni Bheachain 2005).

Students, as noted before, do not necessarily expect innovative use of technology
and have mixed views about it; therefore HEIs also need to consider pre-requisite
skills and knowledge for students to be able to use and make the most of technology
(Ferrell et al. 2007). The National Student Forum recommends promoting technology
enhanced approaches and resources to prospective students before they arrive
(2009). Hardy et al. (2009) suggest that if universities want to expand their use of
technology to more compulsory activities then they will need to work with students’
attitudes in advance – despite the rhetoric of the net generation.

Data and evaluation issues

Issues of using data for tracking and how to evaluate various technological initiatives
in general are also raised in the literature. Devine (2008) noted that there was no
specific way to record or evaluate the use of technology and therefore recommended
development of this within institutions in order to make comparisons.
Anagnostopoulou and Parmar (2008) also stress the need for accurate data and the

47

importance of effective administrative systems in bringing together e-learning and
retention. Sharpe et al (2006) noted a pressure to implement rather than evaluate in
institutions and found poorly defined measures of success. They recommend
module evaluations guiding departmental action plans, triangulation, utilising case
studies and disseminating evaluation outcomes. However, Slevin (2008) raises the
issue of how to evaluate and compare different media and urges sensitivity to
distinctive attributes and aspects rather than focusing only on the success stories.

In some of the evaluations the cost effectiveness of technological initiatives has been
considered. Reushle and Loch (2008) argue that when assessing value for money it
is not necessarily just about participation in an initiative or access to resources.
Institutions need to consider the hidden costs of acclimatising and training staff, as
well as the benefits such as time saved in answering queries or offering one to one
ssupport, the ease of use for students and the potential for retention progression
from tracking those struggling. Chan and Lee (2005) argue that podcasts are
particularly cost effective, especially for large groups, and technology such as IM
(Kadirire 2007 and Little et al. 2008) is beneficial for increasing student numbers and
is cheap and easy for students to access. However, Whitton (2009), discussing
ARGs, asks at what point they become value for money, how high does engagement
have to be to make implementation worthwhile and how success can be measured in
terms of benefit, adding that using technology is not necessarily a ‘quick win’.
Anderson (2007) even asks if the web 2.0 bubble could burst as institutions invest
time and money in untested applications.

Haywood (2009) argues there are tough issues for institutions to consider involving
value for money and return on investment; weighing up the glamour of technology
verses utility and design; and louder voices verses inclusivity. However, Bailey
(2009) asks if institutions are actually investing enough in technology to support
retention and motivation and asks where this investment should be targeted – in pre-
support, early detection of the ‘at risk’ or in staff investment to offer more
personalisation - all questions considered in this review. Ferrell et al (2007) offer a
good overview of the potential impact of e-learning in general. The CAMEL project
maps the tangible benefits of e-learning using various case studies and notes that
technology can: educate a larger and more diverse student body; offer savings in
staff time (such as through using e-assessments); improve pass rates; and allow cost
savings and resource efficiency. They also highlight some cases of improved
retention and add that even if retention is only slightly improved that this can be
significant financially.

Incorporating the student voice/perspective

The importance of listening to students themselves is repeated regularly – valuing
and prioritising their voice and experience when considering new initiatives or
approaches (JISC 2007, Xie and Sharma 2005, Howe et al. 2009 and Heaton-
Shrestha et al. 2009). Sharpe and Benfield (2005) urge investigating and focusing on
students, not practitioners or the perceived pedagogic ‘worth’ of an approach. JISC
(2009b) outline the learner perspective as one that would focus on student-led
learning outcomes, see learners as creative participants and would include

48

widespread understanding of learner preferences and needs. Hardy et al (2009) too
highlight the need to understand the student viewpoint and make it central to
approaches and Howe et al. (2009) suggest introducing methods for the student
perspective to be fed into the decision making process. This is seen as the key to
the success of initiatives – especially in meeting all learner needs and
accommodating increased diversity. In addition, Ferrell et al. (2007) note that the
benefit of initiatives could be found in the results of satisfaction surveys, plus if
technology is adding to levels of student satisfaction, then this has further
implications for managers and policy makers in terms of student evaluations such as
the National Student Survey.

Further research is still needed

Common throughout much of the literature is the call for further research into the use
and impact of technology. A number of studies that were identified during this
review, but that were beyond its scope, looked at the different usage of technology in
terms of gender, class, etc. This type of research is called for in some of the studies
that were incorporated. It is important to investigate who is actually using
technology, what is being used, what students expect and find beneficial and what
influences their choices and how these change (Dempster et al. 2007). The need for
more longitudinal and ethnographic research has also been raised (Sharpe et al.
2006). In terms of impact, Whittaker (2008) argues we need to track and analyse
trends in progression and retention, but also consider the role of technology in
helping students to realise their potential. Impact may be varied and evaluations
should not necessarily focus on the ‘at risk’ but should consider how individual
strengths could be recognised and built upon regardless of the student profile.
Finally, JISC (2007) suggest that research into student understanding of the use of
technology should include multiple modes of learning, cover disempowered groups of
learners, explore differences between learners and involve student reflection on their
experiences. So it can be suggested that the particular transition needs of different
learners/groups need to be examined and the impact of technology on these
investigated.

49

Conclusions

The use of technology to improve the learner experience at points of transition is
reflective of wider research that identifies key components of effective transition and
approaches being developed to support transition in general. This includes pre-entry
support, social and academic integration and skills development, timely information
provision, student support and offering students choice and control/empowerment
(Whittaker 2008). All of these issues feature in the discussion of the initiatives and
studies above, as do additional areas such as preparation for employment,
supporting diversity and blended provision, and identifying students who may be in
need of assistance. Many of the papers and resources discussed offer examples of
practice that address these issues, whether they are directly aimed at influencing the
transition experience, or geared towards using technology to enhance teaching and
learning in general.

The literature shows where and how technology can be used to support the key
features of effective transition over various points/stages. Notable benefits of
technology use in transition are often seen to be found in online pre-induction
initiatives which can provide an early opportunity to interact, engage and learn and
potentially relieve anxiety and reduce information overload. In addition, web 2.0
technology offers the chance to increase social interaction during the early stages of
transition, therefore fostering integration, community and a sense of belonging. The
projects also show how technology plays a role in academic preparation for university
studies, early skills/attributes development and building on these as part of support
for ongoing transition. Ensuring students have easy access to information and
resources and that motivation and engagement is sustained over time can also be
helped by technology with e-learning initiatives fostering flexibility and choice as well
as aiming to offer a more personalised and learner controlled experience.
Technology is also considered to be addressing and supporting diversity in terms of
widened access, new groups of students and a changing student population,
although a number of authors are keen to stress possible skills issues and concerns
about the ‘digital divide’.

Common goals in the work reviewed here are: forming student centred strategies and
inclusive learning environments and connecting with student uses of technology – to
appeal to them and also to value and utilise their skills and experiences. Yet
numerous resources caution against generalisation and urge acknowledgement of
the breadth of learner skills, preferences and needs. Some stress that technology
can potentially hinder inclusive provision and disadvantage the transition experience
of certain students if it is assumed that all are part of a technologically sophisticated
‘net generation’, want to use web 2.0 in their university experience and will be
engaged and motivated by its use. A key message from the literature, therefore, is
not just that it is important to understand increased student diversity, but also to
attend to the individual leaner – their experiences, requirements and abilities.
Although many discussions or projects focus on ‘today’s’ learners it seems evident
that there is not one type of learner and that students can experience many types of

50

transition (Howe et al 2009). Technology is also seen to play a useful role in offering
alternative, transformative and blended approaches to provision – which may appeal
to diverse preferences and can be connected to and utilised alongside other
practices across the transition process. It can be of particular use in noticing those
that might be at risk in their transition and in offering tailored support to all students.

The review also considered staff perceptions and implications for staff practice,
development and buy in on the use of technological initiatives. Potential problems
and concerns that using technology can involve were covered, such as access
issues and low participation, privacy concerns and views that technology can be
disruptive, disengaging and encouraging of dependency and superficial learning.
However, the literature reveals some interesting, albeit at times limited, findings in
terms of the impact of using technology. Both quantitative and qualitative examples
of positive impact have been reported and student feedback in particular can
highlight the value of technological initiatives on experience during transition. Yet,
again, student views can be mixed. Differences in learner experiences and
preferences can influence feedback and perceived benefit; it cannot be assumed that
technology will automatically be seen as positive by students or will improve their
experience. In light of this, wider issues for institutions to consider have also been
noted, including practical matters involving strategic/institutional stances; consistency
in provision and approach; and usability and design matters. Importantly the student
voice and perspective is urged as a key consideration for all approaches, especially if
striving to meet diverse learner needs.

Slevin (2008) offers a useful summary in that technology opens up new opportunities
for interaction but can also create new uncertainties, with often patchy and
sometimes contradictory implications and different ideas about its use. This is
reflected in the mixed and contradictory views of both students and staff on the use
of technology noted in the review. Logan Rich et al (2009) suggest that the challenge
for educators is to determine how best to utilize new technology and engage
students, noting that choosing amongst pedagogies and technology can be a
confusing maze and that poor understanding can result in technology being seen
uncritically as a magic tool or solution. There is no one approach that will appeal to
and benefit all learners and it seems no single technology or technological initiative
can offer the answer for a seamless and successful transition. The criticism of
offering a ‘one size fits all’ model, it could be argued, can be levied at technological
as well as more traditional approaches. Yet it is apparent that technology can offer
some advantages and impact positively on the learner experience. HEFCE (2009)
note that technological interventions can have benefit at different levels: efficiency
(improved cost and time effectiveness); enhancement (of existing processes or
outcomes); and transformation (positive change to current practices or establishing
new ones) and that institutions need to identify where to direct their attention. It
seems that these levels could apply to transitional aspects of the student experience
too and various schemes and studies included in this review have discussed the
possibility of using technology in these ways.

Also apparent is the call for further research. There is a need for more meaningful
and consistent data recording and evaluation in a yet to be fully explored field where

51

much potential is believed to exist. Investigating the impact of technology in
transition and its link to student experience/satisfaction or to retention is called for in
a number of instances, as is additional investigation into who is using technology;
how and why they use it; and what the consequences or implications of digital
inequalities are. However, advantages have already been highlighted over many
studies and technology clearly has potential in improving experiences of transitions.
HEFCE (2009) assert technology can enhance flexibility and choice, improve skills
and employability and help in retaining learners. JISC (2008) report that e-learning
initiatives are translating into improved satisfaction, retention and achievement and
that the key in using e-initiatives is being attuned to students needs (2009a). It could
be argued from the research and projects reviewed here that clear justification,
purpose and aims for the use of technology, including the student perspective and
voice, need to be considered. If this happens then explanations, expectations and
meaningful outcomes can be offered both to staff and more importantly to the wide
diversity of students in order to improve individual learner experiences of points of
transition.

KEY PROJECTS/STUDIES

This section provides more detailed information on some of the key projects that
have been included in the review. These are grouped into initiatives, case studies
and projects; journal articles; and guides or overviews. Focus is on activities which
have been undertaken, or are ongoing, that are utilizing or discussing technology
more directly to support transitions, rather than resources that consider e-learning,
new technology and its implications in general. Details provided give a brief overview
of the initiative or study and any evaluations, conclusions and impacts of the work or
its potential use. General summaries are offered and, where available, annotated
abstracts, findings and conclusions have been included. Full details of the
references can be found in the section below.

Author/Institution Resource Overview Evaluation/
Conclusions/
Impact/Use

Initiatives/Case Studies/Projects

Bournemouth Stepping Web-based resource Feedback from
University Stones 2 HE available from offer of students shows
a place. Introduces benefit in terms of
students to university feeling part of the
culture and aims to university, being
build confidence, prepared and
reflection, feeling positive. A
responsibility and number of other UK
commitment to the HEIs have adopted
course and this approach to
acknowledge students their own context.
prior learning (See also Currant,
experiences. B. and Keenan, C.

52

Conclusions/
Impact/Use
Relieves anxiety, 2009; Keenan, C.
information overload, 2006, 2009a&b)
promotes
collaboration,
introduces PDP and
study skills and
involves subject
related activities.
Includes self-profiling
questionnaire
'About You' which
allows understanding
of student
expectations and the
early identification of
those students who
may be at risk so
support can be
targeted quickly.

Brett, P. (2008) Mobiles Project investigating Concludes that
Enhancing the implementation of universities and
Learning and SMS-based students will benefit
Support technology to support from institutional
(MELaS) teaching and learning use of
activities at the communication via
University of SMS. Suggests
Wolverhampton. that its use
Three types of specifically for
messages were used: learning and
one way teaching shows
communication (staff great promise but
to learner), formative further investigation
assessment with is needed.
feedback and a
collaborative learning
discursive tool.

Chalk et al. n.d. Step Into Case study based on Evaluation included
(University of Higher STAR guidelines content,
Manchester) Education regarding the use of comparative and
the VLE for statistical analysis,
Foundation year questionnaires and
students. Resources focus groups.
include information on Concluded
the course, city, study evaluation was
and expectations; a difficult due to
self-profiling programme
questionnaire, modifications but
introduction to study reported a
skills and a virtual significant reduction

53

Conclusions/
Impact/Use
notice board. in withdrawals and
less student
enquiries to the
office.

Curran, K. and Addressing the Case study of an Reflections on the
Forbes, K. (2007) Student interactive student prototype noted that
Dropout Rate induction game, those students who
in Engineering designed to offer new played the game
through students with were more
Induction of information to help confident and it was
Students with them settle into hoped would be
Interactive university more more proactive and
Gaming effectively. likely to interact
with the correct
staff for support
sooner.

Hardy, J. et al. ICT & the Project mapping the Key findings show
(2009) Student First use and impact of positive responses
Year technology over to information being
Experience – transition and the first located centrally
A Report from year at University of and to pre-arrival
the LEaD Edinburgh. Followed resources for giving
Project a group of students an insight into
and looked at the key university and
stages and the allowing for
student views of personal contacts
technology at each of to be made. Later
these. Used mixed in the year
methods including technology is still
diaries, surveys, focus seen as useful for
groups and case information and
studies of particular also for revision. In
courses and focused Semester 2
on ‘critical moments’ students had more
over transition – early, awareness of their
mid and late semester growth and change
1 and 2. Asks what in study
their expectations are styles/habits and
of the use of had learnt how to
technology, how they make technology
change and adapt to work for them.
e-learning, what are Other interesting
the factors that results were that
influence their choices students have high
and how much are expectations and
they using non- technology is part
institutional online of their lives, but
technology in their that they do not
learning. actually expect

54

Conclusions/
Impact/Use
novel or innovative
use of technology
at university and do
not want it to
intrude on their
personal space.
They may have
technological skills
but need help to
use them.

Howe, R. et al. E-Learning for Project aiming to Findings showed
(2009) Learners (E4L) investigate learners’ there was no one
opinions and type of learner,
experiences of e- although there were
learning, including general trends.
through their That students
transitional periods. experience many
Objectives were to types of transitions,
ascertain if learners they value bite
were effective e- sized chunks of
communicators, to material, but trust
investigate opinions tutor
and experiences as recommendations
they progress and to on where to use
produce case studies technology in their
and guidance for the course. Students
wider sector about do not understand
student expectations the term e-learning
for web 2.0 and best but see technology
practice. in general as able
to aid many ways of
learning.

Kingston College Kingston The project aims to Project ongoing -
Relationship develop and evaluate yet to be evaluated.
Application tools, mechanisms Provides a useful
Data on and procedures which student lifecycle
Learner advance the highlighting the use
Engagement integration of ICT to of technology at
(KRADLE) deepen and sustain various stages
the relationship with throughout -
learners at all stages including pre-
in the student life enrolment,
cycle. induction, learning,
assessments,
support, enquiry,
progression and
exit.

Kingston College Kingston Uplift Project aims to Project ongoing -

55

Conclusions/
Impact/Use
for Business develop and evaluate yet to be evaluated.
Education models of good Provides useful
(KUBE) practice in using overview of various
technology to technology based
transform teaching, interventions being
learning and used to support
assessment. Includes students in areas
supporting learners such as diagnostic
through the use of testing, attendance,
online resources and classroom practice,
enriching learning and group work and
teaching through the learner support.
use of mobile
technology.

Stone, L. 2009 Higher Project involving HE Ongoing project -
(Leicester College) Education in FE. Includes yet to be evaluated
Lifelong access to a virtual
Learning common room to
Opportunities collaborate and
(HELLO) communicate with
peers and tutors.
Aims to learn from
previous projects in
that virtual space
cannot be separated
from the curriculum,
that not all learners
are technically
competent, anywhere
anytime learning
needs to be go hand
in hand with anywhere
anytime support and
staff development and
buy-in is needed.

Manchester The Shock Project focused on the Ongoing - project
Metropolitan Absorber first assignment and yet to be evaluated
University Project runs from pre-entry
into early weeks and
aims to engage
students, increase
confidence,
knowledge and skills
to alleviate the 'shock'
of first starting and the
first assessment.
Holistic approach that
includes peer
interaction, PDP, early

56

Conclusions/
Impact/Use
involvement of
student services,
tutors and quick
feedback.

Whitton, N. 2009 Alternate Project aimed to Concludes the
(Manchester Reality Games provide a novel and project has met
Metropolitan for Orientation, engaging alternative many of its
University) Socialisation to student induction objectives but notes
and Induction through the use of an that students may
(ARGOSI) ARG which combines not be motivated by
a series of games without
collaborative prompting.
challenges with an Considers issues of
unfolding storyline. It design, timing, cost
aimed to provide a effectiveness and
mechanism for new accessibility and
students to make uptake and how to
friends, orientate market such
themselves to the city initiatives to
and learn basic students.
literary skills.

McDermott, A. and UsPaCe Project led by the Found that levels of
Witt, N. (2009) Project University of Plymouth technology skills
to support foundation and confidence
degree students whilst were different than
undertaking work- expected and that
based learning. conceptions of
Included integrating digital natives did
social bookmarking not seem to apply.
and networking and Involving learners in
personalised web the design process
browsing pages for from an early stage
PDP, group work and was found to be
resource sharing. effective in helping
learners understand
the proposed use of
the tools as was
embedding
UsPaCe within the
module and
induction.

University of Develop Me! Online resources that See Currant, B and
Bradford and SaPRA aim to help students Keenan, C (2009).
feel more confident
about being at
University; identify,
articulate and develop
skills, reflect and

57

Conclusions/
Impact/Use
review these. It also
includes opportunities
to meet and chat to
other students from
pre-arrival via a
university created
ning. SaPRA (Skills
and Personal
Reflective activity)
builds on this through
PDP activities.

University of GO! Get Interactive resource Ongoing - project
Brighton Organised - an including: quizzes that yet to be evaluated
Evaluation of get students to think
Pre-Arrival about their transition,
Online video clips made by
Induction existing students
Materials that sharing their personal
Support experiences, lecturers
Business talking on film about
School what types of learning
Students to and teaching to
Prepare for HE expect, a social
Study network to meet other
new students and
learning activity
‘Brand Me’ for
engagement and
PDP.

