Advertisement

TechTrends

pp 1–10 | Cite as

Spam and Educators’ Twitter Use: Methodological Challenges and Considerations

  • Jeffrey P. CarpenterEmail author
  • K. Bret Staudt Willet
  • Matthew J. Koehler
  • Spencer P. Greenhalgh
Original Paper

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.

Keywords

Hashtags Professional community Professional learning Research methods Spam Social media Twitter 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

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.

References

  1. boyd, d. (2014). It’s complicated: The social lives of networked teens. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brunton, F. (2013). Spam: A shadow history of the internet. Cambridge: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burgess, D. (2012). Teach like a pirate. San Diego: Dave Burgess Consulting.Google Scholar
  5. Carpenter, J. (2015). Preservice teachers’ microblogging: Professional development via twitter. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 15(2), 209–234.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carpenter, J. P., & Morrison, S. A. (2018). Enhancing teacher education… with twitter? Phi Delta Kappan, 100(1), 25–28.Google Scholar
  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).Google Scholar
  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/.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  13. Dede, C. (2006). Online professional development for teachers: Emerging models. Cambridge: Harvard Education Press.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Evans, P. (2015). Open online spaces of professional learning: Context, personalisation and facilitation. TechTrends, 59(1), 31–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kraut, R. E., & Resnick, P. (2011). Building successful online communities: Evidence-based social design. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  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).Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  25. Luo, T., & Clifton, L. (2017). Examining collaborative knowledge construction in microblogging-based learning environments. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 16, 365–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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/.Google Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Tucker, L. (2019). Educational professionals’ decision making for professional growth using a case of Twitter adoption. TechTrends, 63(2), 133–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications & Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Elon UniversityElonUSA
  2. 2.Michigan State UniversityEast LansingUSA
  3. 3.University of KentuckyLexingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations