Social learning is dependent on social interactions. I am exploring ways to promote interaction in Digital Learning Spaces. As theoretical framework I use the types of interaction between learner, instructor and content. That learners feel isolated and lonely in DLSs is a problem which comes at high cost for social learning. My aim is to promote social interaction by offering the edentity: a system for making participants visible to each other by creation of a digital student identity.


Edentity social learning presence transparency self-presentation 


  1. 1.
    Vygotsky, L.S., Cole, M.: Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1978)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Lave, J., Wenger, E.: Situated learning: legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Olsson, H.: Proposing Learner E-dentity to social presence in digital spaces for learning. In: Asproth, V. (ed.) Challenges for the Future in an ICT Context, pp. 177–186. Mid Sweden University, Östersund (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Olsson, H., Slumpi, T.P.: Knowing my peers - Edentity: to invite peer interaction and social learning. In: OST 2012, Tallinn (2012) (accepted)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moore, M.G.: Three types of interaction. In: Harry, K., John, M., Keegan, D. (eds.) Distance Education: New Perspectives, pp. 19–24. Routledge, London (1993)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Garrison, D.R., Cleveland-Innes, M.: Facilitating Cognitive Presence in Online Learning: Interaction Is Not Enough. Am. J. of Distance Education 19(3), 133–148 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gunawardena, C.N., Zittle, F.J.: Social presence as a predictor of satisfaction within a computer-mediated conferencing environment. Am. J. of Distance Education 11(3), 8–26 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dalsgaard, C., Paulsen, M.F.: Transparency in Cooperative Online Education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 10(3) (2009)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hogg, M.A., Terry, D.J., White, K.M.: A Tale of Two Theories: A Critical Comparison of Identity Theory with Social Identity Theory. Social Psychology Quarterly 58(4), 255–269 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Satchell, C., Shanks, G., Howard, S., Murphy, J.: Identity crisis: user perspectives on multiplicity and control in federated identity management. Behaviour & Information Technology 30(1), 51–62 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bauer, R.: Construction of One’s Identity: A Student’s View on the Potential of EPortfolios. Studienverlag GmbH, Wien (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Olsson, H.M., Öberg, L.-M.: Role of feedback in uniform learning situation. In: Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication, pp. 279–284. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hanna M. Olsson
    • 1
  1. 1.Mid Sweden UniversityÖstersundSweden

Personalised recommendations