Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Tweet, and We Shall Find: Using Digital Methods to Locate Participants in Educational Hashtags

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
TechTrends Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Although researchers have discovered a great deal about who uses Twitter for educational purposes, what they post about, when they post and why they participate, there has so far been little work to explore where participants in educational Twitter contexts are located. In this paper, we establish a methodological foundation that can support the exploration of geographical issues in educational Twitter research. We surveyed 46 participants in one educational Twitter hashtag, #michED, to determine where they lived; we then compared these responses to results from three digital methods for geolocating Twitter users (human coding, machine coding and GPS coding) to explore these methods’ affordances and constraints. Human coding of Twitter profiles allowed us to analyze more participants with higher levels of accuracy but also has disadvantages compared to other digital—and traditional—methods. We discuss the additional insights obtained through geolocating #michED participants as well as considerations for using geolocation and other digital methods in educational research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Baker, L. M. (2008). Unobtrusive research. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods (pp. 905–906). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carpenter, J. P., & Krutka, D. G. (2014). How and why educators use Twitter: A survey of the field. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46, 414–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2014.925701.

  • Carpenter, J. P., & Krutka, D. G. (2015). Engagement through microblogging: Educator professional development via Twitter. Professional Development in Education, 41, 707–728. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2014.939294.

  • Carpenter, J. P., Tani, T., Morrison, S., & Keane, J. (2018). Exploring the education Twitter hashtag landscape. In E. Langran & J. Borup (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education Conference 2018 (pp. 2230–3325). Waynesville: Association for the Advancement of computing in Education (AACE).

    Google Scholar 

  • Cheng, Z., Caverlee, J., & Lee, K. (2010). You are where you tweet: A content-based approach to geo-locating Twitter users. In X. J. Huang, G. Jones, N. Koudas, X. Wu, & K. Collins-Thompson (Eds.), Proceedings of the 19 th ACM international conference on information and knowledge management (pp. 759–768). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiesler, C., & Proferes, N. (2018). “Participant” perceptions of Twitter research ethics. Social Media + Society, 4(2). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118763366.

  • Gao, F., & Li, L. (2017). Examining a one-hour synchronous chat in a microblogging-based professional development community. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48, 332–347. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gentry, J. (2015). twitteR: R based Twitter client (Version 1.1.9) [Computer Software]. Retrieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=twitteR

  • Gleason, B. (2013). #Occupy Wall Street: Exploring informal learning about a social movement on Twitter. American Behavioral Scientist, 57, 966–982. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213479372.

  • Graham, M., Hale, S. A., & Gaffney, D. (2014). Where in the world are you? Geolocation and language identification in Twitter. The Professional Geographer, 66, 568–578. https://doi.org/10.1080/00330124.2014.907699.

  • Greenhalgh, S. P., & Koehler, M. J. (2017). 28 days later: Twitter hashtags as “just in time” teacher professional development. TechTrends, 61, 273–281. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0142-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hawksey, M. (2014). Need a better Twitter Archiving Google Sheet? TAGS v6.0 is here! [Blog post]. Retrieved from https://mashe.hawksey.info/2014/10/need-a-better-twitter-archiving-google-sheet-tags-v6-0-is-here/

  • Jurgens, D., Finnethy, T., McCorriston, J., Xu, Y. T., & Ruths, D. (2015). Geolocation prediction in Twitter using social networks: A critical analysis and review of current practice. In Proceedings of the twenty-ninth AAAI conference on artificial intelligence and the twenty-seventh innovative applications of artificial intelligence conference. Palo Alto: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krutka, D. G., Asino, T. I., & Haselwood, S. (2018). Editorial: Eight lessons on networked teacher activism from #OklaEd and the #OklaEdWalkout. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 18(2) Retrieved from http://www.citejournal.org.

  • Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lazer, D., Pentland, A., Adamic, L., Aral, S., Barabási, A.-L., et al. (2009). Computational social science. Science, 323, 721–723. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1167742.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, R. M. (2015). Unobtrusive measures. https://doi.org/10.1093/OBO/9780199846740-0048.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, R. M., Fielding, N., & Blank, G. (2008). The internet as a research medium: An editorial introduction to The Sage Handbook of Online Research Methods. In N. Fielding, R. M. Lee, & G. Blank (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of online research methods (pp. 2–22). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Luo, T., & Clifton, L. (2017). Examining collaborative knowledge construction in microblogging-based learning environments. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 16, 365–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Markham, A., & Buchanan, E. (2012). Ethical decision-making and internet research: Recommendations from the AoIR ethics working committee (Version 2.0). Chicago: Association of Internet Researchers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marres, N. (2016). Foreword. In H. Snee, C. Hine, Y. Morey, S. Roberts, & H. Watson (Eds.), Digital methods for social science: An interdisciplinary guide to research innovation (pp. viii–viix). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishra, P., Koehler, M. J., & Greenhow, C. (2016). The work of educational psychologists in a digitally networked world. In L. Corno & E. M. Anderman (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (3rd ed., pp. 29–40). New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munzert, S., Rubba, C., Meißner, P., & Nyhuis, D. (2015). Automated data collection with R: A practical guide to web scraping and text mining. West Sussex: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenberg, J. M., Greenhalgh, S. P., Koehler, M. J., Akcaoglu, M., & Hamilton, E. (2016). An investigation of State Educational Twitter Hashtags (SETHs) as affinity spaces. E-Learning and Digital Media, 13, 24–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753016672351.

  • Rosenberg, J. M., Akcaoglu, M., Staudt Willet, K. B., Greenhalgh, S. P., & Koehler, M. J. (2017). A tale of two Twitters: Synchronous and asynchronous use of the same hashtag. In P. Resta & S. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference 2017 (pp. 283–286). Waynesville: Association for the Advancement of computing in education (AACE).

  • Rudis, B. (2016). nominatim: Tools for working with the “Nominatim” API. (Version 0.2.2.9000) [Computer Software]. Retrieved from https://github.com/hrbrmstr/nominatim

  • Salganik, M. J. (2018). Bit by bit: Social research in the digital age. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaffer, D. W. (2017). Quantitative ethnography. Madison: Cathcart Press.

  • Sloan, L. (2017). Social science ‘lite'? Deriving demographic proxies from Twitter. In L. Sloan & A. Quan-Haase (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social media research methods (pp. 90–104). London: SAGE.

  • Snee, H., Hine, C., Morey, Y., Roberts, S., & Watson, H. (2016). Digital methods as mainstream methodology: An introduction. In H. Snee, C. Hine, Y. Morey, S. Roberts, & H. Watson (Eds.), Digital methods for social science: An interdisciplinary guide to research innovation (pp. 1–11). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Takhteyev, Y., Gruzd, A., & Wellman, B. (2012). Geography of Twitter networks. Social Networks, 34, 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2011.05.006.

  • Veletsianos, G. (2017a). Three cases of hashtags used as learning and professional development environments. TechTrends, 61, 284–292. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0143-3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Veletsianos, G. (2017b). Toward a generalizable understanding of Twitter and social media use across MOOCs: Who participates on MOOC hashtags and in what ways? Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29, 65–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9131-7.

  • Welser, H. T., Smith, M., Fisher, D., & Gleave, E. (2008). Distilling digital traces: Computational social science approaches to studying the internet. In N. Fielding, R. M. Lee, & G. Blank, The SAGE handbook of online research methods (pp. 116–141). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.

  • Wesely, P. M. (2013). Investigating the community of practice of world language educators on Twitter. Journal of Teacher Education, 64, 305–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487113489032.

Download references

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Ben Rimes, Mary Wever and everyone else who helped us reach out to the #michED community.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Information Science, University of Kentucky, 320 Lucille Little Fine Arts Library, Lexington, KY, 40506-0224, USA

    Spencer P. Greenhalgh

  2. Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Special Education, Michigan State University, 447 Erickson Hall, 620 Farm Lane, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA

    K. Bret Staudt Willet

  3. Department of Theory and Practice in Teacher Education, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, A204 Jane and David Bailey Education Complex, 1126 Volunteer Boulevard, Knoxville, TN, 37996–3442, USA

    Joshua M. Rosenberg

  4. Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Special Education, Michigan State University, 509E Erickson Hall, 620 Farm Lane, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA

    Matthew J. Koehler

Authors
  1. Spencer P. Greenhalgh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. K. Bret Staudt Willet
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joshua M. Rosenberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Matthew J. Koehler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Spencer P. Greenhalgh.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Spencer P. Greenhalgh declares that he has no conflict of interest. K. Bret Staudt Willet declares that he has no conflict of interest. Joshua M. Rosenberg declares that he has no conflict of interest. Matthew J. Koehler declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

This research was conducted while Spencer P. Greenhalgh and Joshua M. Rosenberg were graduate students at Michigan State University.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Greenhalgh, S.P., Staudt Willet, K.B., Rosenberg, J.M. et al. Tweet, and We Shall Find: Using Digital Methods to Locate Participants in Educational Hashtags. TechTrends 62, 501–508 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0313-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0313-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation