Radiography (2010) 16, 48e55

ava i lab le a t www.sc iencedi rec t .com

journa l homepage : www.e lsev i er . com/ loca te / rad i

Supporting socialisation in the transition touniversity: A potential use for on-linediscussion boards

Leslie Robinson a, Pauline Reeves b,*, Fred Murphy a, Peter Hogg a

a Directorate of Radiography, School of Health Care Professions, University of Salford, UKb Wrexham, Wales, UK

Received 18 March 2009; revised 13 August 2009; accepted 27 September 2009Available online 17 October 2009

KEYWORDSAdult learning;Communication;CAL computer AidedLearning;Retention;Networking;Socialisation

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ44 1E-mail address: pjanec@aol.com (

1078-8174/$ - see front matter ª 200doi:10.1016/j.radi.2009.09.008

Abstract Background: Promoting socialisation for students entering Higher Education isdesirable on two grounds. In the first instance it facilitates the processes of student collabo-ration which, according to sociocultural pedagogies, is important for effective learning.Secondly, it provides a supportive social network, enhancing the student experience whichis thought to reduce the risk of attrition. These two drivers provided the rationale for our work.Method: Using the Blackboard Virtual Learning Environment, two on-line discussion boardswere used during the transition and induction period for the BSc (Hons) Diagnostic Radiographyprogramme at the University of Salford. The aim was to facilitate socialisation betweenstudents about to embark on the programme and current students and staff. The use of discus-sion boards was evaluated using a mixed methods approach. Statistical data regarding postingswas analysed. Posts and focus group comments were subject to content analysis.Results: The discussion boards were ‘hit’ 5718 times and there were 280 posts. A small numberof students did not post any messages. There was evidence of the key features of on-linesocialisation which were; establishing an identity; getting to know others; discovering andcontributing to communication etiquette; and developing supporting and trusting relation-ships.Conclusion: The discussion boards were deemed a successful method of providing socialisationduring transition and induction. There were some limitations with discussion board layout andfunctionality and a blog, with its chronological layout and capability to display visual cues suchas emoticons may be more effective.

The limited participation by some students may provide a means by which to identify‘at-risk’ students before the start of the course and this would be an interesting area forfurther study.ª 2009 The College of Radiographers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

978 313244.P. Reeves).

9 The College of Radiographers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

A potential use for on-line discussion boards 49

Introduction and rationale

In designing programmes of study educationalists need toprovide a culture that will facilitate socialisation andprovide students with emotional support.1e3 In other words,students must feel emotionally receptive to the learningprocess if they are to get the best from it. The socialdimension of learning requires a context that is conducive tocollaboration and co-operation with others (students andteachers) thus the development of strong peer supportgroups is important. It has been argued that universitieshave a moral obligation to carry out these functions.4

Failure to do this can result in a poor student experienceand, worse still, lead to an increase in student attrition.5,6

Losing students from higher education before they havecompleted their programme of study is undesirable asresearch has shown that students who do not complete theirstudy of higher education feel stigmatised.7 In addition,there are financial penalties when students withdraw(particularly for students on NHS-funded programmes) andthis has a detrimental effect on manpower planning.

Nevertheless, the number of students leaving universitybefore completing their programme or award is on theincrease. Attrition for diagnostic radiography students hasrisen from 27% in 2005 to nearly 37% in 2008. The picture forradiotherapy is bleaker still with nearly 48.7% of studentscurrently dropping out before graduating.8

The context of the study

The BSc (Hons) Diagnostic Radiography Programme is a full-time three-year course of study, principally delivered viaproblem-based learning (PBL). The institution currentlyrecruits 56 radiography students per year, approximately70% of whom are mature (over 21).

In the first week of September 2007, we provided thefacility for students who had an unconditional offer (andwere due to register later in the month) to have their ownon-line social networking space. The purpose was to facil-itate student socialisation before their first day at univer-sity. We used an on-line asynchronous ‘discussion board’,a feature of the Blackboard Virtual Learning Environment(B-VLE). Asynchronous discussion boards differ from on-line‘chat rooms’ in that messages that are posted need to be‘opened’ to be read, unlike a chat room which displaysmessages and responses in a dynamic fashion. Manyuniversities now use applications such as Facebook� forthese purposes.9 At the time, however, the use of suchapplications was not as widespread. It was also noted thatFacebook was unregulated, with a culture unrelated to thatof teaching and learning. ‘Blackboard’ refers to a family ofsoftware applications designed to enhance teaching andlearning which is widely used in higher education institu-tions. This software was provided and supported by theUniversity and would be used by the students once theystarted the programme, thus linking the concept of‘socialisation’ directly to learning. Students were informedabout the Blackboard discussion board throughout theperiod between A-level results day in August and inductionweek using a number of approaches: flyers sent in theuniversity joining packs, messages to the students’ new

university email accounts and as a last resort, (for studentswho had not made themselves visible on-line) messages topersonal email addresses as they appeared on the student’sUCAS forms.

Training in the use of Blackboard was either on-line (forthose students who were comfortable with their IT skills) orvia a study day held at the University in the first week ofSeptember. This was arranged and provided by theuniversity information and learning services department(library staff). It was provided as an event for all Schoolstudents (not just radiography) as part of a funded projectto improve transition information and support.

We provided two discussion boards; one which started atthe beginning of September 2007 and ran for as long as thestudents wanted to use it, the other ran for three hoursduring a morning in September as part of the induction B-VLE training session specific to the radiography programme(see Fig. 1). The provision of additional face-to-faceelements mirrors that in a study of on-line learning social-isation at the University of Glamorgan.10 The researchersfelt that an initial face-to-face meeting would enhancesocialisation and their results found that this contributedstrongly; in fact more so than the on-line processes.

We facilitated the discussion boards by postingmessages, answering questions and welcoming newmembers. Existing students were emailed twice and askedto post messages. Third year students who had volunteeredto mentor the first years were asked verbally in theirmentor training sessions to visit the discussion boards andpost messages. Academics and clinical tutors were asked atseveral staff meetings and at the programme team meetingto do the same.

Literature review

The term socialisation has been defined as follows;

‘The process of learning one’s culture and how to livewithin it’.11

In this regard we are referring to helping individualstudents become members of an already establishedculture (i.e. that of the university) and also with thedevelopment of social relations with other new students tofoster formation of their own social group. This process isreferred to as secondary socialisation. Radiography andother allied health students undergo two separateprocesses of secondary socialisation when they begin theirdegree courses; that referred to above, but also a processof socialisation into their chosen profession. There isa developing literature on the process of professionalisationin allied health.12e15 We would argue that socialisation intothe university culture will aid in later socialisation into theculture of the chosen profession. The stressful nature ofhealth professions courses, with the twin pressures ofeducation and clinical environments, has been documentedand educators must be mindful of these pressures.16

Measures to promote socialisation

The reasons for withdrawal from university courses arecomplex; however, they can be split broadly into two

On-line Features Face-to-face features

Last week August 2007 Students with unconditional places sent

instructions for joining the Discussion Board & invite to face-to-face training if required

5th September 2007 First posting from year tutor

5th September 2007 Optional face-to-face

training

Discussion

board run as dictated by participants

19th September 2007 Timetabled Blackboard introduction session

incorporating the discussion boards Students could participate from home…

… or attend the university to be

supervised during the session

Discussion

board run as dictated by participants

Transition period

(pre-entry)

Induction period (post-entry)

Figure 1 Discussion boards provided to facilitate socialisation during transition and induction. Parallel on-line and face-facesupport options were available.

50 L. Robinson et al.

categories: academic and social.5 Fig. 2 is a simplifiedversion of Tinto’s model of student departure. It shows thata number of factors contribute to a student’s decision toleave university before completion. These start with pre-entry attributes. For instance, it has been shown studentsfrom lower socio-economic groups and those who are firstgeneration to attend university are more likely to leave thecourse, possibly due to the lack of social support networksat home ([UK] National Audit Office).

