Twitter as a teaching practice to enhance active and informal learning in higher education: The case of sustainable tweets

Abstract

With the rise of Web 2.0, a multitude of new possibilities on how to use these online technologies for active learning has intrigued researchers. While most instructors have used Twitter for in-class discussions, this study explores the teaching practice of Twitter as an active, informal, outside-of-class learning tool. Through a comparative experiment in a small classroom setting, this study asks whether the use of Twitter aids students in learning of a particular subject matter. And if so, in which learning contexts Twitter offers advantages over more traditional teaching methods. This exploratory study showed potential opportunities and pitfalls that Twitter could bring to the e-learning community in higher education.

Keywords

active learning informal learning sustainability teaching practice Twitter Web 2.0

Twitter as a teaching practice

The role of informal and active learning in higher education

As a pioneer in education, Dewey (1938) posited that students’ experiences are a key factor in their learning process. Since then, remarkable educators have sought to invent, improve and implement teaching practices that engage students and connect classroom information with real-life experiences. In particular during the past two decades, instructors have applied active and informal learning methods to enhance students’ interactions in peer-to-peer discussions in and outside of class (Chickering and Gamson, 1991; Conlon, 2004).

Active learning is one of the key principles highlighted in Chickering and Gamson’s (1991) hallmark study on good practices in undergraduate education. Active learning involves a multitude of teaching practices, such as lively debates between instructor and students, peer-to-peer discussions, reflective writing and team work, all of which enable students to discover, process, and apply knowledge through engagement (Bonwell and Eison, 1991; McKinney and Heyl, 2008; Meyers and Jones, 1993). While students actively participate in multiple learning contexts, their learning evolves within formal and informal settings (Greenhow et al., 2009). Informal learning is a course-related activity outside the classroom that centers around students’ self-directed and independent learning activities including peer-to-peer interactions (Aspden and Thorpe, 2009; Jamieson, 2009). In particular, networking is considered an informal learning strategy (Marsick and Watkins, 1990). Based on empirical evidence from MBA students, Yang and Lu (2001) suggest that informal learning ought to be an essential component in education, because it enhances academic performance. As ‘non-classroom, disciplinary-based facilities’ (Jamieson, 2009: 20) for informal student learning activities continue to decrease, Jamieson (2009) highlights the need to create outside-of-class options for students to interact.

With the advent of Web 2.0 applications, cyberspace has offered new communication spaces for informal and active learning activities and also altered how information is transmitted among students. Hicks and Graber (2010: 627) hypothesize that Web 2.0 might have created a different ‘learning and information reality’ compared with the traditional reflective and collaborative discourse. Therefore, they encourage research into these technologies in order to inform higher education teaching practices about how instructors can design and use these new web tools.

A brief introduction to Twitter, microblogs and Web 2.0

Web 2.0 refers to a variety of web-enabled applications built on open source and driven by user-generated and user-manipulated content. The most frequently used Web 2.0 applications include wikis (Wikipedia.org), podcasts (youtube.com), blogs (blogspot.com), and social networking sites (facebook.com, Twitter.com). Especially in recent years, social networking sites have seen an explosive growth as a way of communication (Fox et al., 2009). At the end of 2009, about 19% of Internet users logged into social networking sites to bring their friends up to date or to keep informed about their friends’ lives. Also in 2009, the number of users on social networking sites tripled (Fox et al., 2009). This explosive growth trend continued throughout 2010 (Borasky, 2010).

As a free Web 2.0 application, Twitter has become a popular microblogging tool and social networking website among younger generations (Java et al., 2007; McFedries, 2007). Since Twitter’s inauguration in 2006, this online community has seen a steep rise in users, especially those under 34 years old (Fox et al., 2009). Through Twitter, people communicate by exchanging quick, frequent, and short messages of up to 140 characters in length. These are called tweets and belong to the group of microblogs (Stevens, 2008). Twitter community members can post their tweets directly on their own Twitter website via mobile phone, email, and instant messaging. At the end of 2009, 65 million people used Twitter around the globe, a 14-fold increase since early in 2008 (ComScore, 2010). Most tweeters reside in North America, Europe, and Asia (Java et al., 2007). Usually, tweeters provide updates on their current status, as Twitter was designed to briefly answer the question: ‘What are you doing?’ (Twitter, 2010). Users can also post links to pictures, more expansive blogs, and other websites (Java et al., 2007).

