The use of the terms/concepts identity and image in the context of an online environment became another potential point of interest as this investigation progressed. The issues of the (sometimes) conflicting roles of distance students – student, worker, parent, and -‐‑ are not new (Herrmann, 1985), nor restricted to students studying in non-‐‑traditional settings (McInnis, 2001; Lowe & Gayle, 2007). Perriton and Reedy (2002) turn to feminist and anarchist literature to highlight the problems which arise in trying to control one’s identity within groups in general, but online learning groups in particular. For them, there needs to be awareness by the tutor and students of the “micro-‐‑political processes by which identity is being worked out both in relation to the teachers and students” (p. 7).
2.5.1 Professional identity
In the context of this investigation, online identity should not be confused with professional identity as outlined in Greenwood’s (1957) seminal work “Attributes of a Profession”, although the two are interwoven and impact each other in that students develop their professional identity as they progress through their course (Solomonides & Reid, 2009). The multidimensional model of student engagement developed by
Solomonides (2013) involves a “sense of being a professional” [along with a] “sense of discipline knowledge” (p. 53) as critical to developing a sense of engagement.
Solomonides and Reid (2009) have also suggested a relationship between student identity and engagement. They emphasised the connection between identity as a sense of being (confidence, happiness, imaginative and self-‐‑knowledge) and a sense of transformation (learning understanding and thinking), combined with sound pedagogic practices as central to a strong sense of engagement. They provided empirical evidence of this being the case for art and design students and suggested that it holds for other disciplines.
A similar impact has been identified for initial teacher education students. As Ylijoki (2000) pointed out: “Besides the common cognitive basis, disciplines have their own social and cultural characteristics: norms, values, modes of interaction, life-‐‑style, pedagogical and ethical codes etc.” (p. 339). Part of the student developing as a professional is the assumption of these social and cultural characteristics.
With respect to this process of developing an identity as an initial teacher education student there were pragmatic problems. Moss (2004) noted in particular “the intense negotiations undertaken by women students in order to construct space and time for academic work” (p. 283) as a particular issue confronting them in their efforts to develop as students.
For distance online students the development of professional identity happens in conjunction or competition with the characteristics of students’ other roles, for example parent, spouse and worker.
The complexity of the relationships between the various identities that students maintain, has been explained by Moss and Pittaway (2013) as the student identity being essentially a narrative, which “comprises a series of interrelated, overlapping “layers”, which can be organised and configured to achieve temporary coherence in different ways, depending on context and time” (p. 1014). These tensions impact the meaning which students make of their experience.
For Henkel (2005) these “identities are, first and foremost, shaped and reinforced in and by strong and stable communities and the social processes generated within them” (p. 157). Kember, Lee and Li express this in a practical manner as “keep students as a cohort” (2001, p. 335). Continuing membership of a cohort built a stronger sense of belonging, increasing the opportunity for students to identify as not just students but as members of a community. Part-‐‑time students rarely move through a program within a stable cohort and enrolment patterns vary over semesters, so strong and stable
communities are not easy to find. The positive nature of the learning community in its contribution to identity development was also found by Askham (2008). For online students with limited or no access to campus, these communities of discipline groups may appear to be an alien culture (Gallacher, Crossen, Field & Merrill, 2002).
2.5.2 Online identity and image
Another perspective of online identity is evident in the ICT literature focussing on young people in social media. Within this body of literature there appears to be no set definition for identity or image. The major themes that have emerged relate to the problems created for the young person when insufficient care is taken with the image which is broadcast on social media, particularly Facebook and other social networking sites, irrespective of
whether or not they were used in formal teaching or informally by students. The
confusion which arises when students do not think about the diversity of audience is also a concern. Hashim, Idrus, Ho-‐‑Abdullah, Yusof, Mydin and Hamdan (2013) provided a case study of students in a course taught using components of Facebook; for them, issues resulting from the use of real names and multiple Facebook accounts were critical to identity – I would refer to this as ‘image’. Doubts regarding the authenticity of the image arise when multiple names/accounts are used by individual students. Such problems as ‘friends’ being able to intervene in learning activities become critical when accounts are used for multiple purposes. These disruptions and ambiguities of image are eliminated to a large extent through the use of an institutional LMS.
Whilst Peluchette and Karl (2010) noted the possible differences between the image portrayed and the way in which people see themselves, their research identified
problems which arose for students when online images/identities in social networking sites were not actively managed. Mixed messages are produced when social and formal, or professional (Jones & Swain, 2012) online images are not separated according to their respective audiences. Separation and appropriateness were shown to be more general issues by Berg (2008) who found politicians had a similar problem. Again, image and identity appear to be used interchangeably, but both referring to the image (in my terms) being projected online.
Rodogno (2012) has approached the question of online identity in a more sophisticated manner. Firstly he argued for “a plurality of types of identity” (p. 314) which rather than being distinct from each other, overlapped. These identities could be viewed similarly to the multiple roles which people have in different contexts in
everyday life (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). From either position, context determines identity. Rodogno then noted that the constraints of platform design could cause confusion for both the presenter and viewer, as to what type of personal identity information was
being presented. While similar issues may happen in offline contexts, there are presently many more established practices in play there, such as established environmental clues being associated with image (e.g. ‘trappings of office’). From this point of view, online identity is an adapted form of our personal identity which is shaped by the context of the online environment. Considering these understandings in relation to the online LMS environment, points to a critical need for the provision of more guidance about the online images with which they present themselves.
Neither Robards (2010) nor Rodogno (2012) have found that a multiplicity of online images demonstrates a lack of integrity. For Robards (2010), multiplicity can be managed coherently; “However, as with social interactions in physical spaces, this is no easy task and can occur effectively after a certain level of reflexive and strategic thinking” (p. 22). If this is accepted, then distance online students may be able to successfully maintain multiple online images for different purposes without fearing a loss of integrity either as a student or in the other roles.