TechTrends DOI 10.1007/s11528-016-0137-1
ORIGINAL PAPER
Preservice Teachers’ Participation and Perceptions of Twitter Live Chats as Personal Learning Networks Tian Luo 1
&
Jamie Sickel 2 & Li Cheng 3
# Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2016
Abstract This study presents two cases in which undergraduates were introduced to Twitter in their teacher preparation program as a means of developing a personal learning network. Twitter live chats are synchronous discussions that allow education stakeholders to discuss issues and share resources, engaging on potentially a global scale via the social networking platform. This study examines how students participated in these live chats, perceived benefits and challenges and how prior experience and preconceived perceptions of Twitter influenced the live chat experience and intentions for continued participation. Pre-activity reflections, student tweets and post-activity reflections were analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively. While familiarity with Twitter varied, no participants had previously participated in a professional Twitter live chat; the majority of participants indicated a positive perception and intensions to continue participating in Twitter live chats. Plans for introducing, scaffolding and reflecting on initial Twitter live chat experiences are detailed and considerations and implications are discussed.
* Tian Luo
[email protected] Jamie Sickel
[email protected] Li Cheng
[email protected] 1
Darden College of Education, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
2
School of Education, Western Sydney University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
3
College of Education, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, USA
Keywords Live chats . Microblogging . Personal learning networks . Pre-service teachers . Social media . Social networks . Teacher education . Twitter
Introduction Social networking and microblogging technologies are of increasing interest to educational practitioners due to their potential to facilitate communication and collaboration between students, parents and colleagues. Using tools such as Twitter, educators and learners are able to network globally both synchronously and asynchronously, sharing resources, and exchanging ideas through 140 character messages called Btweets^ (Diaz-Ortiz & Stone, 2011; Java et al. 2007). For students, Twitter enables virtual participation and promotes collaborative and active learning (Borau et al. 2009; Cronin 2011; Perifanou 2009). For educators, Twitter promotes grassroots professional development and extends educators’ personal learning networks through discussion and collaboration with professionals (Forte et al. 2012; Lalonde 2012; Richardson and Mancabelli 2011). A personal learning network is a network operated by an individual specifically to engage in professional activities through online platforms intended to support professional non–formal learning needs (Rajagopal et al. 2011). Twitter live chats can promote community building and collaborative learning (Whitby 2012). While still foreign to many educators, thousands of users are participating in synchronous online chats via this platform, yielding opportunities for professional discourse on a local, national or global scale. The synchronous, real-time connection afforded by a live chat holds new promises for online discussions. Prior research has provided insights on the subject of synchronous chats (Ingram et al. 2000; Johnson 2006; Traphagan
TechTrends
et al. 2010), but the use of Twitter as a distinguishing social medium for professional discourse differs in multiple respects. To date, despite the enthusiasm of educators’ participating in Twitter live chats, related empirical research is minimal (Gao et al. 2012). With the ubiquity of social media, it is critical to understand how individuals participate and perceive such a novel approach to professional networking. Research on Synchronous Chat Twitter live chats are a type of online, synchronous communication afforded by the microblogging platform Twitter. A search in major databases (i.e. Educational Research Information Center, Education Research Complete and Education Full-Text) and journals, reveals that little research on Twitter live chats exist; however, studies focusing on online synchronous chat and synchronous computer-mediated communication offer relevant insights. Text-based messaging and audio and video conferencing are all synchronous communication tools. Benefits of Synchronous Chat Due to the recreational and informal nature of social networking, the implementation of Twitter-based synchronous chat for instructional purposes has been controversial (Burnett 2003). Synchronous communication can afford greater interactivity among participants and more immediate feedback from students and instructors than asynchronous scenarios (Branon and Essex 2001). In one study, more students reported preferring chat sessions over listserv discussions; researchers found that synchronous chat provided Ba direct and interactive environment in which students reacted and responded to the topic at hand, chitchatted, and immediately make supportive comments to each other^ (Davidson-Shivers et al. 2001, p. 365). Jeong (1996) noted that synchronous chat promotes highly interactive discussions. Synchronous chat allows learners to share and discuss learning materials and resources in real time. Students in Lobel et al. (2002) study who were enrolled in a chat roomstyle eClassroom that utilized an interactive HTML-formatted text, image and animation messaging system engaged in a higher volume of instantaneous interaction. This increase in participation is suggested as a result of the ability for students to avoid face-to-face social cues, yielding less perceived risk and greater opportunity for self-discloser. Similarly, in Shotsberger’s (2000) study, learners highly rated a weekly synchronous chat, indicating that it provided an ideal channel for frequent interaction and sharing news and resources on relevant topics. Research also suggests benefits of synchronous chat for community building. In Duemer et al.’s (2002) study, students who were required to participate in multiple real-time chat
discussions developed close relationships, forming a community of learners. The use of Twitter chats in language learning settings has also been shown to enhance students’ sense of community and facilitate the formulation of learning communities (Borau et al. 2009; Ebner et al. 2010). Limitations of Synchronous Chat Limitations of synchronous chat coexist with its benefits. Studies have reported greater difficulty in promoting reflective, higher-level learning in synchronous chats than with asynchronous chats (Davidson-Shivers et al. 2001; Järvelä and Häkkinen 2002; Meyer 2003). Unstructured, fast-paced synchronous chats do not necessitate high level and reflective cognitive processing. Students participating in online synchronous chats may have difficulties scaling up conversations and engaging in thoughtful thinking and deep learning due to its expected immediacy and spontaneity (Branon and Essex 2001; Ingram et al. 2000). Therefore, interactions may tend to be surface level, including superfluous information sharing and chitchat. Students are also inclined to digress from learning topics during online synchronous chats (Davidson-Shivers et al. 2001; Elavsky et al. 2011; Luo and Gao 2012; Perifanou 2009). This is common across various forms of online discussion. Knowlton (2001) notes that online discussion can easily Bdigress into isolated bits of small talk and random cyberchatter. These digressions inhibit student learning because discussions that have digressed don’t lead students to a fresh and incisive understanding of course material^ (p.1). Other findings have indicated that students were more focused on task in asynchronous networks than synchronous chats (Schwienhorst 2003). Synchronous chat can yield information overload, rendering discussions trivial or irrelevant (Ingram et al. 2000). Ebner et al. (2010) found that microblogging can lead to Ban unwieldy information flow, known as information overload^ (p. 98) due to the overwhelming amount of information that students encountered in a short time span. Luo and Gao (2012) found that when a considerable number of tweets were generated, both students and instructors had difficulty keeping track of tweets or paid special attention to specific tweets. Live Chats on Twitter Twitter live chats are an increasingly popular practice for savvy Twitter users across many disciplines and professions. Using hashtags (#) as a way to organize and identify groups and topics, participants engage in lively global discussions, often on a regular basis. A chat-specific hashtag is included in each tweet, allowing the Twitter stream to be filtered to include only these tagged tweets during a live chat event. Participants follow the conversation by searching for the
TechTrends
designated hashtag, allowing them to view relevant tweets, regardless of whether they are following individual participants Twitter. Other features of Twitter, such as replies, retweets and mentions, enable participants to easily make one-on-one contact by responding to, reposting or addressing another user. Such incidents can serve as indicators of the level of interactivity during a live chat event. The purpose of chats and the scale of participation vary considerably. Among more than hundreds of educational live chats, most have a designated purpose and target group of participants. Some chats are specifically tailored to new teachers, offering support and an exchange of ideas and resources (i.e. #ntchat), while others promote discourse on current or controversial educational issues (i.e. #edchat). Some chats may include only a small group of individuals from a target audience, while other chats can engage thousands of Twitter users. #edchat, for instance, was named as one of the most popular educational Twitter communities by multiple educational websites (Dunn 2011) and includes thousands of educators and administrators around the world (Terrell 2014). The procedures for joining a Twitter live chat are fundamentally different from classroom discussions or online discussions designed by instructors (Gao and Li 2016). In most cases, a moderator is responsible for organizing the event and directing the conversation to address the chosen topic(s). Often participants suggest topics in a designated discussion forum; moderators will select popular entries to include in a poll used to democratically determine the focus of discussion. #edchat, for example, is held every Tuesday at noon and 7 pm EST for approximately 1 h (Whitby 2012). During these times, moderators tweet to announce the topic, guide the discussion and maintain focus. Participants can use the hashtag #edchat to actively participate or to read and absorb information and ideas deriving from this Bcasual crowd-sourced consensus-based democratic system^ (Martin 2012, p.1). Within minutes, ideas and resources are exchanged by educators around the world; retweets and replies sustain the conversation. Closing remarks are made by the moderator, and chat transcripts are archived on the #edchat wiki (see http://edchat.pbworks.com). Research Questions Despite the keen interest in educational live chats on Twitter from an array of stakeholders, studies on the subject are limited. While research exists on synchronous chats, Twitter has been rarely studied as a uniquely open and social platform for synchronous online discourse. Of the limited studies that focus on Twitter live chats, most are anecdotal or vaguely descriptive and do not comprise an in-depth examination of participants’ experience and perceptions. Given the increasing prevalence of Twitter-based chats in education, it is vital to develop an in-depth understanding of how students participate
and perceive their learning in Twitter-supported live chat settings. The research questions are: 1. What did students experience in participating various Twitter live chats? 2. What were the perceived benefits and challenges of participating in Twitter live chats? 3. How did prior experience with Twitter influence the live chat experience?
Method A Multiple Case-Study Design The adopted methodological approach is a multiple case study design. Case studies in general tackle ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions, especially through multiple sources of evidence (Yin 2008). Although a single case study provides the opportunity to make an in-depth investigation of a single case, it is often criticized for a lack of representativeness, limited generalizability and restrictive nature (Yin 2008). Evidence from multiple cases is often more reliable, and results and conclusions derived from this design are more powerful (Herriot and Firestone 1983). In this study, literal replication was employed, as the cases were expected to predict similar results (Yin 1994). One case was conducted in the fall, and a second was conducted in the spring of the same year in the same course, taught by the same instructor. Both were examined to provide in-depth understanding of the research questions. Setting The two cases occurred in separate sections of a required undergraduate hybrid format course for education majors at a rural Midwestern University in the United States. The course is designed to acquaint students with a variety of free, webbased technologies and develop pedagogically sound approaches for instructional integration within their content area. The class met face-to-face three times throughout a 15-weeks semester; remaining course work was completed online in a closed wiki environment. Participants Participants were 46 undergraduate students enrolled in two sections of a course on educational technology. These preservice teachers included 11 males and 35 females, ages 18 to 22. Based on our criteria (Table 1), preconceived perceptions of Twitter were 39.1% neutral, 45.8% positive and 15.2% negative. 41.3% were identified as experts, 30.4% as intermediate, while only 28.3% had little or no Twitter
TechTrends Table 1 Explanation of variables and corresponding codes
Variable
Description
Codes
History
Length of time participants had been using Twitter + frequency of tweeting
1 = New
Prior perceptions
Perception of Twitter use for educational purposes prior to study
2 = Moderate 3 = Expert User 1 = Neutral 2 = Negative
Prior chat experience
Prior experience with Twitter live chats
3 = Positive 0 = No
Perceived usefulness
Perception of usefulness of live chat
1 = Neutral
1 = Yes 2 = Negative 3 = Positive # of tweets Hashtag
Number of participant tweets generated during live chat Specific hashtag/live chat explored
N/A N/A
Intended future use
Intention of future live chat participation
1 = No 2 = Maybe 3 = Yes
experiences (new users). No participants had previously participated in a Twitter live chat. Design of Live Chats Activity on Twitter Students established individual blogs for the course during the first face-to-face meeting, the links to which were added to the class wiki. During the third week of class, they were asked to set up a Twitter account if they did not already have one and add their Twitter handle to the class list. An explanation of Twitter was provided, which included terminology specific to the social networking platform, features and functionality and etiquette norms; links to high quality resources for beginners were provided. A Google spreadsheet containing hundreds of educators’ Twitter handles categorized by content area provided a potential starting point for students to grow their Twitter-based personal learning networks. A Twitter widget was embedded into the class wiki to display tweets from the class, including questions, answers and relevant online resources. Students used a specific hashtag to address the class, ensuring that only tweets students intended for class viewing would be displayed within the wiki. During this same week, students wrote a blog post, reflecting on their prior experience with Twitter and initial impressions of the platform. They were asked to candidly discuss whether they perceived any potential for professional use, to describe ways in which they have previously used Twitter and whether they had any concerns regarding Twitter use. The following week, students were asked to create a brief Twitter tutorial for their classmates and post it to the wiki. A Google Doc was used to allow students to sign up for a topic to avoid redundancy and yield a more diverse array of topics. In many cases, students had to first teach themselves how to
accomplish their Twitter tutorial goal before explaining it to others. The same week, a description of the live chat assignment was posted; students were given 2 weeks to identify and participate in a professionally relevant chat and reflect on the experience. A list of education-related live chats with descriptions and times was provided. A video tutorial explaining how to locate and participate in a live chat via Twitter was created and posted by the instructor. Tips were given for how to follow the conversation, interact with others and contribute meaningfully. In a second blog entry, students were asked to identify the chat in which they participated and provide a record of their tweets hashtagged for the chat. They were asked whether they had previously participated in professional synchronous Twitter chats, whether they had been aware of such chats prior to the class, to reflect on the benefits and limitations of their chat experience, to report their perceived benefits and constraints for the use of Twitter for professional development, networking and personal learning and whether they intended to participate in professional Twitter live chats in the future. It was emphasized that candid responses were expected, as a goal of the course was to critically evaluate the potential of various Web 2.0 tools for professional use. It is important to note that these expectations were clearly established at the beginning of the course to minimize social desirability bias. In order to verify participation in the live chat, students were asked to take a screenshot of their tweets and embedded in their blogs (see Fig. 1). Data Collection and Analysis Data sources include participants’ two blog reflections with embedded tweets. To identify patterns in participation and
TechTrends
Fig. 1 A screenshot of a Twitter page representing student participation in #edchat. Note: Students’ photo and personal information altered to protect privacy
perceptions, an open coding analysis approach (Corbin and Strauss 2008) was employed to generate coding schemes for analysis of qualitative data. Two researchers reviewed each blog entry to construct codes, remaining open to any unanticipated categories in this initial stage. Reassessments and revisions were made before data reached maturity. Over 98% of agreement was reached in coding and disagreements were resolved through discussion. Each individual blog post is considered unit of analysis in the first phase. Blogs were first coded qualitatively by extracting texts from the blog entries following open coded analysis approach; quantitative labels were then applied. Table 2 provides a summary of variables coded from the blog data showing the quantitative labels. The first posts, in which participants reflected on their prior experience with Table 2 Explanation of the conversation qualitative to quantitative coding
Twitter, were coded into (a) history (b) prior perceptions and (c) prior chat experience. For the variable history, participants who had used Twitter for at least 1 year and maintained regular use were coded expert users; those who had used it for less than 1 year were coded moderate users, and those with no experience were coded new users. In some cases, participants self-identified their status of history using the same terms in their blogs. The second blog entries included participants’ tweets from the live chats and a reflection of their experience. These reflections were categorized into (a) perceived usefulness, (b) # of tweets, (c) hashtag and (d) intended future use. Perceived usefulness identifies to what degree participants believed the live chat experience was useful to them. The quantity of tweets has been recorded as a logical indicator of participation in microblogging-based learning activities across various studies (Ebner and Maurer 2009; Elavsky et al. 2011; Junco et al. 2011; Kop 2011; Wright 2010). We used Table 2 to present extracted texts from the blogs and how we coded them. Blog content indicating perceived benefits and challenges was further extracted and analyzed to generate themes and categories. Descriptive analyses were used to examine all the variables that could be coded and quantified. Chi-square test of association was used to examine the relationship between perceived usefulness, history and prior perceptions. Students’ history from blog #1 and their perceptions of live chat usefulness from blog #2 were cross-analyzed to provide insights on how students’ prior experience with Twitter influenced their live chat experience. Transferability Though class size is small in each case, this study followed a purposeful sampling in representing common teacher education classrooms. This study provides rich description of the design of live chats activity and the researchers invited other researchers who are interested in replicating the study to make their own conclusion about Btransferability^ of the study (Lincoln and Guba 1985, p. 316). Other researchers may replicate the design of the live chat activities and draw their own conclusions in an alternative context.
Quotes from student blogs
Variables
Codes
Ok, so I am a Twitter newbie. So far, I think it’s an interesting social network. I have never done a formal Twitter conversation like this. I have tweeted a couple of times back and forth with my friends, but it was in no way organized like this I feel the benefits of this conversation was that you were getting input/advice from people from all over the world. There was no limit to the resources. These chats were incredibly useful for many reasons. I think I will definitely be using these chats again.
History Prior perceptions
1 = New 3 = Positive
Prior chat experience
0 = No
Perceived usefulness
3 = Positive
Intended future use
3 = Yes
TechTrends
Results Student Participation in Educational Live Chats A total of 46 students participated in 12 different chats (see Table 3). #edchat was the most frequently selected chat with sixteen participants; #ntchat ranked second with thirteen participants. These two hashtags accounted for 60% of the live chat experiences. Four individuals selected #lrnchat, three chose #ptchat, two students each participated in #spnchat, #urbaned and #smallbizchat, while #cistudy, #educoach, #gtchat and #teaching2030 were each selected by one participant. While students were allowed to choose any educational chat they felt would be professionally relevant, scheduling was another factor in this decision, as live chats are synchronous events.
significantly smaller group that is highly moderated, typically addressing a few specific questions. The moderator introduces herself, solicits introductions from participants and presents the questions throughout the chat. Questions are numbered, and participants indicated their responses by adding BA^ and the number of the question they are answering to their tweets. Students experienced a much higher comfort level with participating in smaller chats such as #ntchat. They also reported that smaller educational live chats like #lrnchat operate in a similar manner.
Perceived Benefits and Challenges Students largely reported the live chat activity to be enjoyable and rewarding. None of the students had participated an educational chat on Twitter before, and many were surprised to uncover such an active community of engaged educators. One student reflected,
The Impact of Chat Size and Structure on Experience Educational live chats operate differently, depending on the moderator, focus and number of attendees. The sizes ranged from small discussions with 12 to 15 participants to hundreds or even thousands of people participating simultaneously. Our data showed that varied operations of each chat impacted the student participation behaviors and perceptions observed from those different chats. For example, #edchat has a high volume of participants and occurs at two different times to accommodate participants from around the world. The chat centers on a predetermined issue, elected by prospective participants, though often moderators and participants ask multiple questions surrounding the issue that can lead to side conversations and incidental topics with a high volume of tweets. Students who participated in #edchat reported a much higher level of interactivity. They reported #edchat to be considerably fast paced, and difficult to follow and participate in the conversation. #ntchat is a Table 3 Major educational live chats participated
It was my first Twitter chat, but it was pretty fun. I didn’t know that people did professional chats on Twitter. I thought it was only social networking. The chat experience was a lot of fun, but I did not know what to expect. It was less intensive than I thought it would be, but it was still rewarding. Students received a plethora of information and resources from these live chats that were Brelevant, accessible and up to date,^ and most felt engaged in the educational conversations. One student commented, BI think it is a great way to get new ideas for the classroom and I also think it is a great way to bounce ideas off of one another.^ Students reported exposure to widely differing views in a safe environment, which enabled them to examine issues through multiple perspectives. As a student stated, BThe Twitter chats allow a comfortable and supportive environment to communicate to other professionals you
Live chats
# of students
Description
#edchat
16
#ntchat
13
#lrnchat
4
#ptchat #spnchat
3 2
#urbaned
2
#SmallBizChat
2
#edchat is for teachers, students, parents, and administrators to discuss educational topics on Twitter. #ntchat is to provide support for new teachers and connect them via social media. #lrnchat is for people who are interested in the topics of social media and learning to communicate and help other people learn. #ptchat is for parents and teachers to communicate. #spnchat was started by Dr. Gregory McGough on Sep. 18, 2010 to discuss education reform. It is a chatting group that focuses on State Policy Network in education. #urbaned is for people who care about urban education to connect and communicate. #SmallBizChat is a weekly conversation to help small business owners to succeed.
TechTrends
may not even know but you will absolutely learn from them and what they have to say.^ One student reported participating in the same live chat with his father, a school principal, which demonstrated to him the ability to meet and engage with professionals of all experience levels via Twitter. The activity allowed students to connect with professionals from around the world. One student said, I feel the benefits of this conversation was that you were getting input/advice from people from all over the world. There was no limit to the resources. These chats were incredibly useful for many reasons. It was a collaboration of many different ideas and teachers helping each other out so they can do their best in their classroom. Students were inspired by insights gleaned from other educators. They were able to receive advice and feedback from a broader community of educators. BThis is definitely a fantastic way to seek advice, solve problems, or look for support from others who also share your same passion and are facing your same problems. It’s almost like group therapy in a way,^ wrote one student. Participants appreciated the immediacy of answers and information delivery during the Twitter live chats. They reported that Twitter was a convenient and accessible information channel, as it affords not only synchronous communication, but a persistent record for later reference. Despite the aforementioned benefits, many students cited an overwhelming volume of tweets and difficulty keeping up with fast-paced conversations. One student vividly described his experience: It was frustrating trying to keep up with everyone’s posts. By the time I read something I wanted to respond to, it got pushed down the list to the bottom and I would have to scroll down and follow it as it descended so that I could hit the reply button to respond. My roommate and I did it at the same time from our rooms and we kept yelling back and forth at each other at how frustrating the whole ordeal was.
A few students perceived the chats they joined as Blowquality,^ Brepetitive^ or Birrelevant,^ though some challenges were caused by user error, as a few students reported unsuccessful attempts to initiate conversations or that the chat did not take place because they were not attempting to participate during the proper scheduled time. Some privacy concerns with Twitter were also expressed. Impact of Prior Experience Before the activity, perceptions of Twitter were reported as 39.1% neutral, 45.8% positive and 15.2% negative among the group. After the activity, 75.6% held a positive outlook toward Twitter live chats. We utilized Chi-square test to examine the relationship between prior experiences demonstrated by the two variables History and Prior Perception and the variable Perceived Usefulness that represents their post perception. Our results show that students’ prior perceptions significantly impacted their perceived usefulness (χ2 = 14.45, df = 4, p < .05), while prior history and frequency of use did not yield a significant impact on their perceptions of the usefulness of professional Twitter live chats (χ2 = 6.27, df = 4, p = > .05). Student blogs and tweets reinforced these results. Some students tweeted that they were not able to follow the conversation, especially in large-sized chats such as #edchat. Many students reported their prior experiences with and perception of Twitter affected the way they perceived of the value of the live chat, but prior past experience and long tweeting history did not necessarily yield an enjoyable experience. Several avid Twitter users neither enjoyed the chat nor planned to participate again. One active, two-years Twitter expert noted, I really do not plan on using my Twitter or Facebook account for my professional use. I believe strongly in professional life and personal life staying separate. I think it can be useful to follow people that are in my profession and keep updated on current events and things of that nature but I think that there is a fine line. It can get inappropriate. Intended Future Use
Some noted that the 140-character limit impeded their ability to express themselves and made it difficult to understand others. Owing to inexperience, some felt uneasy in debates with frequent and intense rebuttals. At times, students were intimidated by educational leaders demonstrating a high level of knowledge and expertise. As one student elaborated, I was rather scared and intimidated that they all had very in-depth answers and professional language that I was used to hearing in my classes, but not used to actually saying those types of things. I kind of felt like a baby fish in a pool of sharks. Not that they would eat me, I just wasn’t up to par with their education levels.
When asked to reflect in their blog posts whether they intended to participate in professional Twitter live chats in the future, 61% of participants responded positively, 16% were undecided, and 23% indicated no intention of future participation. Some students shared a high level of enthusiasm for the professional potential of Twitter live chats. As one student exemplified, There are also new ideas being tossed back and fourth [sic] which can only be a good thing; two minds are better than one. Now that I actually know this resource is out there, I guarantee that I will be participating in
TechTrends
many more in the future! They give me an opportunity to express my thoughts and welcome new ones as well.
Discussion The majority of students in our study held a positive perception toward the Twitter live chat experience, despite the fact that some experienced moderate frustration. Prior to this activity, less than half of the students held positive attitudes towards Twitter. After the experience, a majority of students considered educational live chats useful and intended to participate again. Generally speaking, the live chat activity, which was purposefully designed and integrated into a formal classroom setting as part of a required class for pre-service teachers, was new and engaging for the students. This experience brought pre-service teachers out of the traditional classroom, allowing them to converse with professionals in the field. While the level of student enthusiasm and engagement expressed by these students is on par with prior findings (Ebner et al. 2010; Luo 2015, 2016; Wright 2010); this activity presents a novel approach to Twitter integration from previous studies. We believe that educational Twitter live chats hold immense potential to be replicated and further examined. Through analysis of multiple data sources, we found that students’ experiences in this live chat activity largely varied contingent to the operation of chats themselves. Large-scale chats like #edchat yielded a typically overwhelming pace and amount of information, while smaller chats like #ntchat were reported to be more approachable for new participants. Lack of experience with Twitter live chats may have contributed to the frustration some students experienced. Our study shows that preconceived perceptions of Twitter is positively associated with perception of professional Twitter live chats. In line with the Technology Acceptance Model (Davis, Bagozzi, and Warshaw 1989), previous research indicates that prior uses or habits of using Twitter positively affect perception and behavioral intention of Twitter use (Agrifoglio, Black, and Metallo 2010; Barnes and Böhringer 2011). Contrarily, according the insignificant result of the statistical test using history as a variable, our study found that despite being avid users of the social platform, students did not respond positively to its use for a professional purpose, perceiving Twitter as a more personal, recreational tool than a venue for professional engagement. Our finding is congruent with results from another study (Luo and Franklin 2015) suggesting that advanced users hold higher expectations and are more critical of Twitter’s educational use. We believe one of the greatest merits of introducing preservice teachers to Twitter live chats is to help them develop a personal learning network (PLN), connecting with a wide range of professionals in the field. Continued professional
learning is essential for teachers to advance professional knowledge and practice (McCormack, Gore, and Thomas 2006). Ongoing learning needs persist throughout a teacher’s entire career (Crosswell and Beutel 2013). Twitter live chats hold tremendous potential for professional learning from a global network of educators. Active engagement in an informal learning space such as Twitter live chats can supplement formal learning in the teacher education program and support professional learning during induction and beyond.
Conclusion Twitter live chats provide pre-service teachers a venue for engagement with education professionals around the world. We have detailed students’ positive learning experience implemented in multiple iterations of a university course for undergraduate pre-service teachers and identified key factors that impact students’ perceptions of usefulness and intent to persist with future Twitter live chat participation. The study examined students’ experience, perceived benefits and challenges and the influence of prior experience and preconceived perceptions of the social networking platform thought to impact student perceptions of the live chat experience. Limitations and Future Research This study is based on student-generated, reflective blogs as self-reported data in a unique context where students were instructed to partake in various educational live chats. Recommendations for future research include a larger sample size, inclusion of non- self-reported data and prolonged data collection, including additional participation on professional Twitter chats beyond the initial experience, to further examine Twitter’s potential as a tool for professional learning during pre-service teacher education, induction and beyond. A factorial experiment research design to group students based on pre-perceptions and experience would allow further examination of the effects of such variables predicting their perception and intended future use. Twitter is a versatile tool that can be repurposed in various instructional settings to fit discrete learning goals; as such, the development of well-informed plans, scaffolding and follow-up activities are critical.
References Agrifoglio, R., Black, S., & Metallo, C. (2010). Twitter acceptance: The role of intrinsic motivation. Sprouts: Working Papers on Information Systems, 10(9). Retrieved from http://sprouts.aisnet. org/10-9. Barnes, S. J., & Böhringer, M. (2011). Modeling use continuance behavior in microblogging services: the case of twitter. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 51(4), 1. Retrieved from http://iacis.org/jcis/articles/Barnes_Bohringer_2011_51_4.pdf.
TechTrends Borau, K., Ullrich, C., Feng, J., & Shen, R. (2009). Microblogging for language learning: Using twitter to train communicative and cultural competence. Paper presented at the Advances in Web Based Learning–ICWL 2009. Branon, R. F., & Essex, C. (2001). Synchronous and asynchronous communication tools in distance education: A survey of instructors. TechTrends, 45, 36–42. Burnett, C. (2003). Learning to chat: Tutor participation in synchronous online chat. Teaching in Higher Education, 8, 247–261. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Cronin, J. J. (2011). The classroom as a virtual community: An experience with student backchannel discourse. Business Education Innovation Journal, 3(2), 56–65. Crosswell, L., & Beutel, D. (2013). A bridge over troubling waters: A snapshot of teacher graduates’ perceptions of their ongoing professional learning needs. Asia - Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 41(2), 144. doi:10.1080/1359866X.2013.777022. Davidson-Shivers, G. V., Muilenburg, L. Y., & Tanner, E. J. (2001). How do students participate in synchronous and asynchronous online discussions? Journal of Educational Computing Research, 25(4), 351–366. Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1989). User acceptance of computer technology: a comparison of two theoretical models. Management cience, 35(8), 982–1003. Diaz-Ortiz, C., & Stone, B. (2011). Twitter for good: change the world one tweet at a time. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Duemer, L., Fontenot, D., Gumfory, K., Kallus, M., Larsen, J., Schafer, S.,…Shaw, B.C. (2002). The use of online synchronous discussion groups to enhance community formation and professional identity development. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 1. Retrieved from http://www.ncolr.org/jiol/ARCHIVES/2002/2/04/index.html. Dunn, J. (2011). The A-Z Dictionary of Educational Twitter Hashtags. Retrieved 01/05/2016, from: http://edudemic.com/2011/10/twitterhashtag-dictionary/. Ebner, M., & Maurer, H. (2009). Can weblogs and microblogs change traditional scientific writing? Future Internet, 1(1), 47–58. doi:10.3390/fi1010047. Ebner, M., Lienhardt, C., Rohs, M., & Meyer, I. (2010). Microblogs in higher education – A chance to facilitate informal and processoriented learning? Computers & Education, 55(1), 92–100. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2009.12.006. Elavsky, C. M., Mislan, C., & Elavsky, S. (2011). When talking less is more: exploring outcomes of Twitter usage in the large‐lecture hall. Learning, Media and Technology, 36(3), 215–233. doi:10.1080 /17439884.2010.549828. Forte, A., Humphreys, M., & Park, T. (2012). Grassroots professional development: How teachers use Twitter. In Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (pp. 106–113). Dublin, Ireland: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence. Gao, F., Luo, T., & Zhang, K. (2012). Tweeting for learning: A critical analysis of research on microblogging in education published in 2008–2011. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(5), 783–801. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01357.x. Gao, F., & Li, L. (2016). Examining a one‐hour synchronous chat in a microblogging‐based professional development community. British Journal of Educational Technology. doi:10.1111/bjet.12384. Herriot, R. E., & Firestone, W. A. (1983). Multisite qualitative policy research: Optimizing description and generalizability. Educational Researcher, 12(3), 14–19. Ingram, A. L., Hathorn, L. G., & Evans, A. (2000). Beyond chat on the internet. Computers & Education, 35(1), 21–35. Järvelä, S., & Häkkinen, P. (2002). Web-based cases in teaching and learning – the quality of discussion and stage of perspective taking
in asynchronous communication. Interactive Learning Environments, 10, 1–22. Java, A., Song, X., Finin, T., & Tseng, B. (2007). Why we Twitter: Understanding microblogging usage and communities Proceedings of the 9th WebKDD and 1st SNA-KDD 2007 workshop on Web mining and social network analysis, WebKDD/SNAKDD’07 (pp. 56–65). New York, NY: ACM. Jeong, A. (1996). The Structures of Group Discussions in Online Chats. Journal of Visual Literacy, 16(1), 51–63. Johnson, G. M. (2006). Synchronous and asynchronous text-based CMC in educational contexts: A review of recent research. TechTrends, 50(4), 46–53. doi:10.1007/s11528-006-0046-9. Junco, R., Heiberger, G., & Loken, E. (2011). The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27(2), 119–132. doi:10.1111/j.13652729.2010.00387.x. Knowlton, D. S. (2001). Promoting durable knowledge construction through online discussion. Mid-South Instructional Technology C o n f e r e n c e . R e t r i e v e d f r o m h t t p : / / w w w. m t s u . edu/~itconf/proceed01/11.html. Kop, R. (2011). The challenges to connectivist learning on open online networks: Learning experiences during a massive open online course. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(3), 19–38. Lalonde, C. (2012). How important is Twitter in your Personal Learning Network?. eLearn, (9)3. doi:10.1145/2371029.2379624. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications. Lobel, M., Neubauer, M., & Swedburg, R. (2002). Elements of group interaction in a real-time synchronous online learning-by-doing classroom without F2F participation. USDLA Journal, 16(4). Retrieved from http:// www.usdla.org/html/journal/APR02_ Issue/article01.html. Luo, T. (2015). Instructional guidance in microblogging-supported learning: insights from a multiple case study. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 27(3), 173–194. doi:10.1007/s12528-015-9097-2. Luo, T. (2016). Enabling microblogging-based peer feedback in face-toface classrooms. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 53(2), 156–166. doi:10.1080/14703297.2014.995202. Luo, T., & Franklin, T. (2015). Tweeting and Blogging: Moving Towards Education 2.0. International Journal on E-Learning, 14(2), 235–258. Luo, T., & Gao, F. (2012). Enhancing classroom learning experience by providing structures to microblogging-based activities. Journal of Information Technology Education, 11, 199–211. Martin, H. (2012). Topic trends on #edchat and what they say about education today. Retrieved from http://tristanverboven.wordpress. com/2012/08/17/topic-trends-on-edchat-and-what-they-say-abouteducation-today/. McCormack, A., Gore, J., & Thomas, K. (2006). Early career teacher professional learning. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 34(1), 95–113. doi:10.1080/13598660500480282. Meyer, K. A. (2003). Face-to-face versus threaded discussions: The role of time and higher-order thinking. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7. Retrieved from http:// www.sloan-c. org/publications/jaln/v7n3/v7n3_meyer.asp. Perifanou, M. A. (2009). Language micro-gaming: fun and informal microblogging activities for language learning. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 49, 1–14. doi:10.1007/978-3642-04757-2_1. Rajagopal, K., Joosten-ten Brinke, D., Van Bruggen, J., & Sloep, P. B. (2011). Understanding personal learning networks: Their structure, content and the networking skills needed to optimally use them. First Monday, 17(1). Retrieved from http://firstmonday. org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3559/3131.
TechTrends Richardson, W., & Mancabelli, R. (2011). Personal learning networks: Using the power of connections to transform education. Solution Tree Press. Schwienhorst, K. (2003). Learner autonomy and tandem learning: Putting principles into practice in synchronous and asynchronous telecommunications environments. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 16, 427–443. Shotsberger, P. G. (2000). The human touch: Synchronous communication in web-based learning. Educational Technology, 40, 53–55. Terrell, S. (2014). Tips for joining #edchat: The education conversation. Retrieved 12/1/2015, from: http://edchat.pbworks. com/w/page/40546805/Tips. Traphagan, T. W., Chiang, Y. H. V., Chang, H. M., Wattanawaha, B., Lee, H., Mayrath, M. C., et al. (2010). Cognitive, social
and teaching presence in a virtual world and a text chat. Computers & Education, 55(3), 923–936. doi:10.1016/j. compedu.2010.04.003. Whitby, T. (2012). How does #Edchat connect educators? Retrieved from http://smartblogs.com/education/2012/08/06/how-edchat-connecteducators-2. Wright, N. (2010). Twittering in teacher education: reflecting on practicum experiences. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 25(3), 259–265. doi:10.1080 /02680513.2010.512102. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: design and methods. London: Sage Publication. Yin, R. K. (2008). Case study research: design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