Twitter in higher education

Hannay and Fretwell (2011) predict that Web 2.0 applications will soon be taken up by universities and suggest these technologies will have implications for the academic workplace; students will demand that faculty members communicate digitally, via instant messaging, Twitter and other technologies. Similarly, companies will expect their recruits, our graduates, to be versed in social media technologies (Wankel, 2009). It is unsurprising, then, that we, as educators, are being encouraged to use Twitter to enable interactivity, excite learners, and foster greater student participation.

Responding to this challenge, educators in higher education have started to experiment with Twitter in the hope students seize the opportunity to interact more frequently, engage more thoughtfully, and foster learning inside and beyond the classroom (Grosseck and Holotescu, 2008; Junco et al., 2011; Perez, 2009; Schroeder et al., 2010). Establishing five social media literacies, namely attention, participation, collaboration, network awareness, and critical consumption, Rheingold (2010) emphasizes the need for Twitter to be a valuable communication tool, in contrast to Twitter’s potential pitfall of being a mere distraction (Wankel, 2009). Ultimately, Twitter can be a powerful collaboration tool (Corbeil and Corbeil, 2011; Rheingold, 2010). Summarizing, Reuben (2008) emphasizes the tremendous potential Twitter could play in education, but acknowledges that no one has found the right niche just yet.

Twitter as an instant feedback tool during class

Microblogging as a way to enhance student learning has a substantial impact within class settings (Ebner, 2009; Ebner et al., 2010); accordingly faculty have primarily experimented with Twitter in classrooms (Young, 2009). Most of these experiments have focused on Twitter as an in-class instant feedback tool between teachers and students. For example, Dunlap and Lowenthal (2009) analyzed the use of Twitter in online courses; DeCosta et al. (2010) looked at Twitter as a tool for student–teacher communication; Parry (2008) identified 13 ways in which Twitter can be used during class; and Croxall (2010) found that Twitter enables frequent class discussions. This ‘live-tweeting’ encourages careful listening, paying close attention, gathering information, and multi-tasking (Wankel, 2009).

Another form of using Twitter is for student–student communication outside the classroom yet within a formal class-setting. Twibes, entire classes that form Twitter groups, spread information in real time; one example is field trips, during which participants tweeted classmates who remained at the university (Richardson, 2009; Rogers-Estable, 2009). Within classroom settings, Twitter has been primarily used as an instant feedback tool for student–teacher communication and is in the early stages of exploration for student–student interaction.

Twitter as a learning tool

The e-learning community increasingly has looked to social networks as tools for creating and sharing knowledge (Grosseck and Holotescu, 2008; Huberman et al., 2008). In particular, microblogging is a new form of communication that can support informal learning beyond classrooms (Ebner et al., 2010). Twitter can support students’ informal learning activities (Aspden and Thorpe, 2009). It can also be an active learning tool (Cherney, 2008) that promotes connections with real-life learning, thereby encouraging critical reflection and fostering enhanced understanding (Bonwell and Eison, 1991).

One of the few empirical studies exploring the effects of Twitter on college students was conducted by Junco et al. (2011) with 125 pre-health majors. Splitting the students into two sections, the researchers found that Twitter had a positive impact on both student engagement and grades. Owing to the use of Twitter, class conversations were extended beyond sessions, students more easily and more readily displayed openness about feelings and their own shortcomings, more cross-communication took place, and unlikely interpersonal relationships were forged based on shared values and interests. In short, Twitter catalyzed connections more quickly than classroom discussions. Furthermore, instructor–student communication was improved when Twitter provided a comfortable platform for asking deeply probing questions.

Purpose of the study and research questions

This evolving stream of literature supports three conclusions about Twitter. First, all instructors who have experimented with Twitter agree that it can have a positive impact on engagement. Second, studies have focused almost exclusively on Twitter used as an instant feedback tool inside the classroom. Third, scholars suggest Twitter holds potential as a powerful learning tool that can readily transmit knowledge, inform learners, and extend beyond individuals to their social networks.

Despite a multitude of websites suggesting the use of Twitter in academic settings and advising on how to use the Web 2.0 tool (Parry, 2008; Perez, 2009; Reuben, 2008), there are very few empirical studies that actually support this advice. In particular, studies have yet to examine qualitatively the effect of using Twitter beyond the classroom as an active and informal learning tool focused on peer-to-peer interactions.

