Advertisement

Spam and Educators’ Twitter Use: Methodological Challenges and Considerations

Abstract

Twitter and other social media have assumed important places in many educators’ professional lives by hosting spaces where new kinds of collegial interactions can occur. However, such spaces can also attract unwelcome Twitter traffic that complicates researchers’ attempts to explore and understand educators’ professional social media experiences. In this article, we define various kinds of spam that we have identified in our research on educators’ uses of Twitter. After providing an overview of the concept of spam, we evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches to addressing the presence of spam in educator-focused Twitter spaces. Then we suggest practical, holistic metrics that can be employed to help identify spam. Through secondary analyses of our past research, we describe the use of such metrics to identify and deal with spam in three specific cases. Finally, we discuss implications of spam and these suggested methods for teacher educators, instructional designers and educational technology researchers.

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 99

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. boyd, d. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven: Yale University Press.

  2. Britt, V. G., & Paulus, T. (2016). “Beyond the four walls of my building”: A case study of #Edchat as a community of practice. American Journal of Distance Education, 30, 48–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/08923647.2016.1119609.

  3. Brunton, F. (2013). Spam: A shadow history of the internet. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  4. Burgess, D. (2012). Teach like a pirate. San Diego: Dave Burgess Consulting.

  5. Carpenter, J. (2015). Preservice teachers’ microblogging: Professional development via twitter. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 15(2), 209–234.

  6. Carpenter, J. P., & Harvey, S. (2019). “There's no referee on social media”: Challenges in educator professional social media use. Teaching and Teacher Education, 86, 102904.

  7. 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(4), 414–434. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2014.925701.

  8. Carpenter, J. P., & Morrison, S. A. (2018). Enhancing teacher education… with twitter? Phi Delta Kappan, 100(1), 25–28.

  9. Carpenter, J., 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 & teacher education (SITE) international conference (pp. 2230-2235). Washington, D.C., United States: Association for the Advancement of computing in education (AACE).

  10. Carpenter, J.P., Koehler, M.J., Staudt Willet, K.B., & Greenhalgh, S.P. (2019). Spam, spam, spam, spam: Methodological considerations and challenges for studying educators’ twitter use. In K. Graziano (Ed.), proceedings of Society for Information Technology & teacher education (SITE) international conference 2019 (pp. 2702-2711). Las Vegas, NV: Association for the Advancement of computing in education (AACE). Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/208033/.

  11. Chen, C., Zhang, J., Xiang, Y., Zhou, W., & Oliver, J. (2016). Spammers are becoming “smarter” on Twitter. IT Professional, 18(2), 66–70. https://doi.org/10.1109/MITP.2016.36.

  12. Cook, M. P., & Bissonnette, J. D. (2016). Developing preservice teachers’ positionalities in 140 characters or less: Examining microblogging as dialogic space. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), 82–109.

  13. Dede, C. (2006). Online professional development for teachers: Emerging models. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.

  14. Donath, J. (2007). Signals in social supernets. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 231–251. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00394.

  15. Evans, P. (2015). Open online spaces of professional learning: Context, personalisation and facilitation. TechTrends, 59(1), 31–36.

  16. 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.

  17. Goodyear, V. A., Parker, M., & Casey, A. (2019). Social media and teacher professional learning communities. Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, 24(5), 421–433. https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2019.1617263.

  18. Greenhalgh, S. P. (2018). Spaces and their social frontiers: Using community dimensions to distinguish between teacher-focused hashtags on twitter (doctoral dissertation). East Lansing: Michigan State University.

  19. Hsieh, B. (2017). Making and missing connections: Exploring Twitter chats as a learning tool in a preservice teacher education course. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 17(4), 549–568.

  20. Karpf, D. (2012). Social science research methods in internet time. Information, Communication & Society, 15, 639–661. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.665468.

  21. Kimmons, R., & Veletsianos, G. (2018). Public internet data mining methods in instructional design, educational technology, and online learning research. TechTrends, 62(5), 492–500. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-018-0307-4.

  22. Kraut, R. E., & Resnick, P. (2011). Building successful online communities: Evidence-based social design. Cambridge: MIT Press.

  23. Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010). What is Twitter, a social network or a news media?. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on World Wide Web (WWW 2010) (pp. 591-600). New York: Association for Computing Machinery (ACM).

  24. Lin, P.-C., & Huang, P.-M. (2013). A study of effective features for detecting long-surviving Twitter spam accounts. In The 15th international conference on advanced communications technology (ICACT), technical proceedings 2013 (pp. 841–846). Piscataway: IEEE.

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

  26. Luo, T., Sickel, J., & Cheng, L. (2017). Preservice teachers’ participation and perceptions of Twitter live chats as personal learning networks. TechTrends, 61, 225–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0137-1.

  27. Macià, M., & García, I. (2016). Informal online communities and networks as a source of teacher professional development: a review. Teaching and Teacher Education, 55, 291–307. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2016.01.02.

  28. Mowbray, M. (2014). Automated Twitter accounts. In K. Weller, A. Bruns, J. Burgess, M. Mahrt, & C. Puschmann (Eds.), Twitter and society (pp. 183–194). New York: Peter Lang.

  29. Nagle, J. (2018). Twitter, cyber-violence, and the need for a critical social media literacy in teacher education: A review of the literature. Teaching and Teacher Education, 76, 86–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.08.014.

  30. Prestridge, S., Tondeur, J., & Ottenbreit-Leftwich, A. T. (2019). Insights from ICT-expert teachers about the design of educational practice: The learning opportunities of social media. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 28, 157–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2019.1578685.

  31. Rosenberg, J. M., Greenhalgh, S. P., Koehler, M. J., Hamilton, E., & Akcaoglu, M. (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.

  32. Rosenberg, J. M., Greenhalgh, S. P., Wolf, L. G., & Koehler, M. J. (2017). Strategies, use, and impact of social media for supporting teacher community within professional development: The case of one urban STEM program. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 36, 255–267.

  33. Shelton, C., & Archambault, L. (2018). Discovering how teachers build virtual relationships and develop as professionals through online teacherpreneurship. Journal of Interactive Learning Research, 29, 579–602.

  34. Staudt Willet, K. B. (2019). Revisiting how and why educators use twitter: Tweet types and purposes in #Edchat. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 51(3), 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2019.1611507.

  35. Staudt Willet, K.B., & Carpenter, J.P. (2019). Educators on the front page of the internet: Education-related subreddits as learning spaces. In K. Graziano (Ed.), proceedings of Society for Information Technology & teacher education (SITE) international conference 2019 (pp. 2787-2795). Las Vegas, NV: Association for the Advancement of computing in education (AACE). Retrieved from https://www.learntechlib.org/p/208040/.

  36. Tour, E. (2017). Teachers’ self-initiated professional learning through personal learning networks. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 26, 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2016.1196236.

  37. Tucker, L. (2019). Educational professionals’ decision making for professional growth using a case of Twitter adoption. TechTrends, 63(2), 133–148.

  38. Twitter (n.d.). Report spam on Twitter. Retrieved from https://help.twitter.com/en/safety-and-security/report-spam

  39. Veletsianos, G. (2017). Three cases of hashtags used as learning and professional development environments. TechTrends, 61(3), 284–292.

  40. Veletsianos, G., Houlden, S., Hodson, J., & Gosse, C. (2018). Women scholars’ experiences with online harassment and abuse: self-protection, resistance, acceptance, and self-blame. New Media & Society, 20, 4689–4708. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818781324.

  41. Wang, B., Zubiaga, A., Liakata, M., & Procter, R. (2015). Making the most of tweet-inherent features for social spam detection on Twitter. CEUR Workshop Proceedings, 1395, 10–16. Retrieved from https://arxiv.org/abs/1503.07405

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Jeffrey P. Carpenter.

Ethics declarations

Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Research Involving Human Participants and/or Animals

This article contains no studies with animals performed by the authors. All actions performed in studies involving human participants were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the relevant institutional review board, and also with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

This paper conducts secondary analysis of data collected during two earlier studies (Carpenter et al. 2018; Staudt Willet 2019). Those studies, as well as this current one, included only publicly available data from the social media platform Twitter that were collected unobtrusively. The data are described only in aggregate; we do not point to individual users in any identifiable way and generally focus on behavior trends among a corpus of several thousand participants on social media. As such, informed consent was deemed unnecessary by the respective Institutional Review Boards.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Carpenter, J.P., Staudt Willet, K.B., Koehler, M.J. et al. Spam and Educators’ Twitter Use: Methodological Challenges and Considerations. TechTrends (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00466-3

Download citation

Keywords

  • Hashtags
  • Professional community
  • Professional learning
  • Research methods
  • Spam
  • Social media
  • Twitter