The transition period is the time between the studentleaving their college/school or previous place of employ-ment and starting university. Several studies have advo-cated pro-active initiatives to promote social integration

18Internal and

external attributes (e.g. entry

quals, parental experience of HE, individual

attributes)

Aspiration and

commitment

Academic experiences,

success, support

Social Integration

Decision to stay or leave

Pre-entry factors Post-entry factors

Figure 2 Model of student departure adapted from Ref. 18.

during this ‘transition’ period, suggesting that suchmeasures can have a significant impact on pre-emptingdifficulties and enhancing the student experience.4,17,18

Early formation of social support networks and peer groupscan help the student develop a sense of belonging,19,20

improving integration and possibly reducing ‘drop-out’ inthe first year where it is most common.17 Using on-linemethods may add a further dimension to such approachesdue to their flexibility of access. Mature students (who mayhave work and/or family commitments) and those who livesome distance from the university would be enabled toparticipate through these means thus ensuring inclusivityfor all.

Providing and evaluating on-line socialisationactivities

A number of authors have written widely about theimportance of facilitating socialisation for studentsstudying on-line6,10,21e23 but perhaps the most oft cited isthat of Salmon.23 Salmon describes a sequential 5-stagemodel of on-line learning:

(1) access and motivation,(2) on-line socialisation,(3) information exchange,(4) knowledge construction, and(5) development.

A potential use for on-line discussion boards 51

Salmon argues that on-line programmes of learning mustbe structured to enable students to pass through eachstage before having the skills and capability to go on to thenext. It is perhaps logical to appreciate that basic needsrelated to physical/technical access must come first but,perhaps more surprisingly, Salmon argues that this must befollowed by tasks related to socialisation; therefore clearlyestablishing the imperative of socialisation, describing thisstage as:

‘‘Familiarising and providing bridges between cultural,social and learning environments.’’23

During this stage, it was argued that students needed to;identify with each other, develop a sense of purpose anddirection and establish behavioural ground rules. Withoutthis stage, it was suggested that students would be lesslikely to succeed with the more cognitive processes ofinformation exchange and knowledge construction.23

Other authors have looked in more detail at this social-isation stage. Hewson and Hughes, for instance, proposedfour specific social tasks that students need to accomplishin order to fully participate in the educational activities ofa group, and suggested these were equally important foron-line or face-to-face groups.6 These tasks were:

� establishing an identity;� getting to know others;� discovering and contributing to a communication

etiquette;� developing supporting and trusting relationships.

These specific outcomes for on-line social developmentformed a useful framework upon which to base our analysissince they were specific and therefore easy to identify andclosely reflected the more well-established 5-stage Salmonmodel (see next section).6

Methodology

This research was both descriptive and exploratory andused a mixed methods approach, broadly analogous to thatused in another study.23,24 We used both quantitative andqualitative approaches. Quantitative data were obtainedusing the integral statistics tool within Blackboard to gatherstatistics about numbers of times messages had beendeposited (‘posts’) and the number of times messages hadbeen read (‘hits’).

Ethnographic analysis

The postings on the two discussion boards were subjectedto qualitative content analysis, similar to the method usedin another study whereby the content of discussion boardpostings was explicitly analysed in a search for evidence ofsocialisation.10 In this case the content was categorisedusing the four student needs of on-line socialisation asidentified above.6

The posts were downloaded from Blackboard intoMicrosoft Word and then the postings from staff andstudents in the II and III years were separated out foranalysis. The first year student postings were then saved as

text files and imported into MAXQDA software for contentanalysis using the four headings above. MAXQDA is a soft-ware program specifically designed for qualitative dataanalysis.

Focus groups

Qualitative data about the student experience was gath-ered through the use of focus groups. Speaking directly tothe students who had been involved allowed us to exploreissues in more depth than questionnaires would allow.Focus groups were a logical choice of method for this study,given that they explicitly encourage group interaction,25,26

since the overall aim of the project was to examine groupsocialisation.

We conducted two focus group meetings approximately6 weeks after the students started; one with students whosaid they had used the discussion boards and one with thosewho said they had not (six students in each group). The useof two groups was to allow those who did not make anypostings (‘dissenters’) to have a voice.26 Focus group datawas captured on a flip chart by the facilitators so thatstudents could verify their responses as they were beingwritten down. These notes were then transcribed intoa Word document so that the researchers could analyse thefindings independently before comparing theirinterpretations.

Data analysis

Analysis and presentation of the quantitative data wasdescriptive only. This is because our work was inductive inthat we were attempting to uncover student experiencerather than test a hypothesis regarding causal relationships.

Analysis of the qualitative data was driven by thetheoretical framework outlined above6 which combinedtheoretical principles of on-line socialisation and grouplearning theory into four ‘tasks’ or socialisation needs:

(1) Establishing an identity;(2) Getting to know others;(3) Discovering and contributing to a communication

etiquette;(4) Developing supporting and trusting relationships.

This approach to interrogating data to identify whethera set of pre-defined factors or typologies is present isdescribed elsewhere.27 It is quicker than a more groundedapproach where the analysis requires repeated interroga-tion of the data until themes emerge and becomesaturated.28

Ethical considerations

The University’s ethics committee endorsed the view thatthis study comprised evaluation of teaching and learningand did not require formal ethical approval. All studentswho participated in the focus groups gave permission forthe findings to be disseminated. We explained in the focusgroups that we wanted to evaluate how well the processhad gone for them to see if we could improve the process

0

5

10

15

20

Teens 20's 30's 40'sAge ranges

gn

it

so

p

fo

.

so

Ns High

Low

Average

Figure 3 Postings by age range.

52 L. Robinson et al.

for subsequent years. We also explained that we would liketo share our practice with other educators and might like towrite this up. We explained that all responses would remainanonymous. They gave verbal consent for this and weregiven the option to leave if they did not want to continuewith their participation on these grounds. No-one wantedto leave.

Results

In this section we present a description of the discussionboard activity (see Table 1). We have not detailed the twodiscussion boards separately since the aim of both activitieswas the same, i.e. to provide socialisation opportunities.

Quantitative data

Analysis of quantitative data showed that the discussionboards were extensively used (See Table 1). Overall therewere 5718 hits into the discussion boards, with 280 posts.Nine of the current students from years two and three ofthe programme posted 16 messages, averaging 1.77 postseach. These students were mainly third year mentors fromindividual hospitals, introducing themselves to studentsprior to clinical placements.

Nine members of the academic establishment and oneclinical tutor from a placement hospital posted 63 messagesin total. However, one of the lecturers was also the firstyear tutor and many of their posts involved replying toqueries. That one individual posted 34 messages; a further2 members of staff posted 18 times between them; if theinput of those three members of staff is disregarded thenthe average staff posting was 1.5 messages.

The first year students posted 201 messages of which sixwere posted anonymously. There were also 13 blank post-ings, presumably sent in error.

Analysis by age showed that those in their thirties(Fig. 3) posted the highest average number (6.666)compared with those in their teens (3.5 average; althoughthis was skewed by one person who posted 11 times and theothers only once each); those in their twenties (averagefour postings each) and those in their forties/fifties(average four posts each).

Table 1 Quantitative data both discussion boardscombined between 4 and 19 September 2007.

Number of hits across bothdiscussion boards

5718

Total number of posts 280Number of new students

posting messages41 of 56 (76%)

Number of new studentsreading messages

56 of 56 (100%)

Number of staff posting messages 9 of 25 (36%)Number of second and third year

students posting messages9 of 94 (9.89%)

Anonymous postings 7 of 280 (2.5%)Blank postings 13 of 280 (4.64%)

Analysis by gender (Fig. 4) showed little difference; 30female 1st years posted an average of five messages eachwith the range being 1e19 messages. Eleven males postedan average of 4.66 messages each with a range of 1e14postings.

Qualitative data

In order to assess the usefulness of this dialogue in terms offostering socialisation it was necessary to talk to thestudents and analyse their postings. Discussion boardpostings and focus group responses have been representedin italics. In order to represent the student voice authen-tically, no attempt has been made to edit for typographicalor grammatical errors. The results are presented using thefour socialisation needs6 identified as subheadings.

Establishing an identityStudents appeared keen to proffer personal informationrelated particularly to their name (e.g. one studentrequesting that she should be called ‘‘Sue rather thanSusan’’), age, the town they live in or come from, previousjobs (mature students) or college qualifications (18-year-olds) and families. Students also used this opportunity toexpress their feelings about starting the course.

Well at the grand old age of 43, I could quite possibly beTHE oldest mature student ever on this course!!!!

So sounds like I should fit in with all crazy bunch there!!(I felt so much better after reading message board!! e youall sound completely barking!!!!)

Some students also included photographs of themselvesor their families and/or friends however this was only afterbeing invited to do so at the commencement of the seconddiscussion board during induction week.

0

5

10

15

20

High Low AverageRanges of postings

No

s.o

f p

ostin

gs males

females

Figure 4 Analysis by gender.

A potential use for on-line discussion boards 53

It was apparent that establishing the ‘right’ identity wasimportant. In the focus groups, students mentionedwanting to ‘‘create a good first impression on otherstudents and on staff’’ and commented that on-linecommunication permitted a longer time to get this rightbefore presenting their identity ‘‘you can plan what you aregoing to type’’.

It has been suggested that people may be more likely todisclose personal information on-line than they would face-to-face.29 This was reflected in the comments from ourgroup who said they could ‘‘divulge more on-line’’ and theelectronic method helped them to ‘‘overcome issues ofshyness’’. However some students failed to post messagesbut confessed to having read the messages from otherstudents suggesting they wanted to find out about otherpeople but were reluctant to share information aboutthemselves, ‘‘I’m a private person’’ and ‘‘too much isrevealed to others on-line’’. These participants arereferred to elsewhere as ‘lurkers’ or ‘browsers’ witha suggestion that ‘lurking’ is a natural part of socialisationfor some people.23 As in face-to-face situations there arethose who prefer to remain on the periphery until they feelcomfortable to take the plunge.

Getting to know othersWhen asked why they engaged with the discussion boards,students wanted to ‘‘find out more about the people’’including other students, mentors, staff and clinical tutors.Most students said they visited the site regularly ‘‘everyfew hours’’ to find out who else had joined.

Despite the apparent success of the discussion boards forenabling students to get to know each other, studentswanted to enhance this with face-to-face socialisation. Onestudent started the following thread:

‘‘Anyone think we should plan a night out, or at least anafternoon drink in the pub to get to know each othera bit better?’’

Fifteen other students responded positively to thissuggestion. Furthermore, focus group participants notedthat the discussion board provided an ‘‘‘ice-breaker’ forthe face-to-face induction day’’ thus placing it in an on-going socialisation process.

Discovering and contributing to a communicationetiquetteA number of ‘netiquette’ principles for on-line social spaceshave been proposed such as agreeing on the formality ofwriting style, raising awareness of the need to consider thatthe message is both text-based and widely distributed andacknowledging others before disagreeing with them.23 Thissame study argued that new participants should be pointedtowards codes of practice. Although we set no such codes,we did not encounter any evidence of offensive behaviouron our discussion boards.

Developing supporting and trusting relationshipsIt was difficult to identify whether supporting and trustingrelationships were being developed, possibly due to theshort time frame within which the discussion boards ranbefore being taken over by face-to-face methods; researchwith on-line courses indicate that the development of trust

is likely to take longer than this.6 However, it was clear thatstudents were expecting a degree of trust with regard tothe personal information that they were prepared to sharewith each other especially considering anonymous postingswere not permitted. One student was prepared to displaya degree of emotional vulnerability:

I’m just a big kid at heart but don’t be fooled I’m alsoterribly, terribly sensitive and insecure, so, go easy onme please’’

This supports the suggestion that students disclose morepersonal information on-line in attempt to make up for thelack of visual cues that would normally enhance verbalcommunication.6 However our students do not remainhidden behind an impersonal on-line persona, but comeface-to-face with their peers and lecturers for the rest ofthe programme. It may therefore be useful to monitorlevels of disclosure in the future and encourage students tosee the transitional socialisation space in the context of thetime they will be spending face-to-face.

Discussion

It is interesting to note that the new students carried onusing the discussion boards as a method of communicationfor three months following the tutor-facilitated sessions.This supports the suggestion in another study that on-linesocial spaces should remain open to students beyond theinitial stage of socialisation.23 This was referring to whollyon-line programmes however, where such social spacesmay be the only form of communication. For our studentson-line methods were replaced with face-to-face commu-nication thought to be superior due to the addition of non-verbal cues. Nevertheless, our students continued tocommunicate on-line.

The quantitative analysis of activity on the discussionboards has shown that they are an effective means ofencouraging transitional students to engage in dialogueprior to registration at the University. Engagement of staffand current students was less successful. Commentselicited from students in their focus group however, showedthat this input achieved its aims in making them feelwelcomed and in making them aware of the cultural andsocial norms. We therefore believe that the quality of inputis more important than recruiting large numbers of staffand [existing] students. Instead, efforts should be directedtowards advising those staff who are involved how tomaximise the effectiveness of their postings such aspromoting respect between individuals and helpingstudents with similar interests to come together,23 beingfriendly and welcoming,30 encouraging appropriate on-linebehaviour (so-called ‘netiquette),31 and modelling desiredbehaviours.32

Although the discussion boards appeared to be success-ful in promoting socialisation during the transition perioda number of students did not post messages. The reasonsthey gave tended to be related to technical issues such asan inability to log-on, passwords not working and notreceiving passwords in time for the pre-induction discussionboard. However, all students had passwords by the time thesecond discussion board ran and still there were a number

54 L. Robinson et al.

of ‘lurkers’. It is therefore unclear whether lack of partic-ipation was wholly, or only partially, related to logisticalproblems associated with passwords. The first stage of themodel of teaching and learning on-line is ‘access andmotivation’ where new participants are provided with theskills and support to access and use the technology.23 Whilstsome training had been provided for new participants notall took up this offer. Motivation is also a feature of stageone and research suggests it is important to ensure studentsare made aware of the purpose and benefits of participa-tion.23 This was echoed by some of the non-participants inour study who said they did not realise the benefits ofjoining in.

We must remember that some individuals find thedevelopment of group and one-to-one relationships diffi-cult and one study found that students exhibiting suchtraits were less likely to adapt to, and succeed at,university.18 The discussion board might therefore beuseful for identifying student needs; those who do notengage due to lack of confidence in IT could be directed toIT skills support whereas individual traits related to teamand interpersonal difficulties would be approacheddifferently.

It is also suggested that postings should be displayed ina serial or chronological order, again to reflect the wayverbal dialogue is conducted and to enable the reader toappreciate the context within which each comment ismade.6 The B-VLE discussion board does not follow thisformat but instead incorporates comments within a seriesof threads which makes searching for responses difficult.Blackboard does have a blogging facility however, whichrecords dialogue in a chronological order and this might bea more appropriate option.