Therefore, the goal of this study is to stimulate scholarly discussion about Twitter as an active, informal, outside of class, peer-to-peer interaction tool that aids the in-class learning process. This study is an exploration of ways in which today’s students apply, create, and retain knowledge when using Twitter compared with more traditional approaches to learning. In this study, traditional approaches are defined as individual homework assignments and in-class discussion. The research questions that ultimately drive this study are ‘Does the use of Twitter aid students in learning a particular subject matter? And, if so, in which learning contexts does Twitter offer advantages over more traditional teaching methods?’

Methodology

This methodology section is divided into three sections. The first introduces the study participants. The second explains the study’s design and implementation procedure. The third elaborates on measures and analysis.

Participants

The Twitter experiment ran in a Midwestern research tier I university class, in which students grapple with how urban planners can create sustainable and climate-resilient cities. Between 25 March 2010 and 22 April 2010 (Earth Day, a day during which people worldwide inspire awareness and learn to protect the natural environment), 15 students participated in the study; eight were upper-level undergraduates and seven were graduate students. The students’ grade point average (GPA) was 3.58 and their age averaged at 23.65 years. As a cross-disciplinary class, the students majored in urban planning, construction management, and environmental studies.

Prior to the class, five students had used Twitter, three of them rarely and two on a weekly basis. Their reasons for using Twitter were primarily to receive news updates, to stay in touch with friends, and to gather information about jobs. Furthermore, two students indicated their interest in celebrities.

Prior to the start of the study, the experiment was deemed as expedited via the instructor’s institutional review board (IRB). The IRB is an appointed committee acting independently and ethically to protect the rights and welfare of human research subjects. Fourteen students provided informed consent to release the findings of this study. The student who did not want to participate in the study was excluded from the evaluation, and this student’s contributions to the study have been destroyed. In the course of the study, two students did not turn in their assignments. Hence both were deemed as non-active participants and excluded from the evaluation of the study. To ensure confidentiality, the students who took part were asked to adopt code names for the exercise, such as ‘Captain Planet’, or ‘Earthability’, and keep their diaries and new Twitter accounts exclusively under these code names. Thereby, the collected data could not be associated with any one student and any potential teacher–student power relationship bias was eliminated.

As part of the course, students were asked to identify unsustainable practices in cities and suggest remedies. Divided in groups, one group would use Twitter to create and exchange information, while the other group would keep a personal diary and discuss their entries once among the group members towards the end of the course (a third option, to write an individual essay, was not selected by any of the students). In the end, a quiz would indicate which group had retained more knowledge.

Design and procedure

Students were offered three choices to complete their sustainability assignment: (1) the ‘Twitter group’ would use Twitter as their only communication mechanism, (2) the ‘traditional group’ would have one in-class discussion and keep individual diaries, (3) the ‘essay group’ would write 5,000 words on unsustainable practices and their remedies. No student chose the third option. The assignment was a for-credit exercise. To avoid the potential bias of a student–teacher power relationship, the students received full credit for the exercise if either the Twitter assignment or the traditional assignment was completed on time.

The Twitter group and the traditional group show comparable group characteristics (Table 1).

Table 1.

Group characteristics

Student characteristics	Twitter	Traditional (diary and discussion)
Active participants/Total	6/7	6/8
Undergraduates/Graduates	4/2	4/2
Average GPA	3.57	3.59
Age	23.3	24
Time spent on exercise	2 hours	1 hour 40 min + 30 min discussion

Active participants provided informed consent to make the results of this study public and regularly produced Twitter or diary entries. After the exclusion of the two non-active participants, each group had an equal number of students: four undergraduate and two graduate students. The average GPAs in the two groups were almost identical, and there was only a slight difference in their average ages.

Data from five sources were collected during the experiment: surveys, tweets, diaries, a group discussion, and a pop-quiz. The surveys were given to all students in-class before the study exercise began (14 January 2010), asking them to report whether they had used Twitter and, if so, for what purpose. After the study (22 April 2010), the Twitter group was required to hand in printouts of all their tweets and re-tweets (answers to tweets) made during the study. On the same day, the traditional group had to hand in their diaries and hold a team discussion about their diaries in class. This discussion was audio-recorded and the tape was transcribed by a third person, who did not know the students. The 30-minute quiz was given to students on 27 April 2010. The in-class quiz first asked students about their demographics: which group they belonged to, their current undergraduate or graduate year, the time they had spent on the exercise, their GPA, and their age. The second part of the quiz asked students to recall an unsustainable practice and potential remedies they had explored in their respective groups. To avoid potential bias in this knowledge-retention exercise, students were not informed about the quiz beforehand.

The sustainability assignment was introduced to all students during an in-class presentation on 18 March 2010; handouts further clarified instructions for the assignment to the two groups. One email reminder to continue their diaries and to keep posting tweets was sent (1 April 2010) a week after the exercise started.

Starting on 25 March 2010, the Twitter group was instructed to post a tweet whenever they found an unsustainable practice in daily life (for example, buying a paper cup) and suggest a remedy (for example, bringing their own reusable cup to buy coffee).

Twitter rules

Each new tweet has to briefly describe an unsustainable practice and suggest a remedy.

Each answer to a tweet has to either add an additional remedy or refute that the previous tweet contains an unsustainable practice.

Tweet daily (if possible multiple times – as soon as you identify a practice/remedy).

The Twitter group members were not allowed to discuss their tweets outside the online forum. For communication and evaluation purposes, each of the Twitter group participants joined the course leader’s Twitter list called ‘the sustainable city’ under their code names. Prior to the start of the project, the students were informed that the instructor would not interfere or add to the knowledge application and creation exercise unless the students were posting inappropriate tweets.

Also starting on 25 March 2010, the traditional group members were instructed to keep a daily diary according to Table 2.

Table 2.

Extract from diary instruction sheet

Date	Unsustainable practice	Remedy

The students discussed their diary entries within their ‘traditional group’ during class time on 22 April 2010. A time slot of 30 minutes was allotted for discussion while the Twitter group left the classroom.

Measures and analysis

All collected material was tracked, examined, and evaluated. Knowledge application and creation were qualitatively assessed through content analysis of four sources: tweets, diaries, surveys, and the transcript of the team discussion among the diary-keeping students. Knowledge retention was qualitatively assessed through content analysis of the in-class pop quiz.

Scoring and coding were conducted after the end of the study with various cross-checks. First, the course leader coded the tweets by key words, pairing the unsustainable practices with their remedies. Then, the instructor identified all students who noted the same unsustainable practice and the same remedies. The identical coding procedure was applied to the diary entries. Thereafter, the transcript was coded and cross-compared with the diary entries, marking similar and different unsustainable practices and their remedies. Finally, the quiz was coded according to the same procedure. A second coder independently applied the same methodology; discrepancies were discussed and mutually agreed upon.

Results

The results are split in two sections: the first reports on knowledge creation, the second reports on knowledge retention. The distinction between the two is important, because they measure different outcomes of the learning process. Whereas the former focuses on the communicative advantages Twitter may offer as an instant tool and readily available database, the latter shows which teaching practice has the potential for long-term recollection of the created and shared ideas. Before launching into the results sections, a brief comparison between the two groups is necessary in regards to participation and knowledge comprehension.

Both groups showed a good understanding of the content taught in class: the unsustainable practices and their remedies. Throughout the exercise, the students applied the knowledge they had learned during class and applied it faultlessly via Twitter, diaries, and in the team discussion.

Both groups frequently tweeted or kept their diaries, but both groups participated less than expected (Table 3). The baseline of 174 entries represents the minimum number of expected entries (29 days × 6 student entries) per group, in which all students had followed the instructions by tweeting at least daily or making at least one diary entry per day.

Table 3.

Traditional and Twitter participation

	Expected	Total	Average
	Baseline	Entries	per day	per person	per person per day
Diary entries	174	131	4.5	21.8	0.75
Tweets	174	88	3	14.7	0.5

Even though the traditional students made more entries than the Twitter students (Table 3), the Twitter students reported a higher amount of time spent on their entries than the traditional students; while students reported to have spent two hours on average on the Twitter exercise, the traditional group reported 10 minutes more: 1 hour 40 minutes for their diary entries and the 30-minute discussion.

Knowledge creation

The Twitter group found more unsustainable practices and found more remedies per identified practice. Overall, the Twitter students identified 64 unsustainable practices with 65 remedies through their tweets. In contrast, the traditional group found 10 fewer unsustainable practices, but gave a variety of remedies per identified practice, totaling 70 remedies. For example, the Twitter group identified as an unsustainable practice that individuals drove cars, and suggested one remedy: riding a bike. In contrast, the traditional group found the same unsustainable practice (an individual driving a car), but identified seven remedies to the identified unsustainable practice: car-sharing, transit (using public transport), using hybrid cars, collating trips by car, cycling, walking, and using more energy-efficient air travel.

For the traditional group, the venue to share their individual work and discuss their diaries was the in-class meeting on 22 April 2010. During the discussion, the traditional group managed to analyze 28 unsustainable practices (~55% of all unsustainable practices created by the entire group) including various remedies.

Knowledge retention

The traditional group reported on average 10 unsustainable practices including remedies during the pop quiz. On average, 70% of these practices were those created by themselves, which means the students had either reported those unsustainable practices and remedies in their own diaries or invented new ones during the quiz. The other 30% of reported unsustainable practices and remedies were those discussed during the 30-minute in-class meeting.

The Twitter students reported fewer unsustainable practices and remedies than the traditional group. On average, they reported 7.6 unsustainable practices with remedies during the quiz. In contrast with the traditional group, the Twitter students remembered over 60% of the unsustainable practices and remedies that others had created on Twitter, while only 40% were from their own source of ideas.

Discussion of Twitter and traditional group activity

Knowledge creation

The following interpretations might explain why (1) the Twitter group found more unsustainable practices with matching remedies than the traditional group and (2) why the traditional group reported a variety of remedies per identified practice, but found overall fewer unsustainable practices than the Twitter group.

(1) The traditional group found fewer unsustainable practices, because no communication among the students took place during the collection of ideas. Consecutively, the same unsustainable practice was identified multiple times by different members of the traditional group; in their diaries, they reported 18 unsustainable practices at least twice. In contrast, the Twitter group only mentioned the same unsustainable practice eight times. This interpretation supports the findings of Rheingold (2010) and Richardson (2009) that Twitter is a powerful collaboration tool between students. Additionally, the comparative nature of the study suggests that Twitter is better suited for creating and sharing large amounts of information compared with traditional teaching methods. A further advantage Twitter provides is tracking the tweets by time and date automatically; it ensured continuous participation throughout the entire month, which may also have contributed to the greater number of unsustainable practices identified. In contrast, the traditional students could have completed their diaries the day before their assignment was due or might have thought about the exercise only on a weekly basis. Because both groups presented information equivalent in quality, this suggests Twitter is also useful for informal out-of-classroom assignments, just like other microblogging tools (Ebner et al., 2010).

(2) The traditional group created more remedies per identified practice, because there was no character limit for diary entries. In contrast, the Twitter group had to adhere to the 140 characters per tweet (Figure 1). For multiple remedies, students would have had to start a new tweet.

Figure 1.

Extract from the sustainably city Twitter site (Source: http://Twitter.com/#/list/ekassens/the-sustainable-city)

Starting new tweets might have been a barrier for reflective thinking (no student tweeted twice within a short time frame or even within the same day). The multitude of remedies created by the diary-keeping students suggests that traditional teaching practices allowed for more in-depth thinking and self-reflective learning because diaries did not create artificial writing barriers. While Twitter can be an active learning tool (Cherney, 2008), tweets seem to defeat an essential attribute for active learning, because tweeters do not have ‘space to think’.

Twitter showed another pitfall in comparison with interactive face-to-face discussions. During the traditional group meeting, students offered knowledge that was not part of the exercise per se. The student conversation shown in Table 4 exemplifies this finding. As this extract of the transcribed discussion meeting shows, because one student explained the reason for packaged food (sanitary purposes), all students in the traditional group knew about that reason after the discussion. While the same discussion came up in the Twitter group (fast food packaging) with the same remedies (do not eat at all, or minimum packaging), none of the students explained why packaging was necessary.

Table 4.