University of Central The Alternative Project aims to Ongoing project -
Lancashire Guide to produce a website yet to be evaluated
UCLan (TAG) that will support
students in their move
into higher education,
identifying at an early
stage issues students
need to be aware of
from application to
first assessment. It
aims to be an
alternative guide
providing and sharing
information of current
students, giving them
information not
usually included in
marketing materials.
The information and
activities available aim

58

Conclusions/
Impact/Use
to help develop
realistic expectations
and give them a
starting point to
identify and develop
the skills they will
need on their course.

University of Central Online Project looking at the Project ongoing
Lancashire Community- ways in which
based Support technology can help
for Student transition to higher
Transitions education from FE
into HE and for those
returning as mature
students. It seeks to
explore the way in
which an online social
community can be
used to support that
adaptation and aims
to provide a scaffold
of tailored e-resources
embedded within an
academic online
social networking
framework (built
around the open-
source platform Elgg,
which offers a flexible
group/community
structure, blogs,
messaging, and wiki
capability).

University of Leeds (various)

Pugh, S. (n.d) Online Bulletin covering a No evaluations of
approaches to number of online the projects are
pre-arrival for resources for new offered but the
students students being bulletin concludes
developed at the that pre-arrival
university to help activities and being
orientation, introduce part of a community
students to other help orientation and
course members and ultimately retention.
aid general induction.
Includes: FBS pre-
arrival VLE
organisation,
'Countdown to

59

Conclusions/
Impact/Use
University Studies'
and the use of a
facebook group in one
school.

Pugh, S. and Taylor, Online pre- VLE resource to help Ongoing project -
S. (n.d.) arrival for new orientation before students to be
students in arrival including surveyed.
MAPS course material, staff Reflections note
and student videos positive but not
and a facebook group. universal uptake
(although the
facebook group
improved activity).

Marples, D. Using the VLE Discusses a VLE that No evaluation but
for weekly provides reflections note that
student administrative it was well received
progress information, by students
assessment worksheets, materials, although there were
teaching links and concerns over
online quizzes for reduced social
students to asses contact and
their own progress adjusting to new
and obtain feedback learning styles.
on their standard of
work.

Bell, C. (2009) Using the VLE Project includes Ongoing - project
to support welcome videos and yet to be evaluated.
induction, tour, glossary of
transition and terms, FAQs,
the discussion boards
identification of with current students,
learning needs online skills
assessment,
gateways to
resources linked to
induction, module and
course information.

Morris, N. P. et al. Using the VLE Project explores the Reflections on the
(2009) to prepare use of a VLE in project were that it
students for providing online was successful in
university life resources prior to providing
arrival from when programme
students were offered information and that
a place. Involved the number of
level 2 student peer student enquiries
mentors making posts reduced. It noted
and interacting via an large levels of

60

Conclusions/
Impact/Use
online discussion access but that this
forum. Books were was mainly to
offered as prizes for access information
the best posts. and to read
discussions rather
than make posts.

University of Leeds ESSL Study Website hosted on the Ongoing project -
Skills Pages VLE with audio/video questionnaire,
advice from students focus groups and
and staff, essay VLE access data to
examples with audio be used. Noted
feedback, discipline positive informal
specific information feedback so far.
and quizzes. Aims to:
provide brief
explanations of
aspects central to
university study and
examples relevant to
students’ needs; to
contextualise
feedback and marking
criteria; to raise
awareness of skills
and engage students
in applying these; and
to provide a platform
for sharing student
experience and giving
advice.

University of Leeds Leeds for Life Site aims to help Project ongoing.
students consider the
future beyond
university. It includes:
preparing for personal
tutor sessions;
recognising and
describing skills and
attributes obtained
through the course
and identifying what
employers are looking
for; finding
opportunities outside
the course to develop
and add to skills; and
creating a 'Live CV'.

University of Student A University wide Student evaluations

61

Conclusions/
Impact/Use
Glasgow Network peer-support initiative via online
which provides surveys/questionnai
prospective, new and res - number
current students with accessing has
information and increased each
advice from current year.
students in higher
years (e-mentors).
Uses email, blogs,
webchats and SNS.
Offered at key points
during the application
and induction process
and also over the first
term, it aims to
strengthen the sense
of community and aid
the student
experience and
retention.

Devine, A. 2008 Student The project aims to Noted that
(University of Experience of measure the impact of comparisons
Greenwich) E-Learning technology on between courses
Laboratory teaching, learning, and the usage of
(SEEL) Project student support and technology were
on student difficult and
progression and inconclusive as
retention. there was no
consistent
recording of data
and other factors
could not be ruled
out for influence.
Concluded that
impact had been
small.

Daly, R. and Using E- Discusses the Suggested effect on
Thomas, H. 2008 Learning as PASSPORT into retention due to
(University of part of Pre- Higher Education addressing key
Lancaster) Entry activities programme, a month retention factors;
to increase long programme using concludes
retention - a a web-based technology is not
case study chatroom, facebook, the cause of
texting and a VLE. success but is a
Aims to address the player in it.
key retention issues
of: pre-entry, teaching
styles, learning styles
and preferences and

62

Conclusions/
Impact/Use
social life and pastoral
support.

University of Informal Project investigates Project ongoing.
Leicester Mobile using student centred
Podcasting podcasts to enhance
and Learning transition and offers a
Adaptation for model for capturing
Transition informal knowledge
(IMPALA4T) and experience ('hot
knowledge') for
learners about to start
and for those well into
the first year.

Watling, S. 2009 Getting Started Site containing an Online
(University of online forum questionnaire
Lincoln) moderated by staff revealed students
and students, generic reported feeling
and course specific ‘better prepared’
information plus the and valued the
‘Snapshot: opportunity to
introduction to contact the
academic practice’ university and other
website. Aims to prospective
address lack of students prior to
preparation and take induction.
the pressure off
induction week.

University of Student Web resource to Ongoing project -
Reading Stories - Real support personal yet to be evaluated.
Students, Real reflection and
Voices, Real development before,
Journeys during and beyond
university. Consists of
short audio clips of
current
students/recent
graduates reflecting
upon their experience,
thoughts, conflicts and
changing feelings.
Each clip covers a
core aspect of student
life e.g. transition from
school to university,
self- confidence,
social networks, and
engagement with
subject/discipline.

63

Conclusions/
Impact/Use
Hills, J. 2006 Bridging the E-learning Developed from a
(University of Gap: Easing progression/bridging pilot module,
Sunderland) Students' module using the VLE evaluated using
Transition into prior to registration. online
Higher Includes a mix of questionnaires
Education generic and which showed
programme specific positive student
information to give a feedback.
taste of the upcoming Expanded across
environment, the institution and
welcome videos from the framework and
staff and students, materials have
tasks and been disseminated
assignments, skills nationally.
development and
support, discussion
boards, quizzes,
videos of teaching
scenarios, student tips
and guides and links
to internal support
services. Aims to aid
both academic and
social aspects of
transition and
reinforce commitment
and allow early
identification of
problems.

University of Sussex SPLASH Project aiming to Benefits of the
create student approach are
personal homepages perceived to be: an
and personalised improvement in the
interaction with the student learning
institution, and to experience by
allow staff to use and creating new ways
explore the use of for classmates to
web 2.0 technology in communicate with
their teaching. one another; an
opportunity to
harness the
growing preference
of students to
communicate via
online social
networking and
blogging sites and
the creation of a
personalised profile
page.

64

Conclusions/
Impact/Use
Williams, A. (2009) Kingston Project focuses on the Found that students
access to introduction of mobile were generally
science services (principally proficient users of
teaching SMS and podcasting) mobile technology,
across new to support learners on were positive about
and emerging a large access its use especially if
technologies programme that a clear message
(KASTANET) provides a was given about its
progression route. value. However,
technology could be
disruptive as well
as enabling and
technical issues
and support for
tutors needed
consideration.

Wilson, J. and Supporting Project aims to Through
Butterfield, R. Transition into identify ways in which comparative
(2009) Higher technology enhanced analysis of FE and
Education: learning might HE students,
Comparing facilitate transition themes and
Level 3 and from FE into further questions have
Level 4 studies or been identified and
Vocational employment. it is suggested
Students’ these need
Experiences of attention in order to
Technology improve the
Enhanced transition to HE.
Learning

Journal Articles

Bowers-Campbell, Cyber "Pokes": Paper looks at the use Notes from other
J. (2008) Motivational of facebook in helping studies that
Antidote for to improve low self- facebook can build
Developmental efficacy and self confidence as it
College regulated learning by shows tutors care
Readers increasing contact about them and can
with tutors and enable peer
students. support. Also notes
fears over access
to information and
public nature of
postings but that it
allows engagement
and meaningful
connections with
students.

65

Conclusions/
Impact/Use
Currant, B. and Evaluating Overview of the Preliminary findings
Keenan, C. (2009) Systematic effectiveness of online show that students
Transition into transition materials need and value
Higher available prior to early initiatives to
Education arrival at support
Bournemouth engagement with
University and the the university; that it
University of Bradford. gave the institution
a friendly face,
made it
approachable and
that students
valued knowing that
someone cared.
Noted that
commitment from
individual staff and
the institution was
needed and believe
such transition
modules develop
confidence and
provide solid
foundations for
academic and
social integration.

Hall, R. 2009 (De Connecting Project evaluating Interviews and
Monfort University) Transitions read/write focus groups
and technologies - revealed students
Independent podcasts, discussion had found transition
Learning: an forums, blogs etc. less scary and the
Evaluation of Aimed to address mentoring was
read-write web academic and social seen as able to
approaches transitions and offer 'just in time'
(CoTIL) included a peer support.
mentoring case study Conclusions were
pilot. that the technology
fused the formal
and informal and
helped personalise
experiences.

Dunlap, J.C. and Tweeting the Considered Twitter Recommend
Lowenthal, P.R. Night Away: usage in online making Twitter's
(2009) Using Twitter courses and how it use relevant and
to Enhance can be useful for notes potential
Social providing 'just in time' benefit beyond
Presence support and online programmes.
interaction, allowing
students to make

66

Conclusions/
Impact/Use
connections and be
aware of the 'social
presence of others'.

Eberhardt, D. M. Facing up to Considers how SNS Suggests SNS can
(2007) Facebook are being used by be used by
students and students to make
therefore that friends, build a
institutions need to sense of
learn to deal with their connection,
impact. community and
belonging and can
help maintain
connections with
friends at home,
therefore reducing
anxiety. Also
highlights some
possible problems
with negative
identities and
students pre-
judging each other.

Ellinson, N. et al The Benefits of Looks at the Suggests facebook
(2007) Using relationship between can help maintain
Facebook facebook and forming and support
"Friends:" and maintaining social relationships which
Social Capital capital; how students could impact on
and College can keep connections well being and low
Students' Use with old friends as self-esteem.
of Online well as making new
Social Network ones and use
Sites facebook to develop
commitment to a
community.

Heaton-Shrestha, C. Student Explores aspects of Found that some
et al (2009) Retention in the student assumptions about
Higher experience seen as VLEs in aiding
Education: likely to be influenced communication and
What Role for by the use of VLEs providing flexibility
Virtual through interviews were not supported.
Learning with students and staff However, that
Environments? at Kingston University. retention is likely to
be aided by the
ways they can
enhance
confidence and
provide a sense of
control and

67

Conclusions/
Impact/Use
ownership. It is
also noted that
students tend to be
more positive than
staff about the role
of the VLE.

Jones et al. (2009) How can Case study Student surveys,
mobile SMS investigating how the focus groups and
Communicatio academic and tutors' journal used
n support and personal development to show impact.
enhance a first of first years can be Concluded that the
year enhanced with SMS advantages
undergraduate communication. outweighed the
learning Aimed to harness disadvantages and
environment? skills and cultures of that the space
contemporary between students
students and motivate and tutors was
participation. narrowed; that
students valued
texts and that they
got their attention
more; and the tutor
noticed increased
engagement and
attendance. Claims
no causal link or
direct measures of
success as many
factors at work, but
that SMS played a
small but key role in
driving the learning
process forward.

Laing et al. (2005) Managing the Programme runs for Allowed staff to
transition into the first 6 weeks of formulate
higher term and includes appropriate
education: An general information, interventions before
on-line Spiral regulations, performance was
Induction procedures etc as well affected and
Programme as skills sessions and enabled more
various online targeted and
activities to help personalised
students take support which was
responsibility for their seen as more
own learning. satisfactory than a
Records of 'one size fits all',
engagement with reactive model of
these allows for the induction.
real time analysis of

68

Conclusions/
Impact/Use
those 'at risk' and
allowed predictive
feedback with a rating
scale and measure of
risk for each students.
This then becomes
the start of negotiated
support with the
student.

Madge et al. (2009) Facebook, Explores how pre- Online surveys
social registration showed that
integration and engagement with a students joined the
informal university facebook site specifically to
learning at network influences make friends as
university: ‘It is post-registration well as keeping in
more for social networks. touch with those
socialising and from home and
talking to concludes that
friends about facebook is part of
work than for the 'social glue' that
actually doing helps students to
work’ settle in, but that it
is only one aspect
and students
thought facebook
was most important
for social reasons
not teaching
purposes.

Piatt, K (2009) Case Study: Describes a pilot Suggested that the
Using alternate project investigating format can provide
reality games the use of alternate an interesting
to support first reality games/treasure alternative and also
year induction hunt formats to offered students
with ELGG provide an alternative something to feel
to existing part of and a break
mechanisms for from their formal
introducing new course. It was
students to university found that the game
information and format did not
services. appeal to all
students but was
very effective for
those that liked it.

Robinson et al. Supporting Outlines the use of Statistical and
(2009) socialisation in Blackboard VLE for content analysis
the transition online discussion revealed that some
to university: A boards at the key features of on-

69

Conclusions/
Impact/Use
potential use University of Salford. line socialisation
for on-line The project aimed to were establishing
discussion facilitate socialisation an identity, getting
boards between students to know each other
about to start and and developing
current students and supporting and
staff. trusting
relationships.
Limited participation
of some students
was noted,
although this could
provide a way to
identify those 'at
risk' and the project
concludes that
discussion boards
were a successful
method of providing
socialisation during
transition and
induction.

Fishman, F. and SUCCESS Project that aims for a Reported from
Decandia, L. (2006) @Senca: multi-faceted surveys,
Facilitating approach, which questionnaires and
Student and includes utilising feedback sessions
Staff Success technology. Offers that those who
support prior to entry, participated were
for social activities more successful
and for skills and had higher
development, with GPAs and a more
staff benefit as well as positive attitude.
student benefit being Also evaluated the
central via a 'College impact on staff who
Coach'. felt more valued
and understanding
of student issues.
Harley, D. et al. Using texting Overview of the Noted positive
2007 (University of to support 'Student Messenger' feedback in that
Brighton) students' application at the students were
transition to university for staff to appreciative of texts
university text students and felt it gave
regarding a variety of them a sense of
issues over key points belonging.
to support social
integration into
university life.

Wingate, U. (2009) A framework Paper aims to provide Concludes that the
for Transition: a framework for framework offers a

70

Conclusions/
Impact/Use
Supporting transition to university holistic approach to
‘Learning to that helps students transition and
Learn’ in understand what is should make a
Higher expected by the substantial impact
Education. university and on learning.
gradually develops Identifies the need
their competence as for staff buy in and
independent learners. also notes that it is
Focuses on learning not just non-
to learn and includes traditional students
online materials and that may not be
self-profiling prepared for
questionnaires and university - that all
extends over the first need support in
year. learning to learn.

Wozniak, H. et Stepping Outlines 'Getting on Based on wider
al.(2009) through the Track' - an online research context of
Orientation programme transition and the
Looking Glass: addressing student call for greater
A Staged needs before, during learner
Approach for and after enrolment in engagement. Staff
Postgraduate three stages: GetReal and student
Students before enrolment (for feedback
diagnostic testing and suggested the
reflection); GetStarted module addressed
at enrolment (for the realities starting
familiarisation with PG study in an
WebCT) and online environment.
GetLearning before
the start of formal
study (online activities
to develop key
attributes).

Guides/Overviews

Anagnostopoulou, Practical Resource to provide Concludes that
K. and Parma, D Guide: guidance on using e- technology may
(2008) bringing learning to support the help in easing
together e- student experience. transition and
learning and Aims to unite e- managing
student learning and student expectations.
retention retention and provides Recommends
case studies, practical linking the physical
tips, activities and and virtual
recommendations to environment and
support student the academic and
progression through the social; ensuring
the first year. Includes data accuracy;

71

Conclusions/
Impact/Use
using e-learning data embracing students
to track students and use of technology
identify those who and understanding
may be 'at risk' and 'lurkers'; engaging
compares the students from the
behaviour of start and clearly
withdrawers and explaining to them
persisters. why technology is
being used.

Birmingham City Birmingham Outlines the Useful overview of
University City University university's strategy transition stages
Extended for extended induction and the possible
Induction (with the first year use of technology
Strategy being seen as from within them.
pre-enrolment through
to completion and into
the next level of
study). This includes
use of technology in
pre-enrolment:
facebook groups and
online discussion
forums that allow
students to meet each
other; access to FAQs
via the internet or
podcasts; and also
beyond induction via
the use of Moodle to
support and enhance
learning.

Minocha, S. (2009) A Study on the Comprehensive study Positive impact
Effective Use of the use of social often appears to
of Social software including relate to the
Software by reviews of various theories, issues and
Further and case studies. factors
Higher underpinning
Education in transition, with
the UK to technology being
support seen as able to play
Student a role in the
Learning and process.
Engagement Concludes that
benefits of
technology include:
better
understanding of
students’ needs,
socialisation,

72

Conclusions/
Impact/Use
collaborative
learning and
development of a
community (both
within and outside
the course
environment),
engaging students
in ‘fun’ activities,
overcoming
isolation, early
feedback and
interventions and
developing skills for
independent
learning.

Nix, J. et al. (2007) Mobile Sets the context for Notes from other
Learning/SMS the use of mobile studies that
(Short devices - such as for students
Messaging academic appreciated texts,
System administration and response rates
academic information on improved and that
administration changes, reminders technology was
kit) etc; combating drop- good for contacting
out by sending whole
messages to those 'at cohorts/groups as
risk' and for offering well as individuals.
support. Provides
practical information
on logistics, service
providers,
implementation etc.

University of Using Overview/guide for Based on wider
Birmingham technology to how institutions can information about
support use technology to induction stages
student support induction and offers further
induction which includes: pre- resources and
induction, induction tools .
learning activities,
supporting
communication and
social engagement,
skills development
and self-evaluated
'health checks and
monitoring
participation and
attendance.

73

Conclusions/
Impact/Use

Conference proceedings/papers

Horsmanshof, L. Using SMS as Paper on the Suggested that
(2004) a way of experiences of a tutor students were
promoting using texting to stay in pleased to be able
connection touch with students to communicate
and and how this has with their tutor and
community for supported and that it aided the
first year encouraged students building of trust.
students to persist. Noted that ground
rules were
negotiated and
there was no
constant availability
or 'mothering'.
Concludes that
students are texting
so it makes sense
to engage with this.

McCarthy, J. et al. Supporting Presentation looking Useful overview on
(2008) Students in the at the use of text, how technology can
21st Century! Skype and blogs as assist in booking
part of student and delivering
support and wellbeing support
systems at the consultations and
University of East for sending
London. reminders and
adverts for
workshops etc.
Plus notes further
potential for its use
in student support.

Prior, J. and The Changing This paper describes Noted that students
Fitzgibbon, K. Nature of 'Early Days', an online continued to attach
(2009) Students learner support tool importance to their
Social designed to social experience,
Engagement encourage students to but more intriguing
with University self assess their that the results
orientation and highlighted students
transition into were not attaining
university. this social
experience through
traditionally
expected ways.
Robinson, L. et al Preparing for Discusses a pre- Project ongoing -
(2007) University: induction package at aims to evaluate
What do the University of success by
students want Salford that is improved retention

74

Conclusions/
Impact/Use
to know? delivered by rates.
blackboard and
includes welcome
podcasts, FAQs,
specific programme
information, pre-
course reading
materials, maps and a
helpline. Developed
from known student
concerns prior to
university as identified
by focus groups -
such as finance,
academic work,
accommodation and
making friends and to
respond to their
suggestions in terms
of communication
methods, contact and
timing.

Smailes, J. et al. Virtual Mentor: Discusses the Exploration ongoing
(2008) an innovation possibility of using to establish which
in student virtual peer mentors has the greatest
support? as face to face potential for
mentoring had limited supporting
success at students.
Northumbria
University. Describes
three models of
offering this: via the
VLE as already used
by students (but
lacked excitement and
was more of a
repository); SNS as it
has popular appeal
(but noted potential
for misuse); and PLEs
which could break
down barriers and
don't feel as if
students' social
environment has been
intruded upon.

75

REFERENCES

Akbulut, Y. and Kiyici, M. (2007) Instructional Use of Weblogs, Turkish Online Journal of
Distance Education 8 (3)
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED49
8816

Anagnostopoulou, K and Parmar, D. (2008) Practical Guide: bringing together e-learning
& student retention, Middlesex University, available from:
http://www.ulster.ac.uk/star/resources/Anagnostopoulou_Parmar.pdf

Anagnostopoulou, K. et al. (2008) Managing Connections: using e-learning data to
improve retention rates in higher education, Middlesex University, available from:
http://mancons2.middlesex.wikispaces.net/file/view/Final+Report+%28Anagnostopoulou
%2C+Parmar+%26+Priego-Hernandez%2C+2008%29.pdf

Anagnostopoulou, K. et al. (2009) An exploration of perceptions of learning and e-
learning held by students who withdraw and those who persist with UK higher education,
Brookes eJournal of Learning and Teaching 4 (2)
http://bejlt.brookes.ac.uk/article/an_exploration_of_perceptions_of_learning_and_e_learn
ing/

Anderson, P (2007) What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education,
JISC, available from: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf

Armstrong, G. R. et al. (2009) Interviewing the Experts: Student Produced Podcast,
Journal of Information Technology Education 8
http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol8/JITEv8IIP079-090Armstrong333.pdf

Badge, J. et al (2005) e-Learning versus e-Teaching: Seeing the Pedagogic Wood for the
Technological Trees, available from:
http://www.bioscience.heacademy.ac.uk/journal/vol5/beej-5-6.aspx

Bailey, P. (2009) Every Learner Counts: can technology help improve student motivation
and retention?, Proceedings from the JISC Conference 2009: Opening Digital Doors, 24
March 2009, Edinburgh International Conference Centre, available from:
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/events/2009/03/studentquestiontime-mon.pdf

Beetham, H. et al. (2008) Thriving in the 21st Century: Executive Summary, Summary
report of the JISC Learning Literacies in the Digital Age (LLiDA) project, JISC,
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearningpedagogy/0709summaryre
portofllida.doc

Bell, C. (2009) Using the VLE to support induction, transition and the identification of
learning needs, University of Leeds, available from:
http://www.sddu.leeds.ac.uk/casestudies/casestudy.php?ID=94&term=transition&search=
yes

Birmingham City University Birmingham City University Extended Induction Strategy,
Birmingham City University, available from:
http://www.bcu.ac.uk/docs/downloads/celt/Birmingham_City_University_extended_inducti
on_strategy_final_version.doc

76

Blair, A. (2005) Online learning: its implications for deep learning, assessment and
retention, Coventry University, available from: http://www.c-
sap.bham.ac.uk/resources/project_reports/admin/extras/11_P_02.rtf
Bowers-Campbell, J. (2008) Cyber "Pokes": Motivational Antidote for Developmental
College Readers, Journal of College Reading and Learning 39 (1) pp. 74-87, Texas State
University: San Marcos

Brett, P. (2008) Mobiles Enhancing Learning and Support (MELaS), JISC, available from:
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearninginnovation/melasfinalreport
.pdf

Brown, K. (2007) Think Students Are Technologically Savvy? Control-Alt-Delete That
Idea, College Quarterly 10 (2), p.1-3, Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology:
Toronto

Burgess, M. L. (2009) Using WebCT as a Supplemental Tool to Enhance Critical
Thinking and Engagement among Developmental Reading Students, Journal of College
Reading and Learning 39 (2), p.9-33, Texas State University: San Marcos

Caldwell, J. et al. (2006) Diversity and difference in the learning experience of students in
contemporary mass Higher Education, Paper presented at NUI Galway 4th Annual
Conference on Teaching & Learning 8-9 June 2006

Cann, A. (2008) Web 2.0 comes of age: disintermediation and the long tail in higher
education, Higher Education Academy, available from:
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/events/annualconference/2008/Ala
n_Cann.doc

Chalk, H. et al. (n.d.)The STAR Project (Student Transition and Retention): Step into
Higher Education, University of Manchester, available from:
http://www.ulster.ac.uk/star/transferability/Stepping_Into_HE.doc

Chan, A. and Lee, M. J. W. (2005) An MP3 a day keeps the worries away: Exploring the
use of podcasting to address preconceptions and alleviate pre-class anxiety amongst
undergraduate information technology students, in D.H.R Spennenmann and Burr, L.
(eds) Good Practice in Practice. Proceedings of the Student Experience Conference 5-
7th September 2005, Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, Charles Sturt University
http://www.csu.edu.au/division/studserv/sec/papers/chan.pdf

Cohen, J. and Bobrowicz, A. (2009) Enhancing student engagement with online
resources: case study of using the Assignment Survival Kit (ASK) essay writing tool with
first year undergraduate Multimedia Technology and Design Students, Proceedings from
6th LDHEN Symposium: Bournemouth University "The Challenge of Learning
Development", 6th and 7th April 2009
http://www.aldinhe.ac.uk/bmth09/papers/cohen_bobrowicz_paper.pdf

Cook, A. and Rushton, B.S. (2008) Student Transition: Practices and Policies to Promote
Retention, SEDA:London

Curran, K. and Forbes, K. (2007) Addressing the Student Dropout Rate in Engineering
through Induction of Students with Interactive Gaming, University of Ulster
http://www.engsc.ac.uk/downloads/interactive-gaming.pdf

Currant, B. (2007) Switching them On or Turning Them Off? Engaging with non-users,
Proceedings from the 4th LDHEN Symposium: Bournemouth University
"How do students engage with learning?", 12 April 2007, available from:
http://www.aldinhe.ac.uk/bmth_papers/currant.htm

77

Currant, B. et al. (2009) Develop me! Support me! Engage (and retain) me!, Proceedings
from the JISC Innovating e-Learning 2009 conference available from: http://www.online-
conference.net/jisc/content2009/currant/currant_synopsis.pdf
http://www.brad.ac.uk/developme/

Currant, B. and Keenan, C. (2009) Evaluating Systematic Transition to Higher Education,
Brookes eJournal of Learning and Teaching 4 (2)
http://bejlt.brookes.ac.uk/article/evaluating_systematic_transition_to_higher_education/

Currant, N. et al. (2008) Defining Generation Ys: towards a new typology of digital
learners, University of Bradford, available from:
http://www.elp.ac.uk/downloads/Defining%20Generation%20Y%20Bradford.pdf

Daly, R. and Thomas, H. (2008) Using E Learning as part of Pre – Entry activities to
increase retention: a case study, Proceedings of the Making Connections Conference 6
November 2008, available from: http://www.lancs.ac.uk/depts/conted/passport/index.htm

de Byl, P. and Taylor, J. (2007) A Web 2.0/Web3D Hybrid Platform for Engaging
Students in e-Learning Environments Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 8 (3)
article 7
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/34
/eb/4a.pdf

Dearing, R. (1997) Higher Education in the Learning Society, Crown Copyright: Norwich

Dempster, J. et al. (2007) Students' Blended Learning User Patterns: Project Plan, JISC,
available from:
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearningpedagogy/blupsprojectplan
.doc

Devine, A. (2008) Student Experience of E-Learning Laboratory (SEEL) Project,
University of Greenwich available from:
http://www.gre.ac.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/165228/SEET-report_V3.pdf

Dickinson, I. et al. (2008) Virtual Site as an aid to first-year learning Leeds Metropolitan
University ALT Journal 4 Summer 2008 available from:
http://www.leedsmet.ac.uk/teaching/vsite/teachers/alt2008.pdf and site link
http://www.leedsmet.ac.uk/teaching/vsite/

Draper, S.W. and Brown, M.I. (2004) Increasing interactivity in lectures using an
electronic voting system, Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 20 pp.81-94
http://www.psy.gla.ac.uk/~steve/ilig/papers/draperbrown.pdf

Dunlap, J. C. and Lowenthal, P. R. (2009) Tweeting the Night Away: Using Twitter to
Enhance Social Presence, Journal of Information Systems Education 20 (2) pp. 129-
135, Appalachian State University: Boone

Eberhardt, D.M. (2007) Facing Up to Facebook, About Campus 12 (4) pp.18-26, Jossey
Bass, John Wiley & Sons, Inc: Hoboken, NJ http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-
bin/fulltext/116325048/PDFSTART

Edirisingha, P. et al. (2007) Podcasting to Provide Teaching and Learning Support for an
Undergraduate Module on English Language and Communication, Turkish Online
Journal of Distance Education 8 (3) article 6
/ec/d0.pdf

78

Ellison, N. B. et al. (2007) The Benefits of Facebook "Friends:" Social Capital and
College Students' Use of Online Social Network Sites, Journal of Computer-Mediated
Communication 12 (4) article 1 http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol12/issue4/ellison.html

Ferrell, G. et al. (2007) CAMEL Tangible Benefits of e-Learning, JISC, available
from:http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearningcapital/camelbelt_fina
l_report.pdf

Fishman, S. and Decandia, L. (2006) SUCCESS@Seneca: Facilitating Student and Staff
Success, College Quarterly 9 (2) Seneca College of Applied Arts and Technology:
Toronto

Forrester, G. et al (2005) Going the Distance: Students' Experiences of Induction to
Distance Learning in Higher Education, Journal of Further & Higher Education 29 (4) pp.
293-306
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/ftinterface~db=all~content=a727324932~fulltext=713
240930

Glass, B. and Kendall M. (2006) Engaging students in information literacy through the
Internet Detective, Proceedings from the 3rd LDHEN Symposium, 4 April 2006, Liverpool
Hope University

Goold, A. et al (2006) Learning in Virtual Teams: Exploring the Student Experience,
Journal of Information Technology Education 5
http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol5/v5p477-490Goold183.pdf

Griffith, S. and Liyanage, L. (2008) An introduction to the potential of social networking
sites in education, In Olney, I. Et al. (2008) proceedings of the Second Emerging
Technologies Conference, 18- 20 July 2008, University of Wollongong, Wollongong

Hall, R. (2009a) Connecting Transitions and Independent Learning: an evaluation of
read-write web approaches (CoTIL), De Monfort University, EvidenceNet, available from:
http://evidencenet.pbworks.com/Connecting+Transitions+and+Independent+Learning%3
A+an+evaluation+of+read-write+web+approaches+(CoTIL)

Hall, R. (2009b) Towards a Fusion of Formal and Informal Learning Environments: the
Impact of the Read/Write Web Electronic Journal of E-Learning 7 (1)
http://www.ejel.org/Volume-7/v7-i1/Hall.pdf

Hardy, J. et al. (2009) ICT & the Student First Year Experience – A Report from the LEaD
Project, JISC, available from:
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearningpedagogy/leadfinalreport.p
df

Harley, D. et al. (2007) Using texting to support students' transition to university,
Innovations in Education and Teaching International 44 (3) pp. 229-41
http://robertoigarza.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/art-using-texting-to-support-students_-
transition-university-vvaa-2007.pdf

Harrell, I. L. (2008) Increasing the Success of Online Students, Inquiry 13 (1) pp. 36-44

Harvey, L. et al. (2006) The First Year Experience: a review of literature for the HEA
academy, Higher Education Academy

Haywood, J. (2009) JISC Question Time: Student experiences of technology,
Proceedings from the JISC Conference 2009: Opening Digital Doors, 24 March 2009,

79

Edinburgh International Conference Centre, available from:

Heath, L. (2008) Induction - OMG! D Y thnk we hv 2 std up + say sumting??? :-(,
Proceedings from the Higher Education Academy Conference 2008, 9 July 2008,
Harrogate International Centre: Higher Education Academy

Heaton-Shrestha, C. et al. (2007) Learning and E-Learning in HE: The Relationship
between Student Learning Style and VLE Use, Research Papers in Education 22 (4) pp.
443-464, Routledge: Philadelphia

Heaton-Shrestha, C. et al. (2009) Student Retention in Higher Education: What Role for
Virtual Learning Environments?, Journal of Further and Higher Education 33 (1) pp.83-
92,

Hefce (2005) HEFCE strategy for e-learning, Hefce, available from:
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2005/05_12/05_12.doc

Hefce (2009) Enhancing learning and teaching through the use of technology: A revised
approach to HEFCE’s strategy for e-learning, Hefce, available from:
http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2009/09_12/09_12.doc

Hewitt-Taylor, J. (2003) Technology-assisted Learning, Journal of further and higher
education 27 (4), pp. 457-464, Carfax Publishing

Hills, J. (2006) Bridging the Gap: Easing Students' transition into Higher Education, In
(eds) Macintosh et al. Informing Students: Quality Information Informing Students:
Quality Information, The STAR Project: Student Transition and Retention available from:
http://www.ulster.ac.uk/star/resources/(C)%20Informing%20Students%20-
%20Quality%20Information.pdf

Hilsdon, J. (2009) Contribution to the Innovation, Universities, Science and Skills
Committee inquiry: "Students and Universities" from the Association for Learning
Development in Higher Education (ALDinHE), available from:
http://www.aldinhe.ac.uk/Students_and_Universities_Inquiry_ALDinHE_submission.pdf

Horstmanshof, L. (2004) Using SMS as a way of providing connection and community for
first year students, Proceedings of the 21st ASCILITE Conference. Perth, Western
Australia, 5-8 December: ASCILITE
http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/perth04/procs/contents.html

Howe, R. et al. (2009) E-Learning for Learners (E4L), JISC available from:
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearningcapital/completion_report_
e4l.pdf

Hughes, G. (2007) Using Blended Learning to Increase Learner Support and Improve
Retention, Teaching in Higher Education 12 (3) pp. 349-363, Routledge: Philadelphia

JISC (2007) In Their Own Words: Exploring the learner's perspective on e-learning, JISC,
available from:
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearningpedagogy/iowfinal.pdf

JISC (2008) Exploring Tangible Benefits of e-learning: Does investment yield interest?,
JISC available from: http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/publications/camel-tangible-benefits.pdf

JISC (2009a) Higher Education in a web 2.0 world: Report of an independent committee
of Inquiry into the impact on higher education of students' widespread use of web 2.0

80

technologies, JISC, available from:
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/heweb20rptv1.pdf

JISC (2009b) Effective Practice in a Digital Age: A guide to technology-enhanced
learning and teaching, JISC, available from:
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/publications/effectivepracticedigitalage.pdf

Johnston, W. and Kochanowska, R. (2009) Quality Enhancement Themes: The First
Year Experience. Student expectations, experiences and reflections on the first year,
The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, available from:
http://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/documents/firstyear/StudentExpectations.pdf

Jones, G. et al (2009) How can mobile SMS communication support and enhance a first
year undergraduate learning environment?, ALT-J: Research in Learning Technology, 17
(3) pp. 201 – 218, Routledge

Jones, J. and Jones, E. (2009) Get your Face out of MySpace, paper presented at the
Higher Education Academy Annual Conference 2009, Higher Education Academy,
available from:
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/events/annualconference/2009/pap
ers/Jo_Jones_Paper.doc

Jones, N. and Peachey, P. (2005) The Development of Socialization in an On-line
Learning, Environment Journal of Online Interactive Learning 3 (3)
http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/issues/getfile.cfm?volID=3&IssueID=12&ArticleID=14

Jowallah, R. (2008) Using Technology Supported Learning to Develop Active Learning in
Higher Education: A Case Study, US-China Education Review 5 (12)
/00/b8.pdf

Juwah, C. (2002) Using communication and information technologies to support problem-
based learning, Higher Education Academy, available from:
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/resources/resourcedatabase/id449
_using_it_to_support_problem-based_learning.pdf

Kadirire, J. (2007) Instant Messaging for Creating Interactive and Collaborative m-
Learning Environments, International Review of Research in Open and Distance
Learning 8 (2) pp.1-14, Athabasca University: Alberta, Canada

Keenan, C. (2006) Stepping Stones 2HEL: Bridging the Transition Gap, HEA Exchange
Magazine, Issue 3, p 31

Keenan, C. (2009a) Stepping Stones 2HE: Students Active in Transition to HE, In
Induction and Disabled Learners, Action on Access, available from:
http://www.actiononaccess.org/resources/files/resources__Induction_disabled_learners.pdf

Keenan, C. (2009b) Stepping Stones 2HE: Fresh thinking for introducing PDP to
freshers, In Buswell, J., & Becket, N. (eds) Enhancing student-centred learning in
business and management hospitality leisure sport tourism, Threshold Press Newbury

Kingston College, Kingston relationship application for data on learner engagement
(KRADLE), JISC, available from:
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/bce/kradleprojectplan.pdf

81

Kingston College, Kingston Uplift for Business Education (KUBE), JISC, available from:
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/whatwedo/programmes/elearningcapital/curriculumdelivery/kube.as
px

Kukulska-Hulme, A. (2007) Mobile Usability in Educational Contexts: What Have We
Learnt?, International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 8 (2) pp.1-16,
Athabasca University: Alberta, Canada

Laing, C. et al. (2005) Managing the Transition into Higher Education: An On-Line Spiral
Induction Programme, Active Learning in Higher Education: The Journal of the Institute
for Learning and Teaching 6 (3) pp. 243-255

Lawton, M. and Purnell, E. (2009) A little and often: unanticipated outcomes from an
ePortfolio evaluation impacting on early identification of risk and non submission of work,
Proceedings from the 6th LDHEN Symposium: Bournemouth University
"The Challenge of Learning Development", 6th and 7th April 2009, ALDin HE, available
from: http://www.aldinhe.ac.uk/bmth09/papers/Lawton_purnell_paper.pdf

Lee, Mark J. W. and Chan, A. (2007) Reducing the Effects of Isolation and promoting
Inclusivity for Distance Learners though podcasting, Turkish Online Journal of Distance
Education 8 (1) http://tojde.anadolu.edu.tr/tojde25/pdf/article_7.pdf

Leitch, S (2006) Prosperity for all in the global economy - world class skills, HMSO:
Norwich, available from: http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/leitch_review_index.htm
Linsey, T. et al. (2009) Mobilising remote student engagement (MoRSE), JISC, available
from:
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearning/morseinterimreport.doc

Little, A. et al. (2008) MSG Instant Messenger: Social Presence and Location for the "'Ad
Hoc' Learning Experience", Journal of Interactive Media in Education Institute of
Educational Technology, The Open University: Milton Keynes

Logan Rich, L. et al (2006) Collaborate, Engage, and Interact in Online Learning:
Successes with Wikis and Synchronous Virtual Classrooms at Athens State University,
Paper presented at the 14th Annual Instructional Technology Conference, March 30-1
April 2009
/bb/de.pdf

Madge, C. et al. (2009) Facebook, social integration and informal learning at university: 'It
is more for socialising and talking to friends about work than for actually doing work',
Learning, Media and Technology 34 (2) pp. 141-155

Manchester Metropolitan University Shock Absorber, Manchester Metropolitan University
http://www.shockabsorber.mmu.ac.uk/index.php

Marples, D. Using the VLE for weekly student progress assessment, University of Leeds,
available from:
http://www.sddu.leeds.ac.uk/casestudies/casestudy.php?ID=39&topics=20&search=yes

Mazer, J.P. et al. (2007) I'll See You On “Facebook”: The Effects of Computer-Mediated
Teacher Self-Disclosure on Student Motivation, Affective Learning, and Classroom
Climate, Communication Education 56 (1) pp.1-17

McBrien, J. L. et al. (2009) Virtual Spaces: Employing a Synchronous Online Classroom
to Facilitate Student Engagement in Online Learning, International Review of Research in
Open and Distance Learning 10 (3), Athabasca University: Alberta, Canada

82

McCarthy, J. et al. (2008) Supporting Students in the 21st Century!, Presented at the
Making Connections Conference 6 November 2008, available from:
http://mancons2.middlesex.wikispaces.net/file/view/Making_Connections_UEL.ppt

McConatha, D. et al. (2008) Mobile Learning in Higher Education: An Empirical
Assessment of a New Educational Tool, Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 7
(3) article 2
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/3e
/89/f7.pdf

McConnell, C. (2009) GO! Get Organised – an Evaluation of Pre-Arrival Online Induction
Materials that Support Business School Students to Prepare for HE Study, University of
Brighton, Higher Education Academy
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/business/projects/detail/trdg/2009-
10/trdg0910_McConnell_Brighton

McCracken, H. (2009) Best Practices in Supporting Persistence of Distant Education
Students through Integrated Web-Based Systems, Journal of College Student Retention:
Research, Theory & Practice 10 (1) Baywood Publishing Company: Amityville, NY

McDermott, A. and Witt, N. (2009) UsPaCe Project, JISC available from:
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearningcapital/uspacefinalreport.p
df

McNeil, T. (forthcoming) Facebook for induction and pre-induction, Kingston University

McShannon, J. (2001) Gaining Retention and Achievement for Students Program
(GRASP): A Faculty Development Program to Increase Student Success, ERDS,
available from:
/de/ea.pdf

Miller, A. S. (2009) Collaborating in Electronic Learning Communities, The University of
Texas, available from:
/cc/6f.pdf

Minocha, S. (2009) A study on the effective use of social software by further and higher
education in the UK to support student learning and engagement, JISC, available from:
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/projects/effective-use-of-social-software-in-
education-finalreport.pdf

Mitchell, P. et al. (n.d.) Easystart - E-tutor Support for Inducting Distance Learning
Students, The STAR Project (Student Transition and Retention), available from:
http://www.ulster.ac.uk/star/induction/mp_uu_easystart.pdf

Morris, N. P. et al. (2009) Using the VLE to prepare students for university life,
Proceedings from the LTC6, Sixth Annual Learning and Teaching Conference, University
of Leeds, 09 Jan 2009 and at the UK National Transition Conference, 24 April 2009,
University College London.

Munro, C. (2006) Transitioning from Traditional Classroom Training to Laptop-Facilitated
Learning: Responding to the Orientations and Preferences of the Net Generation,
College Quarterly 9 (1), available from:

83

http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=EJ83
5335

Namwar, Y. and Rastgoo, A. (2008) Weblog as a Learning Tool in Higher Education,
Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 9 (3) article 15
/58/ad.pdf

National Student Forum (2009) Annual Report, National Student Forum, available from:
www.nationalstudentforum.com

Ng, K. C. (2007) Replacing Face-to-Face Tutorials by Synchronous Online Technologies:
Challenges and Pedagogical Implications, International Review of Research in Open and
Distance Learning 8 (1), available from:
/08/70.pdf

Ni Bheachain, C. et al. (2005) Undergraduate students' perceptions of technology
supported learning, International Journal on E-Learning, available from:
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Undergraduate+students'+perceptions+of+technology-
supported+learning:...-a0138662588

Nix, J. et al. (2006) Mobile learning/SMS (Short Messaging System) academic
administration kit, available from: http://www.eden-
online.org/contents/publications/SMS/Ericsson.Mobile.A5.pdf

Oliver, M. (2008) e-Learning Engagement and Student Retention, Proceedings from the
Making Connections Conference 2008 available from:
http://mancons2.middlesex.wikispaces.net/file/view/Keynote%202%20-
%20Martin%20Oliver.ppt

Parson, V. et al. (2009) Educating an iPod generation: undergraduate attitudes,
experiences and understanding of vodcast and podcast use, Learning, Media, &
Technology 34 (3) pp. 215-228

Piatt, K. (2009) Using Alternate Reality Games to Support First Year Induction with
ELGG, Campus-Wide Information Systems 26 (4) pp. 313-322 Emerald: Massachusetts
http://www.emeraldinsight.com/Insight/ViewContentServlet?contentType=Article&Filenam
e=/published/emeraldfulltextarticle/pdf/1650260404.pdf
Plus project links http://katiepiatt.blogspot.com/2009/05/studentquest-2006-aka-who-is-
herring.html and http://katiepiatt.blogspot.com/2009/05/never-ending-uni-
quizhttpwwwbloggercomi.html

Prior, J. and Fitzgibbon, K. (2009) The Changing Nature of Students Social Engagement
with University, Paper presented at the HEA Annual Conference 2009 ‘The Future of the
Student Learning Experience', 30 June to 2 July 2009, University of Manchester,
available from:
ers/Julie_Prior_Paper.docx

Pugh, S. (n.d.) Online approaches to pre-arrival for students, University of Leeds
Learning and Teaching Bulletin, available from:
http://www.lts.leeds.ac.uk/bulletin/issue21/page6.php

Pugh, S and Taylor, S. (n.d.) Online pre-arrival for new undergraduates in MAPS,
University of Leeds available from:
http://www.sddu.leeds.ac.uk/casestudies/search_result.php?search=yes&tag=71

84

Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (2008) Outcomes from Institutional
Audit: Institutions' Support for e-learning, Second Series, available from:
http://www.qaa.ac.uk/reviews/institutionalAudit/outcomes/series2/SupportforElearning08.
pdf

Quinn, J. et al (2005) From life crisis to lifelong learning: Rethinking working-class 'drop
out' from higher education, Joseph Rowntree Foundation

Raths, D. (2009) Web 2.0 for R&R, Campus Technology 22 (5) pp.26-29 1105 Media,
Inc: Chatsworth, CA

Ravenscroft, A. et al. (2009) Digital Dialogue Games (DDGs): Cross-institutional
implementation and evaluation of digital dialogue games for inclusive and personalised
learning, JISC, available from:
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearningcapital/ddgsfinalreport.pdf

Reushle, S. and Loch, B. (2008) Conducting a Trial of Web Conferencing Software: Why,
How, and Perceptions from the Coalface, Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 9
(3) article 2
/8c/1f.pdf

Rismark, M. et al. (2007) Using Mobile Phones to Prepare for University Lectures:
Student's Experiences, Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education 6 (4) article 9
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/3c
/19/e9.pdf

Roberts, G. (2003) Joint consultation on the review of research assessment: consultation
by the UK funding bodies, available from: http://www.ra-review.ac.uk/reports/roberts.asp
Robinson, L. et al (2007) Preparing for University: What do students want to know?,
Proceedings from the Strategies for Student Retention (The STAR Conference), 14th -
15th June 2007, available from:
http://www.ulster.ac.uk/star/conf/presentations/LT8%203a%20Robinson.ppt

Robinson, L. et al. (2009) Supporting socialisation in the transition to university: A
potential use for on-line discussion boards, Radiography 16 (1) pp.48-55
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6WPP-4XG90F2-
2/2/14a3a152258e18639e94a6cec8a75464

Rowley, J. (2003) Retention: Rhetoric or realistic agendas for the future of higher
education? The International Journal of Educational Management 17(6):248-253

Salas, G. and Alexander, J.S. (2008) Technology for Institutional Enrolment,
Communication, and Student Success New Directions for Student Services, John Wiley
& Sons, Inc. Subscription Department: Hoboken, NJ
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/121572010/PDFSTART

Schroeder, J. and Greenbowe, T.J. (2009) The Chemistry of Facebook: Using Social
Networking to Create an Online Community for the Organic Chemistry Laboratory,
Innovate: Journal of Online Education 5 (4)
http://innovateonline.info/pdf/vol5_issue4/The_Chemistry_of_Facebook-
__Using_Social_Networking_to_Create_an_Online_Community_for_the_Organic_Chemi
stry_Laboratory.pdf

Scott, P. (1995) The Meaning of Mass Higher Education Buckingham, SRHE/Open
University Press

85

Selwyn, N. et al. (2004) Adults' use of ICTs for learning: reducing or increasing
educational inequalities?, Journal of Vocational Education & Training 56 (2) pp. 269-290

Selwyn, N. (2009) Faceworking: exploring students' education-related use of Facebook,
Learning, Media, & Technology 34 (2) pp. 157-174
http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=42208905&site=ehost-
live

Sharpe. R. et al. (2006) The undergraduate experience of blended e-learning: a review of
UK literature and practice, Higher Education Academy, available from:
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/ourwork/teachingandresearch/Shar
pe_Benfield_Roberts_Francis.pdf

Sharpe, R. et al. (2009) Learner Experiences of E-Learning Synthesis Report: Explaining
Learner Differences, JISC, available from:
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearningpedagogy/lxp2execsumma
ry.pdf

Sharpe, R. and Benfield, G. (2005) The student experience of e-learning in higher
education, Brookes Electronic Journal of Learning and Teaching 1(3)
http://bejlt.brookes.ac.uk/vol1/volume1issue3/academic/sharpe_benfield.pdf

Shroff, R.H. and Vogel, D. R. (2009) Assessing the Factors Deemed to Support
Individual Student Intrinsic Motivation in Technology Supported Online and Face-to-Face
Discussions, Journal of Information Technology Education 8
http://www.jite.org/documents/Vol8/JITEv8p059-085Shroff416.pdf

Slevin, J. (2008) E-Learning and the Transformation of Social Interaction in Higher
Education Learning, Media and Technology 33 (2) pp. 115-126, Routledge: Philadelphia

Smailes, J. et al. (2008) Virtual Mentor: an innovation in student support?, Proceedings of
the Making Connections Conference 6 November 2008, available from:
http://mancons2.middlesex.wikispaces.net/file/view/MakConn_JMSetal.ppt

The STAR Project http://www.ulster.ac.uk/star

Steele, P. (2008) Technologies Such as Wikis in the Classroom, available from:
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/3d
/43/a5.pdf

Stone, A. (2004) Mobile Scaffolding: An Experiment in Using SMS Text Messaging to
Support First Year University Students, Proceedings of the IEEE International
Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies pp.405-409, IEEE Computer Society

Stone, L. (2009a) Higher Education Lifelong Learning Opportunities (HELLO, JISC,
available from:
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/institutionalinnovation/workforcedev/
hellobaselinereport.pdf

Stone, L. (2009b) WoLF Project (Work Based Learners in Further Education): How
Technology can motivate learners, Proceedings from the JISC Conference 2009:
Opening Digital Doors, 24 March 2009, Edinburgh International Conference Centre,
available from:

86

Sturgeon, C. M. and Walker, C. (2009) Faculty on Facebook: Confirm or Deny?,
Proceedings from the14th Annual Instructional Technology Conference, Middle
Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, Tenneesse, March 29-31 2009, available
from:
/ad/0e.pdf

Toman, N. et al. (2005) The Learning Culture of Students in Contemporary Mass Higher
Education, Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference - What a Difference a
Pedagogy Makes: Researching Lifelong Learning & Teaching Conference (2005) Centre
for Research in Lifelong Learning

Traxler, J. and Riordan, B. (2003) Evaluating the Effectiveness of Retention Strategies.
Using SMS, WAP and WWW Student Support, Proceedings of 4th annual conference,
54-5. Galway, Ireland: ITSN Centre for Information and Computer Science, Higher
Education Academy, available from:
http://www.ics.heacademy.ac.uk/Events/conf2003/John%20Traxler.pdf

Trinder, K. et al. (2008) Learning from digital natives: bridging formal and informal
learning (Final Report), Higher Education Academy, available from:
http://www.academy.gcal.ac.uk/ldn/LDNFinalReport.pdf

UCISA (2008) 2008 Survey of Technology Enhanced Learning for Higher Education in
the UK, UCISA, available from:
http://www.ucisa.ac.uk/publications/~/media/groups/tlig/vle_surveys/TEL%20survey%202
008%20pdf.ashx

UK Government Further and Higher Education Act (1992) (c.13) HMSO: Norwich

University of Birmingham, Using technology to support student induction, University of
Birmingham, available from:
http://weblearn.bham.ac.uk/designer_guidelines/Support%20Student%20Induction.pdf

University of Bradford Develop Me!, University of Bradford
http://www.brad.ac.uk/developme/

University of Bradford SaPRA online: Skills and Personal Reflective Activity, University of
Bradford http://www.brad.ac.uk/developme/sapra/

University of Central Lancashire Online Community-based Support for Student
Transitions into HE, EvidenceNet, available from: http://evidencenet.pbworks.com/e-
Learning+Research+Projects+200809#UniversityofCentralLancashireOnlineCommunityb
asedSupportforStudentTransitionsintoHE

University of Central Lancashire TAG – The Alternative Guide to UCLan, JISC, available
from:
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/institutionalinnovation/taguclanproje
ctplan.pdf

University of Glasgow, Student Network, University of Glasgow
www.gla.ac.uk/studentnetwork

University of Hull, Academic writing/study skills resources, University of Hull,
http://www2.hull.ac.uk/student/study_advice/studyskillsresources.aspx

87

University of Leeds ESSL Study Skills Pages, University of Leeds, available from:
http://www.sddu.leeds.ac.uk/casestudies/casestudy.php?ID=72&term=transition&search=
yes

University of Leeds, Leeds for Life, University of Leeds,
https://leedsforlife.leeds.ac.uk/About.aspx

University of Leicester Informal Mobile Podcasting and Learning Adaptation for Transition
(IMPALA4T), EvidenceNet, available from: http://evidencenet.pbworks.com/Informal-
Mobile-Podcasting-and-Learning-Adaptation-for-Transition-%28IMPALA4T%29

University of Reading Student Stories, University of Reading
http://www.stickfast.co.uk/demo/student_stories/visuals/v05/index.html

University of Sussex Student Personal Learning And Social Homepages SPLASH,
University of Sussex http://splash.sussex.ac.uk/

Walton, G. (2009) Engaging sport and exercise science students via participation using
online collaborative learning (OCL), Higher Education Academy, available from:
ers/Geoff_Walton_Paper.doc

Wang, J. and Fang, Y. (2005) Benefits of Cooperative Learning in Weblog Networks,
unpublished work, available from:
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1b
/c4/82.pdf

Warnes, A. and Warman, L. (2008) E-valU8: on-line evaluation of the individual student’s
learning experience, Proceedings from the Higher Education Academy Annual
Conference 2008, 2nd July 2008, available from:
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/events/annualconference/2008/Ann
eMarie_Warnes.doc

Watling, S. (2009) 'Getting Started': Pre-Induction Access to Higher Education,
Proceedings of World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare,
and Higher Education 2009 (pp. 2232-2235), Chesapeake, VA: AACE
http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/1916/1/Getting_Started_PreInduction_access_to_higher_educ
ation.pdf

Whittaker, R. (2008) Quality Enhancement Themes: The First Year Experience,
Transitions to and during the first year, Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education,
available from:
http://www.enhancementthemes.ac.uk/documents/firstyear/Transition%20-%20Final.pdf

Whitton, N. (2009) Alternate Reality Games for Orientation, Socialisation and Induction
(ARGOSI, JISC, available from:
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/usersandinnovation/argosifinalreport
.pdf

Wilford, B. et al. (2009) Supporting students on clinical placement using podcasting,
blogging and virtual chat, Taken from Fanghanel, J., Rege Colet, N. & Bernstein, D. (eds)
(2009) London Scholarship of Teaching and Learning 7th International Conference
(2008) Proceedings, Volume 4, City University London available from:
http://www.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/York/documents/ourwork/EvidenceNet/sotl_proceedi
ngs/wilford_tiddandward.pdf

88

Williams, A. (2009) Kingston access to science teaching across new and emerging
technologies (KASTANET), JISC, available from:
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearningcapital/kastanetfinalreport.
doc

Williams, J. and Chinn, S.J. (2009) Using Web 2.0 to Support the Active Learning
Experience, Journal of Information Systems Education 20 (2) pp. 165-174 Journal of
Information Systems Education (JISE), Appalachian State University, Boone, NC

Wilson, J. and Butterfield, R. (2009) Supporting Transition into Higher Education:
Comparing Level 3 and Level 4 Vocational Students’ Experiences of Technology
Enhanced Learning, Higher Education Academy, available from:
http://evidencenet.pbworks.com/Supporting-transition-into-HE%3A-Comparing-Level-3-
and-4-vocational-students'-experiences-of-TEL

Wingate, U. (2007) A Framework for Transition: Supporting 'Learning to Learn' in Higher
Education, Higher Education Quarterly 61 (3) pp. 391-405
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/117999656/PDFSTART

Wozniak, H. et al. (2009) Stepping through the Orientation Looking Glass: A Staged
Approach for Postgraduate Students, Australasian Journal of Educational Technology 25
(2) pp. 221-234

Xie, Y. and Sharma, P. (2005) Students' Lived Experience Of Using Weblogs In a Class:
An Exploratory Study, Association for Educational Communications and Technology,
available from:
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1b
/a6/dc.pdf

Yorke, M. (1997) Undergraduate Non-completion in Higher Education in England, Report
1, HEFCE: London.

Yousuf, M. I. (2007) Effectiveness of Mobile Learning in Distance Education, Turkish
Online Journal of Distance Education 8 (4) article 9
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/3a
/e7/73.pdf

89

Compiled by the University of Bradford

In collaboration with the Evaluation of Learners' Experiences of e-learning Special
Interest Group (ELESIG) http://elesig.ning.com/

Acknowledgments
Special thanks to Dr Lesley Diack for her help in completing the literature review.
Thanks also to the ELESIG management team and wider ELESIG community for
their input into the process.

Funded by the Higher Education Academy and EvidenceNet

90

How can technology be used to improve the learner experience at points of transition?

More Related Content

What's hot (17)

Similar to How can technology be used to improve the learner experience at points of transition? (20)

More from Becka Colley-Foster (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

How can technology be used to improve the learner experience at points of transition?