Advertisement

TechTrends

, Volume 61, Issue 3, pp 226–235 | Cite as

Preservice Teachers’ Participation and Perceptions of Twitter Live Chats as Personal Learning Networks

  • Tian LuoEmail author
  • Jamie Sickel
  • Li Cheng
Original Paper

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.

Keywords

Live chats Microblogging Personal learning networks Pre-service teachers Social media Social networks Teacher education Twitter 

References

  1. 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.
  2. 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.Google Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. Branon, R. F., & Essex, C. (2001). Synchronous and asynchronous communication tools in distance education: A survey of instructors. TechTrends, 45, 36–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burnett, C. (2003). Learning to chat: Tutor participation in synchronous online chat. Teaching in Higher Education, 8, 247–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cronin, J. J. (2011). The classroom as a virtual community: An experience with student backchannel discourse. Business Education Innovation Journal, 3(2), 56–65.Google Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. Diaz-Ortiz, C., & Stone, B. (2011). Twitter for good: change the world one tweet at a time. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  12. 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.
  13. Dunn, J. (2011). The A-Z Dictionary of Educational Twitter Hashtags. Retrieved 01/05/2016, from: http://edudemic.com/2011/10/twitter-hashtag-dictionary/.
  14. Ebner, M., & Maurer, H. (2009). Can weblogs and microblogs change traditional scientific writing? Future Internet, 1(1), 47–58. doi: 10.3390/fi1010047.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ebner, M., Lienhardt, C., Rohs, M., & Meyer, I. (2010). Microblogs in higher education – A chance to facilitate informal and process-oriented learning? Computers & Education, 55(1), 92–100. doi: 10.1016/j.compedu.2009.12.006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.Google Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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.
  20. Herriot, R. E., & Firestone, W. A. (1983). Multisite qualitative policy research: Optimizing description and generalizability. Educational Researcher, 12(3), 14–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Ingram, A. L., Hathorn, L. G., & Evans, A. (2000). Beyond chat on the internet. Computers & Education, 35(1), 21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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/SNA-KDD’07 (pp. 56–65). New York, NY: ACM.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jeong, A. (1996). The Structures of Group Discussions in Online Chats. Journal of Visual Literacy, 16(1), 51–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.1365-2729.2010.00387.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Knowlton, D. S. (2001). Promoting durable knowledge construction through online discussion. Mid-South Instructional Technology Conference. Retrieved from http://www.mtsu.edu/~itconf/proceed01/11.html.
  28. 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.Google Scholar
  29. Lalonde, C. (2012). How important is Twitter in your Personal Learning Network?. eLearn, (9)3. doi: 10.1145/2371029.2379624.
  30. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  31. 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.
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Luo, T. (2016). Enabling microblogging-based peer feedback in face-to-face classrooms. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 53(2), 156–166. doi: 10.1080/14703297.2014.995202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Luo, T., & Franklin, T. (2015). Tweeting and Blogging: Moving Towards Education 2.0. International Journal on E-Learning, 14(2), 235–258.Google Scholar
  35. Luo, T., & Gao, F. (2012). Enhancing classroom learning experience by providing structures to microblogging-based activities. Journal of Information Technology Education, 11, 199–211.Google Scholar
  36. 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-about-education-today/.
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.
  39. 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: 10.1007/978-3-642-04757-2_1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 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.
  41. Richardson, W., & Mancabelli, R. (2011). Personal learning networks: Using the power of connections to transform education. Solution Tree Press.Google Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shotsberger, P. G. (2000). The human touch: Synchronous communication in web-based learning. Educational Technology, 40, 53–55.Google Scholar
  44. Terrell, S. (2014). Tips for joining #edchat: The education conversation. Retrieved 12/1/2015, from: http://edchat.pbworks.com/w/page/40546805/Tips.
  45. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Whitby, T. (2012). How does #Edchat connect educators? Retrieved from http://smartblogs.com/education/2012/08/06/how-edchat-connect-educators-2.
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Yin, R. K. (1994). Case study research: design and methods. London: Sage Publication.Google Scholar
  49. Yin, R. K. (2008). Case study research: design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Darden College of EducationOld Dominion UniversityNorfolkUSA
  2. 2.School of EducationWestern Sydney UniversitySydneyAustralia
  3. 3.College of EducationUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations