Primary School Children's Communication Experiences with Twitter: A Case Study from Turkey

Abstract

This case study examines the utilization of Twitter as a communication channel among primary school children. This study tries to answer the following questions: “What are the cases for primary school children's use of Twitter for communication?” and “What are primary school children's experiences of utilizing Twitter for communication?” Participants were 7th grade students (17 female, 34 male; age 13 years) studying in a private primary school in Turkey within the 2011–12 academic year. A questionnaire, semi-structured interview, document analysis, and open ended questions were used as data collection tools. The children were invited and encouraged to use Twitter for communication. Whilst participants had some minor difficulties getting accustomed to Twitter, they managed to use Twitter for communication, a conclusion drawn from the children's responses and tweets within the study. However, the majority of children did not consider Twitter as a communication tool, and were observed to quit using Twitter once the study had ended. They found Twitter unproductive and restrictive for communication. Furthermore, Twitter's low popularity among adolescents was also a problem. This study suggests that social networking tools favored by children should be integrated into educational settings in order to maximize instructional benefits for primary school children and adolescents.

Introduction

The growing importance of technological advancements in interpersonal communication make communication an even more important field of study. Technological advancements reflect upon many fields, including communication. Social networks such as Facebook and Twitter are the most popular communication tools over the Internet, not only within Turkey but across the world.¹

Lenhart et al.² report that 88% of adolescents use social networks for instant messaging and chatting with their friends. Besides chatting, adolescents use social networks for publishing status updates, commenting on friends' status updates, sharing and commenting on photos and videos, and playing online social games. Another report claims that 51% of adolescent social network users aged between 13 and 17 visit social networks on a daily basis.³ Social network use habits of Turkish children aged between 9 and 16 were reported in a survey conducted by the Information and Communication Technologies Authority (ICTA).¹ Participants' membership distribution varied as follows: Facebook (99%), Twitter (9%), MSN (8.6%), Netlog (4.6%), and MySpace (4%). Social network utilization motives of children were communicating with friends (83.6%), exploring social media (32%), finding old friends (31%), and following friends' activities (28%). Results from this survey suggest that Turkish children in the 9–16 age range mainly use social media for communication, and Facebook is the preferred social media.

Twitter in Education

Communication is one of the leading interests in using microblogging systems, which are an extension of social networks. Twitter is one of the well known microblogging systems. Adolescents frequently use Twitter to update their statuses, keep updated with their favourite musicians/bands/celebrities, stay up to date with world phenomena, and keep their friends up to date about themselves.⁴ Twitter can prove beneficial for daily and educational use. Even though some students claim the 140 character restriction to be a negative property, this can develop their critical thinking and creativity. It is thought that the effective integration of Twitter into an educational context may result in better interaction and communication,^5–12 formal and informal learning opportunities,¹¹ increased collaboration and motivation,^13,14 increased discussion possibilities,⁷ and increased sharing.^6,12,14 With respect to all these facilities, Twitter may therefore facilitate better communication.

Most of the literature on using Twitter within educational environments focuses on higher education. However, contrary to its widespread use amongst children, there is little research concerning primary school children's Twitter use. In fact, use of Twitter within primary school children should be encouraged to understand whether they will also use Twitter for educational purposes. It is known that the inclination to use technology is the predeterminor of the achievement brought with it. Ribble¹⁵ claims that the use of different media by students also allows them to use the appropriate manner for that media. It is vital therefore that students gain awareness and the necessary skills for new technologies. A review of international and especially Turkish literature reveals no studies focusing on the use of Twitter for communicative purposes among primary school children.¹⁶

In this context, this study examines the utilization of Twitter as a communication channel among primary school children. This study will try to answer following questions:

RQ1: What are the cases for primary school children's use of Twitter for communication?

RQ2: What are primary school children's experiences of utilizing Twitter for communication?

Methodology

This case study tries to describe Twitter's use as a communication tool among primary school children. Case study is a research model within naturalistic research methodologies. The study was designed as a holistic single case design, which allows a single unit to be analyzed holistically to investigate all the changes and the process.^17,18 Table 1 presents the research questions, data collection tools, and data analysis methodology.

Table 1.

Research Questions, Data Collection Tools, and Data Analysis Methodology

Research questions	Data collection tools	Data analysis methodology
What are the cases for primary school children's use of Twitter for communication?	Questionnaire	Frequencies analysis
	Semi-structured interview forms	Content analysis
What are primary school children's experiences of utilizing Twitter for communication?	Document analysis	Content analysis
	Open ended questions	Content analysis

Participants

Participants of this research were 7th grade students studying in a private primary school in Turkey within the 2011–12 academic year. Seventeen female and 34 male students aged 13 participated in this study. All 51 students had signed up to Twitter or organized existing Twitter accounts as requested before this study. However, only 32 students tweeted during the research.

Data collection

Researchers tried to promote the reliability and validity of the research by utilizing various data collection procedures. A questionnaire, semi-structured interviews, document analysis, and open ended questions were used as data collection tools. Table 2 summarizes the data collection tools and their utilization procedures in this study.

Table 2.

Data Collection Procedures

Data collection tool	Time	Data type	Participants	Duration	Dates
Questionnaire	Before	Multiple choice	51	10 minutes	Dec. 9, 2011
Semi-structured interview	Before	Voice records	5	10 minutes×5	Dec. 9, 2011
Document analysis	At the end	Tweet	32	12 days	Dec. 9–21, 2011
Open ended questions survey	At the end	Text	32	15 minutes	Dec. 23, 2011

Data analysis

Two researchers analyzed all collected qualitative data separately. Interrater reliability of analysis was evaluated. Researchers compared their findings after completing all analysis. After establishing consensus between evaluations, findings were reported. Tweets were evaluated using the document analysis technique. Tweets were categorized into groups according to their relationships. Participants tweeted to researchers and other participants for 12 days. Researchers evaluated contents of these tweets in the context of communication. While analyzing open ended survey data, researchers noticed that 19 students did not participate in the study (did not tweet). Thus, data belonging to these students were left out of the evaluation. Data from the remaining 32 students were transcribed onto a computer and evaluated using content analysis techniques.

Findings

The findings are explained in detail below according to the research questions.

What are the cases for primary school children's use of Twitter for communication?

The survey data indicate that participants' social network use was as follows: 47 of 51 students were Facebook users (92%), nine students were Twitter users (18%), and two students were MySpace users (1%). Participants who reported being Twitter and MySpace users were also actively using Facebook. Thirty-one students (60%) reported that they primarily used social networks for communication. Participants were asked why they did not use Twitter. The majority of children (n=34; 67%) stated they did not find Twitter an interesting platform. Furthermore, 26 of 34 children (76%) stated none of their friends used Twitter.

Researchers conducted semi-structured interviews with two Twitter users and three Facebook users to gather detailed data about their use. A question in these interviews was: “What do you think about Twitter as a communication tool?” Student A's response was:

I do not consider Twitter for communication. Besides, since most of my friends don't use Twitter, I would rather use Facebook for messaging.

Student H stated he rarely used Twitter, and he did not share much information via Twitter. Generally, both Twitter users stated they did not use Twitter for communication, and they did not intend to use it in the future. The primary reason for this situation was their friends' absence on Twitter. Students argued they should know if friends were online in order to communicate with them via Twitter.

What are primary school children's experiences of using Twitter for communication?

After collecting data concerning students' social network use, researchers conducted a seminar on effective Twitter use. Students were asked to direct their questions about competition through Twitter, thus allowing them to gain tweeting experience. A total of 105 tweets were transferred between researchers and participants. Fifty-one of these 105 tweets came from students; 54 of them came from researchers. An analysis of student tweets revealed students' hesitations about tweets and their arrival. In particular, 11 novice Twitter users sent “trial” tweets to researchers. Furthermore, four participants asked for tweet's arrivals.

Students' experiences concerning Twitter use for communication were collected via an open ended survey. Results from the analysis of these data are presented in Table 3.

Table 3.

Themes and Frequencies Emerging from Content Analysis of Tweets

Theme	Frequency
1. I had difficulties in communication	2
2. I did not have difficulties in communication	19
3. Twitter is a good/usable communication tool	28
4. Twitter is not a good/usable communication tool	12
5. I would rather use Facebook than Twitter (Facebook is better)	10
6. 140 characters is not long enough for communication (I find Twitter restrictive)	6
9. 140 characters is long enough for communication	1
11. I did not communicate with anybody	8
12. I did not participate in the activity	2
13. All my friends are on Facebook. I would have used Twitter if my friends used it.	5
14. I can follow celebrities via Twitter	5
15. I would rather use the telephone for communication than Twitter	1
16. Everybody can read my tweets	3

As shown in Table 3, 16 themes emerged from the analysis of students' responses to the open ended questions. Nineteen students stated that they used Twitter for communication during this study. Furthermore, 28 students viewed Twitter as a good communication tool, and stated their intention to use Twitter for communication. One student's response within this theme was:

When it comes to communication via Twitter, it is a good option. We can hear from friends and learn what they are doing.

Nevertheless, 12 children reported they did not consider Twitter a good communication tool or they had no intention of using Twitter for communication. Examples of views of students within this category are:

It is ridiculous to use Twitter for communication.

I don't find it much of a communication tool.

A total of 10 participants stated that they found Facebook a better option for communication, and they preferred Facebook to Twitter for communication. One comment within this theme was:

There must be a chat system like the on in Facebook. I believe Facebook is better.

In interviews prior to this study, three students reported that they use Facebook to communicate with their friends, talk about schoolwork, and organize meetings. Another two students stated that they find it difficult to communicate over social networks, since users are not always online. Within the same theme, Student H reported his anxiety over the accessible nature of tweets. He wanted to chat with his friends in private. A section from this student's statement is:

Messaging is the sole option to communicate friends in private, that's why I love Facebook more than Twitter.

Six students reported that they found Twitter's properties restrictive, and stated their discomfort with the 140 character limit. One view from a student within this theme was:

I may use it, but message length restriction may cause problems.

Findings in this study can also be attributed to group psychology. It is a known fact that adolescents influence each other with their attitudes, and this can also reflect upon technology use practices. Stressing this assertion, five students reported all their friends were Facebook users and they would only shift to Twitter if their friends did so. The same theme was also expressed in pre-study interviews. One student's comment regarding this theme is as follows:

I would like to communicate all my friends. It would be better if my friends have used Twitter.

Despite these negative comments, Twitter's characteristics attracted the students' attention. Five students stated they could follow celebrities and communicate them via Twitter:

Generally we can follow celebrities and learn about them.

Despite social networks' proliferation and widespread use, students do not prefer these tools for ubiquitous communication. Student G stated that she prefers the telephone for private communication. Another student shared this idea within pre-study interview:

I do not intend to use Twitter for communication. It is not as good as the telephone for communication.

Adolescents are not familiar with the notion of accessibility in Twitter. Tweets on Twitter are accessible to all users, unless specified to the contrary. Therefore, three students stated they would not use Twitter for communication because of tweets' accessibility.

I do not intend to use Twitter for communication at all, everybody can see what you write.

This line of thought can be explained by the fact that these students are not familiar with Twitter and they are novice users. It is also known that adolescents seek security and privacy. A review of participants' views and themes listed in Table 3 reveals that, throughout this study, students used Twitter for communication, learning about friends' updates, and following celebrities.

Discussion and Conclusions

This study aimed to examine Turkish adolescents' experiences of using Twitter for communication, and their views and expectations about this online communication tool. Furthermore, adolescents' bias on not using Twitter was also questioned. The findings of this research demonstrate that participants use Facebook, Twitter, and MySpace (92%, 18%, and 1% respectively). This finding matches the results from other studies.^1,19 Adolescents pay more attention to visual social networking tools, a fact confirmed in this study. The children stated that they prefer Facebook to Twitter both prior to the research and after experiencing Twitter during this study. Nicol et al.²⁰ differentiate face to face communication from online communication. Online socialization is learned through sufficient face to face communication experience in real life settings. Thus, one can conclude that children prefer visual media because they do not establish adequate mental schemes.

Since the majority of adolescents use the Internet regularly,²¹ the effects of adolescents' online communication is a common discussion topic among researchers. While some researchers support the displacement hypothesis^22–24 that is, online communication reduces social interaction and communication, other researchers support the stimulation hypothesis,^25–27 which claims that online communication facilitates social interaction and communication. The literature tends to support the stimulation hypothesis rather than the displacement hypothesis.²⁶ The current study's results showing the participants' tendency to select the social networks preferred by their friends supports the stimulation hypothesis for adolescents.⁴ Valkenburg and Peter²⁵ claim that online communication has positive effects on adolescents' communication and facilitates their interaction with existing friends. However, means/tools, recipients, and motives within online commucation are still important issues. The participants in this study did not prefer to use Twitter with respect to their ages and friendships. A report from CommonSense³ suggests that 49% of adolescents prefer face to face communication, 33% of adolescents prefer SMS (texting), 7% of adolescents prefer social networks, and 1% of adolescents prefer Twitter for communicating with their friends. The findings of the current study suggest that while adolescents consider Twitter to be a communication tool, they do not prefer Twitter for communicating with their friends.

Valkenburg and Peter²⁶ argue that online communication has positive effects on adolescents' relationships with existing friends. The findings of the current study suggest that adolescents prefer to use the online communication tools widely accepted by their peers. Therefore, students' and their peers' social network preferences must be taken into consideration when integrating these tools into educational contexts. Although research suggests that Twitter is a good option for communication within educational environments, primary school children and adolescents hold a rather different view. Adolescents consider Twitter lame, uncommon among their age range, complicated, and hard to use for communication.⁴ Conformably, participants in the current study claimed that they do not use Twitter as a communication tool for the following reasons. Twitter is uncommon among adolescents, lacking a chat option, lacking privacy for communication, lacking audiovisual properties, restrictive for communication in terms for message length, and considered to be a sharing platform rather than a communication tool. Since Twitter is a text oriented social network, participants are reluctant to tweet and read tweets. They consider Twitter as time wasting, complicated, pointless for communication, and boring.^4,11,28 These factors challenge Twitter's integration into education.

While the majority of children expressed positive views about their Twitter experiences, most of them quit using Twitter after this study had ended. They also stated that they were not going to use Twitter for communication or any other purposes. However, there has been some recent research on utilizing Twitter for educational purposes.^29–33 Furthermore, utilizing Twitter for communication within education settings facilitates student–student, student–teacher, and teacher–teacher communication and collaboration.^8,19,32,34

In this study, the majority of children did not consider Twitter as a communication tool, and were observed quitting using Twitter after the study had ended. They found Twitter unproductive and restrictive for communication. Furthermore, Twitter's low popularity among adolescents was a problem. This case might have been tholed to be a cultural one regarding the Turkish culture of sharing and communication.¹ This study suggests that social networking tools favored by children should be integrated into educational cases in order to gain instructional benefits for primary school children and adolescents.

Even though this research only lasted for one week, participants used Twitter for communication, and keeping up to date with their friends and favourite celebrities. Related literature suggests that Twitter is a viable tool for communication, sharing, interaction, learning, education, and collaboration.^4–16 Despite these benefits of Twitter, it is hard to position Twitter as a learning tool. However, using Twitter as a complementary/supportive tool within educational contexts may be beneficial. Furthermore, since most of the research within the literature was conducted with adults and adolescents, the suggested benefits can hardly be applicable to adolescents.

Twitter can support educational contexts with the following dimensions:

• Increasing communication, social interaction, and collaboration

• Supporting lifelong learning

• Supporting learners with fast questioning—feedback opportunities

• Creating environmental and societal awareness

• Supporting mentoring

• Developing students' self-expression skills

• Developing participants' tolerance for counter ideas

• Creating a discussion environment

• Developing critical thinking skills

• Allowing hesitant students to participate and express themselves.

Educational contexts require major changes in order to benefit from what Twitter has to offer. Among these changes are resolving infrastructure issues, and awareness and motivation raising for the stakeholders of education, that is, families, students, teachers, and policy makers. The current study suffered from limited participant numbers, time limitations, and participants' prejudices and lack of motivation toward Twitter. The time limitation of the study originated from participants' lack of knowledge about Twitter. Additional research is needed to examine Twitter's potential rigorously within different educational levels and contexts.

Footnotes

Author Disclosure Statement

No competing financial interests exist.

References

ICTA. 2011. ‘Çocukların Sosyal Paylaşım Sitelerini Kullanım Alışkanlıkları’ Information and Communication Technologies Authority. www.btk.gov.tr/Etkinlikler/Ulusal_Etkinlikler/calistay/2011/dokumanlar/cspaar.pdf. 2012 Jan. 7.

Lenhart

, Madden

, Smith

et al. 2011. Teens, kindness and cruelty on social network sites. http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2011/Teens-and-social-media.aspx. 2012 Oct. 10.

Common Sense. 2012. Social media, social life: how teens view their digital lives. www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/research/socialmediasociallife-final-061812.pdf. 2012 Oct. 10.

Techcrunch. 2009. Why don't teens Tweet? We asked over 10,000 of them. http://techcrunch.com/2009/08/30/why-dont-teens-tweet-we-asked-over-10000-of-them/. 2012 Oct. 13.

Borau

, Ullrich

, Feng

et al. 2009. Microblogging for language learning: using Twitter to train communicative and cultural competence. Proceedings of International Conference on Web Based Learning–ICWL, Berlin. Springer-Verlag, 78–87.

Dunlap

, Lowenthal

. Tweeting the night away: using Twitter to enhance social presence. Journal of Information Systems Education, 2009; 20:129–55.

Holotescu

, Grosseck

. 2009. Using microblogging in education. Case study: Cirip.ro. Proceedings of the 6th Conference on e-Learning Applications, Cairo, Egypt.