We did not analyse the time taken for the authors tofacilitate the discussion boards. We tended to visit the siteeveryday as we felt this was important to ensure that therewas a timely response to a student’s posting and thus tomaintain their interest, an approach advocated else-where.23 This commitment may be deemed a limitingfeature of the activity, however it has been shown thatefforts invested in effective early socialisation save time inthe long run as students feel supported and settled duringthe rest of the programme.5,15

The benefits of supplementing on-line socialisation withface-to-face methods have been reported in the liter-ature.9,33e35 However, these authors are concerned withprogrammes of study which are delivered wholly on-lineand where the students never benefit from the rich visualcues and gestures that enhance the meaning of the writtenword. Contemporary on-line programmes have beendescribed as brief intensive face-to-face interventionspunctuating longer periods of study facilitated by learningtechnologies.21

Our three-year BSc (Hons) Diagnostic Radiography Pro-gramme is not an on-line course but follows a more tradi-tional classroom-based delivery. The aim of our transitionaldiscussion board was to start development of social inter-action early in order to enhance the traditional face-to-face methods of induction that happen later on. This thenappears to be a novel application of on-line discussionboards where on-line methods are followed by face-to-faceinteraction.

Conclusion and recommendations

Providing students with an on-line social space will not, ofitself, facilitate socialisation.23 An effective social space,such as our discussion board must be designed to developthe key features of socialisation which we have explored inthis paper; establishing an identity; getting to know others;discovering and contributing to a communication etiquette;and developing supporting and trusting relationships.6 Thetechnology available should enable students to make up forthe non-verbal cues that support face-to-face interactionsthrough the addition of photographs, images and emoti-cons. Facilitation is important to prompt students toparticipate. This is enabled through a number of means suchas; highlighting the benefits of participation, modelling ofcommunication norms (formality and content), providingsupporting welcoming emails to each new participant andregular postings.

The use of discussion boards has been shown to enhancethe transition period for our students in terms of developingsocialisation and the literature suggests this may havea positive effect in terms of student retention. This initia-tive has been presented as an example of good practice inteaching and learning. Whilst the discussion boards willcontinue to be monitored as part of induction and normalcourse evaluation, a shift in the institution’s researchpriorities mean that plans for a prospective research studyhave had to be abandoned.

The Blackboard Discussion Board function is not ideal forour purposes since a number of key features are missing andthe threaded layout makes it difficult to follow thechronology of a discussion; however, if students are to beusing Blackboard on their programme it is useful for helpingto them to become familiar with the software. It is inten-ded to explore the possibility of using ‘Facebook’ or similarprior to the 2009 intake.

Facilitating discussion boards does not require a largecomplement of staff and students but those who areinvolved should be developed to maximise the effective-ness of their input.

Finally, a small number of students may not engage inthe process. This might prove useful in identifying at riskstudents who require closer pastoral support once theybegin the programme.

References

1. Engestrom, Y Launis, K. Center for Activity Theory and Devel-opmental Work Research; (2003/2004). Available from: http://www.edu.helsinki.fi/activity/ [accessed 23/1/07].

2. Illeris K. Towards a contemporary and comprehensive theory oflearning. International Journal of Lifelong Education 2003;22(4):396e406.

3. Vygostsky LS. Mind in society: the development of highermental processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press;1978.

4. Darlaston-Jones D, Cohen L, Haunold S, Pike L, Young A,Drew N. The retention and persistence support (RAPS) project.A Transition Initiative Issues in Educational Research 2003;13:31e52.

5. Tinto V. In: Leaving College: rethinking the causes and cures ofstudent attrition. 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press;1993.

A potential use for on-line discussion boards 55

6. Hewson L, Hughes C. Social processes and pedagogy in onlinelearning. AACE Journal 2005;13(2):99e125.

7. National Audit Office,Staying the course: the retention ofstudents in higher education HMSO; 2007. Available from:http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/06-;07/0607616es.pdf [accessed 15/6/08].

8. College of Radiographers. Approval and accreditation boardannual report. The Society and College of Radiographers.Available from: http://www.sor.org/; 2008 [accessed 1/03/09].

9. Birmingham City University extended induction strategy facebook,http://www.bcu.ac.uk/docs/downloads/celt/Birmingham_City_University_extended_induction_strategy_final_version.doc.

10. Jones N, Peachey P. The development of socialization in an on-line learning environment. Journal of Interactive OnlineLearning 2005;3(3).

11. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialization [accessed 15/01/09].12. Reeves P, Murphy F. Oral history as a technique for the

professionalisation of student radiographers. Journal of Diag-nostic Radiography & Imaging 1998;2:97e104.

13. Richardson B. Professional development: 1. Professionalsocialisation and professionalisation. Physiotherapy 1999;85(9):461e7.

14. Sparkes VJ. Profession and professionalisation: part 1: role andidentity of undergraduate physiotherapy educators. Physio-therapy 2002;88(8):481e92.

15. Decker S, Iphofen R. Developing the profession of radiography:making use of oral history. Radiography 2005;11(4):262e71.

16. Lindop E. Individual stress among nurses in training: why someleave while others stay. Nurse Education Today 1991;11(2):110e20.

17. Yorke M. Transition into higher education: some implicationsfor the ‘employability agenda. Learning and Teaching SupportNetwork Generic Centre; 2003.

18. Tinto V. Learning better together: the impact of learningcommunities on student success in higher education. Journalof Institutional Research 2000;9(1):48e53.

19. Boute VM, Pancer SM, Pratt MW, Adams G, Bimie-Lefcovitch S,Polivy J, et al. The importance of friends e friendship andadjustment among 1st-year university students. Journal ofAdolescent Research 2007;22(6):665e89.

20. Marmarosh CL, Markin RD. Group and personal attachments: twois better than one when predicting college adjustment. GroupDynamics e Theory Research and Practice 2007;11(3):153e64.

21. Mason R, Rennie F. E-learning and social networking handbook.Routledge, Oxon: Resources for Higher Education; 2008.

22. Nisbet D. Measuring the quantity and quality of online discus-sion group interaction. The Robert Gordon University Journalof eLiteracy 2004;1:122e39.

23. Salmon G. E-moderating: the key to teaching and learning on-line. Kogan Page; 2000.

24. Jacques D. Learning in groups. London: Kogan Page; 1991.25. Freeman T. Best practice’ in focus group research: making

sense of different views. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2006;56(5):491e7.

26. Kitzinger J. Education and debate qualitative research: intro-ducing focus groups (29 July). BMJ 1995;1995(311):299e302,http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/311/7000/299[accessed: 8/1/09].

27. Lofland J, Lofland LH. In: Analysing social settings. 3rd ed.California: Wadsworth; 1995.

28. Glaser BG. Basics of grounded theory analysis: emerging versusforcing. California: Sociology Press; 1992.

29. Cutler RH. Distributed presence and community in cyberspace.Interpersonal Computing and Technology Journal 1995;3(2):12e32, http://www.emoderators.com/ipct-j/1995/n2/cutler.txt [accessed 5/3/08].

30. Lewis C. Taming the lions and tigers and bears: the WRITE WAYto communicate online. In: White KW, Weight BH, editors. Theonline teaching guide: a handbook of attitudes, strategies andtechniques for the virtual classroom. Needham Heights, MA:Allyn and Bacon; 2000. p. 13e23.

31. Mason R. Moderating educational computer conferencing. DEOSNEWS 1991;1(19), from: http://www.ed.psu.edu/acsde/deos/deosnews/deosnews1_19.asp. Retrieved March 5, 2008.

32. Bischoff A. The elements of effective online teaching: over-coming the barriers to success. In: White KW, Weight BH,editors. The online teaching guide: a handbook of attitudes,strategies and techniques for the virtual classroom. NeedhamHeights, MA: Allyn and Bacon; 2000. p. 57e72.

33. Dreyfus H. On the Internet: thinking in action. London: Rout-ledge Press; 2001.

34. Kenwright H,. The analysis of epidemiological data e onlinelearning: an evaluation. draft report. York College LearningDevelopment Unit; 2003.

35. Robinson L, Newton-Hughes A. Distance support on a shortcourse for advanced clinical practitioners using a VLE: obser-vations following first delivery ilia innovative learning inaction issue three: employability, enterprise & entrepre-neurship. Education Development Unit University of Salford;2005.