Skip to main content

A study of the use of Twitter by students for lecture engagement and discussion


Research indicates that student engagement with lectures, and participation in discussion and debate, greatly improve their learning and experience of University. The nature of some lectures means they can lack opportunities for interaction and active learning. For this reason it can be difficult for some students, especially students new to University, to fully engage in lectures, and interact with their peers. This study attempts to use Twitter as a means of increasing these opportunities for interaction and engagement for students, especially those who may lack the confidence to engage traditionally. As a first step, the study analyses the use of Audience Response Systems to understand the role technology can play in providing opportunities for interaction. Following this, a review of experiments conducted using Twitter is carried out. While there is a dearth of research in this area, these cases provide some valuable insights into the use of this technology and its integration into education. In the methodology section, the process of using Twitter in lectures is explained, along with some of the challenges and obstacles faced. Findings presented indicate that while adoption of Twitter was low, the platform provides engagement opportunities for timid members of the group, while having a generally positive impact on engagement and discussion for the group as a whole. Finally, emerging uses of the Twitter platform are examined, allowing the reader glimpse possibilities for future integration.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4


  1. Abate, L. E., Gomes, A., & Linton, D. (2011). Engaging students in active learning: Use of a blog and audience response system. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 30(1), 12–18.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Bates, S. P., Howie, K., & Murhpy, A. S. J. (2006). The use of electronic voting systems in large group lectures: Challenges and opportunities. New Directions in the Teaching of Physical Sciences, 2, 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Beldarrain, Y. (2007). Distance education trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27(2), 139–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Bligh, D. A. (1998). What’s the use of lectures? 5th edn. Exeter: Intellect books.

  5. Bruner, J. P. (1967). On knowing: essays for the left hand. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  6. Carnevale, D. (2006). Email is for old people. Chronicle of higher education. Accessed 08 February 2012.

  7. Chickering, A., and Ehrmann, S.E. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. American Association for Higher Education, 3–6.

  8. Crotty, Y. (2011). Through the enlightened eye and I, am I bringing creativity and visual literacy into higher level education? Educational Journal of Living Theories, 4(1), 1–36.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Association of Physics Teachers, 69(9), 970–977.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Draper, S. W., & Brown, M. I. (2004). Increasing interactivity in lectures using and electronic voting system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 81–94.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Duncan, D. (2005). Clickers in the classroom: how to enhance science teaching using classroom response systems. San Francisco: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Ebner, M., Lienhardt, C., Rohs, M., & Meyer, I. (2010). Microblogs in higher education – a chance to facilitate informal and process-oriented learning? Computers in Education, 55, 92–100. Elsevier.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Educause. (2007). 7 things you should know about Twitter. ELI 7 Things you should know. Accessed 06 February 2012.

  14. Farren, M. (2008). eLearning and action research as transformative practice. Innovate Journal of Online Education, 5(1).

  15. Feden, P. D. (1994). About instruction: Powerful new strategies worth knowing. Educational Horizons, 73, 18–24.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Gysbers, V., Johnston, J., Hancock, D., & Denyer, G. (2011). Why do students still bother coming to lectures, when everything is available online? International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 19(2), 20–36.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Hesmondhalgh, P. (2011). 10 Reasons Teachers should give Twitter a go. The creative education blog. Accessed 08 February 2012.

  18. Junco, R., Heibergert, G., & Loken, E. (2011). The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 119–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: a conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  20. Maykut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitiative research: a philolsophical and practical guide. London: RoutledgeFalmer.

    Google Scholar 

  21. McElroy, J., and Blount, Y. (2006). You, me and iLecture. Proceedings of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE) Conference (pp. 549–558). Sydney Australia, Dec 3–6. Accessed 11 December 2012.

  22. Meyer, K. (2002). Quality in distance education: Focus on online learning. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 29(4).

  23. Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3, 1–7.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Morales, L. (2011). Can the use of clickers of continuous assessment motivate critical thinking? A case study based on corporate finance students. Higher Learning Research Communications, 1, 33–42.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Moss, K., & Crowley, M. (2010). Effective learning in science: The use of personal response systems with a wide range of audiences. Computers in Education, 56, 36–43.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Prensky, M. (2009). H. sapiens: From digital immigrants and digital natives to digital wisdom. Innovate: Journal of online education, 5(3). Accessed 1 March 2012.

  27. Rankin, M. (2009). The Twitter experiment at UT Dallas. Accessed 08 February 2012.

  28. Simpson, V., & Oliver, M. (2007). Electronic voting systems for lectures then and now: A comparison of research and practice. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(2), 187–208.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Steinert, Y., & Snell, L. S. (1999). Interactive lecturing: Strategies for increasing participation in large group presentations. Medical Teacher, 21, 37–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 4–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Thompson, C. (2007). How Twitter creates a social sixth sense. Wired Magazine, 15(7).

  32. Volery, T. (2001). Online education: An exploration study into the success factors. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24(1), 77–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Von Konsky, B. R., Ivins, J., & Gribble, S. J. (2009). Lecture attendance and web based lecture technologies: A comparison of student perceptions and usage patterns. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(4), 581–595.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: the development of higher mental processes. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Young, J. (2009a). Teaching with Twitter: not for the faint of heart. Accessed 08 February 2012.

  36. Young, J (2009b). When Professors create social networks for classes, some students see a ‘Creepy Treehouse’. Accessed 08 February 2012.

Download references

Author information



Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Tiernan.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tiernan, P. A study of the use of Twitter by students for lecture engagement and discussion. Educ Inf Technol 19, 673–690 (2014).

Download citation


  • Twitter
  • Audience response systems
  • Interaction
  • Engagement
  • Discussion
  • Technology
  • Social media