Junco

, Heiberger

, Loken

. The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 2011; 27:119–32.

Kop

, Fournier

, Mak

. A pedagogy of abundance or a pedagogy to support human beings? Participant support on massive open online courses. International Review of Research In Open And Distance Learning, 2011; 12:74–93.

10.

Lowe

, Laffey

. Is Twitter for the birds?: Using Twitter to enhance student learning in a marketing course. Journal of Marketing Education, 2011; 33:183–92.

11.

Rinaldo

, Tapp

, Laverie

. Learning by tweeting: Using Twitter as a pedagogical tool. Journal of Marketing Education, 2011; 33:193–203.

12.

Wright

. Twittering in teacher education: reflecting on practicum experiences. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, 2010; 25:259–65.

13.

McWilliams

, Hickey

, Hines

et al. Using collaborative writing tools for literary analysis: Twitter, fan fiction and the crucible in the secondary English classroom. Journal of Media Literacy Education, 2011; 2:238–45.

14.

Perifanou

. Language micro-gaming: fun and informal microblogging activities for language learning. Communications in Computer and Information Science, 2009; 49:1–14.

15.

Ribble

. Passport to digital citizenship: Journey toward appropriate technology use at school and at home. Learning & Leading with Technology, 2008; 36:14–17.

16.

Gao

, Luo

, Zhang

. Tweeting for learning: a critical analysis of research on microblogging in education published in 2008–2011. British Journal of Educational Technology, 2012; 43:783–801.

17.

Creswell

. 2007. Qualitative inquiry and research design—choosing among five approaches, 2nd. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

18.

Yin

. 1989. Case study research: design and methods, Rev.. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

19.

Ozturk

. College students use social networking sites, the use of objectives and views on education. Master's thesis. Sakarya University, 2011.

20.

Nicol

, Minty

, Sinclair

. The social dimensions of online learning. Innovations in Education & Teaching International, 2002; 40:270–80.

21.

Valkenburg

, Peter

. Social consequences of the Internet for adolescents: a decade of research. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 2009; 18:1–5.

22.

Kraut

, Kiesler

, Mukopadhyay

et al.

Social impact of the Internet: what does it mean?

Communications of the ACM, 1998; 41:21–2.

23.

Mesch

. The family and the Internet: the Israeli case. Social Science Quarterly, 2003; 84:1038–50.

24.

Nie

. Sociability, interpersonal relations and the Internet: reconciling conflicting findings. American Behavioral Scientist, 2001; 45:420–35.

25.

Valkenburg

, Peter

. Online communication among adolescent: an integratedmodel of its attraction, opportunities, and risks. Journal of Adolescent Health, 2011; 48:121–7.

26.

Valkenburg

, Peter

. Online communication and adolescent well-being: testing the stimulation versus the displacement hypothesis. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 2007; 12:1169–82.

27.

Wang

, Wang

. The predictive effects of online communication on well-being among Chinese adolescents. Psychology, 2011; 2:359–62.

28.

Antenos-Conforti

. 2009. Microblogging on Twitter: social networking in intermediate Italian classes. Lomicka

, Lord

. The next generation: social networking and online collaboration in foreign language learning. San Marcos, TX: CALICO, 59–90.

29.

Grosseck

, Holotescu

. 2008. Can we use Twitter for educational activities?

The 4th International Scientific Conference: eLearning and software for Education

www.morsmal.org/documents/members/admin/Can-we-use-Twitter-for-educational-activities.pdf. 2011 Oct. 5.

30.

Kroski

All a Twitter: want to try microblogging?

School Library Journal, 2008; 54:31–5.

31.

Schmucki

, Meel

. 2010. Social networking in education: practices, policies, and realitie. www.mmseducation.com/register2010/. 2011 Oct. 10.

32.

Johnson

. The effect of Twitter posts on students' perceptions of instructor credibility. Learning, Media & Technology, 2011; 36:21–38.

33.

Reinhardt

, Ebner

, Beham

et al. 2009. How people are using Twitter during conferences. Hornung-Prähauser

, Luckmann

. Creativity and innovation competencies on the Web. Proceedings of the 5th EduMedia Conference, St Virgil Conference Centre, Salzburg, Austria, 145–156.

34.

Leaver

. 2011. Twittering informal learning and student engagement in first-year units. Anthony

Herrington

. Blended learning. www.tamaleaver.net/cv/LeaverT_TwitteringInformalLearning_preprint.pdf. 2011 Oct. 7.