<\/p>\n
The microblogging service Twitter allows users to share 140-character messages\u2014what Twitter, Inc., calls \u201csmall bursts of information\u201d (Twitter, Inc., n.d.). Belying its reputation as the domain of celebrities, narcissists, and callow teens, Twitter reportedly has grown increasingly popular among K-12 educators (e.g., Davis, 2011; Lu, 2011), who use it for a variety of purposes, including networking, communication with students and parents, and sharing teaching resources. Such informal, grassroots professional development (Carpenter & Krutka, 2014b; Forte, Humphreys, & Park, 2012) is notable given the formal, topdown nature of much teacher professional development.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, research in higher education settings suggests microblogging also offers potential benefits to teaching and learning processes and outcomes (Domizi, 2013; Junco, Heiberger, & Loken, 2011, Rinaldo, Tapp, & Laverie, 2011). Twitter\u2019s use in teacher education, however, appears to be uncommon and relatively unstudied.<\/p>\n
Background and Rationale<\/p>\n
Social media such as Facebook, Tumblr, and Instagram have an important place in many young people\u2019s lives (Ito et al., 2010). Many educators, however, have been ambivalent regarding the role(s) such media should play in teaching and learning (Selwyn & Grant, 2009), with school districts often blocking access to popular social media sites. Nonetheless, in a 2014 survey, 31% of K-12 teachers reported using social media for professional purposes, such as communication with colleagues, students, and parents (University of Phoenix, 2014). Given their increasing role in modern life, it seems likely that social media services will be part of school life during current preservice teachers\u2019 careers.<\/p>\n
Twitter is one social media tool that appears to offer affordances for teaching and learning (EDUCAUSE, 2007) that merit investigation by teacher educators. Twitter\u2019s concise, open, and ubiquitous nature potentially provides opportunities to increase teacher-student and student-student interactions, both inside and outside of the physical classroom. The activity of K-12 educators on Twitter also presents opportunities for preservice teachers to connect with practicing teachers and participate in professional discussions in new ways (Jenkins, Purushotma, Weigel, Clinton, & Robinson, 2009).<\/p>\n
Twitter may, therefore, be able to help develop preservice teachers\u2019 professional identities and professional networks, as well as their habits of professional learning. Collaborative technologies such as Twitter can help teachers to take control over and personalize their professional development (Risser, 2013). Evidence already indicates that teachers are utilizing online communities for professional purposes (Hur & Brush, 2009), and Twitter appears to offer opportunities for just such community (Wesely, 2013).<\/p>\n
The popularity of education Twitter chats (Carpenter & Krutka, 2014a) and active Twitter backchannel conversation at many K-12 education conferences (Lu, 2011) appear to indicate the uptake of microblogging by a significant number of educators. Twitter is, thus, potentially a tool that can be used to help both enrich teacher education coursework and encourage preservice teachers\u2019 participation in professional communities that can extend beyond graduation and into the induction period.<\/p>\n
Such opportunities for preservice teachers are attractive given that novices are unlikely to learn everything they need to know about teaching and learning in the relatively short duration of even the best university-based teacher education programs. In addition, the traditional professional development (PD) they often encounter in the field has a long history of failing to support continuous improvement (Hawley & Valli, 2007).<\/p>\n
Theoretical Perspective<\/p>\n
Prior to the rise of Web 2.0, educator access to informal learning opportunities was often limited (Garet, Porter, Desimone, Birman, & Yoon, 2001), but social media services appear to present more avenues for informal PD activities. Social media services can, in theory, harness the Web\u2019s interactive potential to foster both collaborative and learner-centered experiences. The characteristics of social media tools such as Twitter align well with social constructivist approaches to learning (Vygotsky, 1978), because they can support discussion spaces that allow participants to build knowledge through their interactions with other users (Jenkins et al., 2009).<\/p>\n
Gee (2004) argued that the Internet provides access to \u201caffinity spaces\u201d where users can interact around topics of shared interest. These spaces allow those with varying degrees of knowledge and experience to contribute and mentor each other. The ways affinity spaces are utilized vary according to individual interests, needs, skills, and expertise, with some participants taking on active moderator and curator roles and others primarily benefitting from the resource and idea sharing common in such spaces.<\/p>\n
Although Twitter did not exist when Gee first conceptualized affinity spaces, and not all uses of Twitter can be considered affinity space activity, the ways in which many K-12 educators have been utilizing Twitter appear to align with many of the qualities Gee described. \u00a0A variety of hashtags (e.g., #mathchat, #engchat) provide spaces in which farflung educators with shared interests can connect, share resources, and build community (see Wesely, 2013, for further discussion of use of Twitter hashtags to generate professional communities). These hashtag affinity spaces allows for varying degrees of participation, from lurking to live chat moderation.<\/p>\n
Through Twitter, preservice teachers can, thus, potentially participate in affinity spaces with in-service educators in ways that might not be possible in traditional PD settings that are more structured, hierarchical, and bureaucratic and face more temporal and geographic constraints.<\/p>\n
Literature Review<\/p>\n
Founded in 2006, Twitter\u2019s potential as a learning tool in a variety of settings was quickly identified (e.g., EDUCAUSE Learning Initiative, 2007), and the education press and various blogs regularly report on or advocate for educators\u2019 employment of Twitter (e.g., Davis, 2011; Lu, 2011). Seaman and Tinti-Kane\u2019s (2013) survey indicated higher education faculty were more likely to employ Twitter for their own professional purposes than in their classroom teaching.<\/p>\n
Despite this limited classroom use, research on microblogging has been conducted in various higher education contexts, including bachelors (e.g., Junco et al., 2011) and masters (e.g., Ebner, Lienhardt, Rohs,\u00a0 & Meyer, 2010) degree programs, as well as in continuing education settings (e.g., Chen & Chen, 2012). Twitter use has been studied in large lecture (e.g., Elavsky, Mislan, & Elavsky, 2011) and fully online courses (e.g., Dunlap & Lowenthal, 2009), courses with multiple sections (e.g., Junco et al., 2011), and for practicum experiences (Wright, 2010).<\/p>\n
There is also an international flavor to the extant research; although the majority of studies have occurred in U.S. higher education, research has also been conducted in Austria, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, and Taiwan. Research has explored in-class (e.g., Elavsky et al., 2011) and out-of-class use of Twitter (e.g., Ebner et al., 2010).<\/p>\n
For example, in-class applications have included Twitter serving as a means for backchannel conversation or functioning as a classroom response system similar to clickers (i.e., classroom response systems), while out-of-class uses have ranged from submitting responses to reflection prompts to following a class account used by the instructor to disseminate course-related information. Research methodologies have included surveys, focus groups, content analyses of tweets and Twitter interactions, and software-based social network analyses<\/p>\n
Several studies have reported positive student perceptions of Twitter as a part of the teaching and learning process (Elavsky et al., 2011; Lowe & Laffey, 2011; Wright, 2010). For example, in Gikas and Grant\u2019s research (2013) students (N<\/em> = 9) from three institutions indicated in focus group interviews that using Twitter felt more natural and immediate than formal learning management systems. In Rinaldo, Tapp, and Laverie’s (2011) research, students (N<\/em> = 276) in four different course sections indicated in surveys that Twitter helped increase involvement and satisfaction with courses and facilitated achievement of their academic goals<\/p>\n In addition to students\u2019 generally positive perspectives on microblogging, research has suggested other benefits of Twitter\u2019s use. For example, Junco and colleagues (2011) used a control group in their research on prehealth professional majors and reported that those students using Twitter as part of an introductory course (N = <\/em>125) had significantly higher engagement and grades.<\/p>\n Several studies have found that microblogging was effective in encouraging informal learning beyond the physical university classroom (Ebner et al., 2010; Gikas & Grant, 2013; Kassens-Noor, 2012). Microblogging appears to have potential to enhance communication between instructors and students (Dunlap & Lowenthal, 2009) and, in particular, to encourage students who might be too shy or inhibited in certain situations to speak directly to the instructor (Chen & Chen, 2012; Voorn & Kommers, 2013).<\/p>\n Various studies have identified benefits to Twitter\u2019s use for specific purposes or in certain contexts. For example, in a large-lecture class setting, Elavsky and colleagues (2011) found that when given the opportunity a majority of students (n<\/em> = 300) chose voluntarily to contribute questions and comments to a live Twitter feed during class sessions. This backchannel activity included student-instructor and student-student communication, and deepened and extended opportunities for engagement with course themes.<\/p>\n The literature review conducted by Gao, Lu, and Zhang (2012) reported that microblogging services such as Twitter have the potential \u201cto encourage participation, engagement, reflective thinking as well as collaborative learning under different learning settings\u201d (p. 783). Previous research in higher education, thus, suggests that Twitter offers a number of potential teaching and learning affordances.<\/p>\n Challenges and Obstacles<\/p>\n In addition to the various benefits attributed to Twitter, research suggests some impediments to its use in higher education settings. Learners and instructors who are already actively using other social media may be hesitant to adopt yet another service (Rinaldo et al. 2011; Young & Kraut, 2011). Despite students\u2019 generally positive post-use perceptions of Twitter\u2019s place in the classroom, some may initially doubt Twitter\u2019s educational potential or may not welcome their instructors\u2019 presence in their social networking space (Ebner et al., 2010; Krutka, 2014). Some instructors have also expressed general concerns about social media in relation to privacy issues and the academic integrity of student submissions (Seaman & Tinti-Kane, 2013). One recent survey of teachers found that, while almost half believed that participation in social media as a part of school activities could enhance students\u2019 educational experiences, 80% of respondents were concerned about conflicts that could occur as a result of using social media with students or parents or both (University of Phoenix, 2014).<\/p>\n As with any pedagogical tool, educators put Twitter to use with varying degrees of effectiveness. Research suggests that although Twitter can increase peer interactions it does not inevitably do so; it appears educators must encourage or scaffold such interaction (Chen & Chen, 2012). Lowe and Laffey (2011) discovered that they needed to integrate students\u2019 Twitter activity into class discussion for microblogging to have the most impact on student learning.<\/p>\n Two studies have suggested that the format of Twitter may not be ideal for encouraging reflection (Ebner et al., 2010; Kassens-Noor, 2012), but Wright (2010) found that microblogging was an effective tool for her students to share reflections with peers. Thus, although compelling reasons exist to use Twitter, prior research suggests educators should not assume that implementation will be without hitches or that Twitter is appropriate in all situations.<\/p>\n Teachers, Teacher Education, and Twitter<\/p>\n Although a number of pieces describe various uses of Twitter for teacher and student learning (e.g., Junco et al., 2011), its application in teacher education settings and for educator professional learning is much less researched. Recently, Moon and colleagues (2014) asserted that little was yet known about how \u201csocial media capacities interact with teacher learning and whether or how they are in line with established ideas about professional learning in general\u201d (p. 175).<\/p>\n Three recent studies suggest Twitter\u2019s potential to support the professional development of K-12 teachers. Risser (2013) described the case of a novice high school mathematics educator who used Twitter to create for herself an informal mentoring network that facilitated her successful transition from student teacher to first-year teacher. Wesely (2013) analyzed the Twitter activity of a group of world language teachers (N<\/em> = 9) and determined that Twitter constituted a professional community that supported the teachers\u2019 ongoing learning and growth. Finally, a survey of 755 educators found that Twitter\u2019s capacity to reduce various types of isolation and the personalized, positive, and collaborative community it facilitated were valued by many respondents (Carpenter & Krutka, 2014c).<\/p>\n I found five published studies focusing on the use of Twitter in teacher education. Wright (2010) had eight of her students in New Zealand use Twitter during their student teaching experiences. The participants microblogged to share brief reflections upon their daily experiences in the classroom. This activity reportedly helped the student teachers generate and develop self-reflection and combat the potential isolation and emotional overload of teaching.<\/p>\n The preservice teachers in Krutka\u2019s (2014) research used Twitter, Facebook, and Edmodo as a part of their methods course with the author, and found Twitter to be the most useful professional tool of the three. In Young and Kraut\u2019s (2011) study, aspiring English language arts teachers used their instructor\u2019s Twitter account to post tweets that shared language-related resources.<\/p>\n Mills (2014) similarly focused on an instructor\u2019s account, describing in this journal how a teacher educator\u2019s use of Twitter with his preservice teachers helped incline many of those novices to using Twitter to learn about new classroom strategies and technologies. In contrast, Lord and Lomicka (2014) reported the benefits of Twitter use in teacher education in terms of the formation of a community of practice among preservice and in-service language teachers.<\/p>\n These studies each reported positive experiences with Twitter and contribute to the knowledge base on Twitter\u2019s use in education. However, several of the studies arguably describe limited uses of Twitter. In Wright\u2019s (2010) study, student teachers tweeted amongst each other privately; microblogging was not used as a way to interact with a larger professional community. In Young and Kraut\u2019s (2011) case, the focus was on the instructor\u2019s account, rather than on student accounts. Practicing educators who microblog do not typically do so in such limited ways; Young and Kraut even admitted that the students in their research \u201cmight not be making full use of the tool\u201d (p. 3786). Also, four of the five studies explored Twitter use only during a single course. Research is thus needed on more unrestrained professional use of Twitter in teacher education and its influence on novice teachers\u2019 ongoing professional development.<\/p>\n Purpose of the Study and Research Questions<\/p>\n Given the limited nature of research on Twitter in teacher education, this study seeks to contribute to a fuller understanding of the challenges and opportunities associated with its use. The research questions examined were as follows:<\/p>\n Methodology<\/p>\n Participants<\/p>\n Participants were undergraduate teacher education students whom I taught in a required course during the fall semester of their senior year; 20 of 23 students in the course consented to participate in the study. I taught all of the students in previous semesters in a course that did not incorporate microblogging. The participants were preparing to teach in five content areas: secondary English, history, and mathematics, as well as music and physical education and health at the K-12 level.<\/p>\n These students attended a private university of approximately 6,000 students in the southeastern United States. The sample consisted of 75% females and 25% males. Nineteen (95%) of the participants identified as White, and 1 identified as Multiracial. Eleven (55%) of the participants used Twitter prior to the study, and 3 of these students reported prior use for an educational or professional purpose. Four participants indicated initial skepticism regarding Twitter\u2019s use in educational settings.<\/p>\n Course Twitter Activities<\/p>\n At the beginning of the fall semester, students were briefly introduced to Twitter in class and required to create a professional account. They were also required to do the following:<\/p>\n The students combined Twitter activities accounted for 10% of their grade for the semester. Finally, at the end of the subsequent spring 2013 semester, an electronic survey was sent to the participants (see Appendix B<\/a>). Sixteen (80%) of the participants completed this second survey about their use or nonuse of Twitter during the student teaching semester. One of the nonrespondents elected not to complete the teacher education program and, thus, did not take part in student teaching, and 3 participants did not respond to two invitations to complete the survey.<\/p>\n Data Sources<\/p>\n The sources of data for this study were as follows:<\/p>\n The first two data sources were used to answer the first research question, while the third and fourth data sources addressed the second research question.<\/p>\n Data Analysis<\/p>\n Participants\u2019 tweets, including the course hashtag, were aggregated and archived using Rowfeeder.com<\/a>, a social media monitoring service. Descriptive statistics, including means and standard deviations, were generated to identify quantitative patterns and degrees of variation in participants\u2019 Twitter activities. Drawing on naturalistic methods (Lincoln & Guba, 1985), field notes and memos from during the semester, the students\u2019 tweets, follower-following activity, and both sets of survey responses were read and reread to identify patterns and themes.<\/p>\n Through the initial readings, one set of nine codes was developed for tweets and a second set of 11 codes was developed for the survey responses. Each tweet and survey response was then assigned a code or codes. An impartial peer familiar with Twitter audited the coded data (as recommended in Lincoln & Guba, 1985) and provided feedback on the codes.<\/p>\n Tweets and survey responses were sorted in separate spreadsheets according to the initial codes, and the codes were reconsidered and revised (as in Charmaz, 2006). An additional eight codes were added to the tweet set, and two were added to the survey set, resulting in a final coding structure with 17 codes applied to tweets and 13 codes applied to survey responses (Table 1).<\/p>\n Table 1<\/strong>\n
\n
\n
\nCodes Sets<\/p>\n