Extract from traditional group discussion

Participant A:	Another thing that really upsets me, if you ever go get fast food, everything is packaged. It comes in a bag. The food is wrapped.
Participant B:	Yes
Participant A:	The plastic straw is wrapped, the plastic fork is wrapped. It’s like it’s ridiculous. So, my remedy was to stop eating fast food, because it’s bad for you anyway.
Participant C:	But then, if we like, . . ., I’ll just ask them for stuff without the bag.
Participant B:	Will they give you that?
Participant D:	Yeah, well I kinda force them to. They’re like ‘are you sure?’ [laughter]
Participant D:	Yeah, I do the same thing in other food stores.
Participant E:	The one thing about the, sorry, real quick, about the fast food is like, I think they have to do that for sanitary purposes.

Knowledge retention

The Twitter students reported a much higher percentage of team-created solutions than the traditional group in the pop quiz. There are multiple explanations for the discrepancy in outcomes.

First, continuous tweeting fosters team communication and prolonged interactive engagement in the learning process. This combination enhances the understanding of the team-created unsustainable practices and remedies. Therefore, the tweeters remembered more solutions that were jointly created on Twitter. This interpretation would support the findings of Aspen and Thorpe (2009), who posit that Twitter can be a powerful active learning tool.

Second, the diary format, as individual work, is intrinsically self-reflective (Table 5). Therefore, traditional students might have primarily recalled their own ideas. This interpretation would support the idea that self-reflection is encouraged more strongly in diaries than on Twitter. This outcome supports evidence found during the knowledge creation exercise of this study: Twitter may be superior in gathering the amount of information, but is less powerful at fostering self-reflective thinking.

Table 5.

Extracts from James Bond’s diary

Date	Unsustainable practice	Remedy
25 Mar	I drove my car to school today.	Ride the bus or ride my bike.
3 Apr	I went to Cirque du Solei today and there were hundreds of recyclable cups just getting thrown in the trash or left on the ground.	Provide obvious recycle bins at the Breslin center.
12 Apr	My roommate left the light on in the hallway all day while nobody was home.	Turn off the light when one leaves.

Third, because only half of the overall unsustainable practices identified were discussed during the traditional group meeting, the traditional students were more likely to report from their diaries. In contrast, through Twitter, gathering of information was more easily facilitated, as also suggested by Wankel (2009).

These three reasons, however, do not explain why traditional students seemed to have retained overall more knowledge about sustainable lifestyles than Twitter students (10 vs 7.6 unsustainable practices including remedies identified in the test), especially given that the Twitter group could draw from a larger pool of existing ideas. This result, collapsed to a single assignment, is in contrast to Junco et al.’s (2011) findings of Twitter’s positive impact on grades. One possible explanation is that the traditional group had the chance to share their knowledge shortly before the test during their scheduled discussion session, whereas the Twitter group probably did not reread all tweets shortly before the quiz.

Conclusions

This exploratory study filled some knowledge gaps in the largely unexplored Twitter territory. Twitter as an active, informal learning tool has some distinct advantages and disadvantages over traditional team work. The advantages lie in that Twitter can foster the combined knowledge creation of a group better than individuals’ diaries and discussion, because Twitter facilitates sharing of ideas beyond the classroom via an online platform that allows readily available access at random times to continue such discussion. The disadvantages of Twitter lie in constraining critical thinking and self-reflection because of the tweets’ character limit. As in previous studies (DeCosta et al., 2010; Dunlap and Lowenthal, 2009), Twitter had a positive impact on student learning, because instantaneous peer-to-peer communication via Twitter enhanced understanding of unsustainable practices and remedies. Twitter, like other microblogging tools (Ebner et al., 2010), also supports informal learning. In contrast to Junco et al. (2011), this study contradicts the finding that students using Twitter more easily and more readily displayed openness about feelings and their own shortcomings. This study instead suggests that the diary-keeping students showed a stronger display of self-reflection: more students identified their own flaws, whereas Twitter students only identified faults of others.

This study has several limitations. First, the small sample size limits the generalizability of results. Having six students in each of the groups only allowed for a glimpse into the advantages and disadvantages Twitter could provide to the learning community. Second, the ways in which this study measured knowledge application, creation, and retention are clearly limited. All assessment methods contain obvious biases, because knowledge application, creation and retention are not equivalent to writing in diaries or on Twitter nor to recalling facts in a quiz. As proxies though, the five sources combined offer important lessons on the value of using Twitter as a new teaching practice. Third, the study stretched only over one month. Given these limitations, future research should sample a larger study group, observe the students’ knowledge creation and application over longer periods of time, and comparatively apply both teaching practices to a variety of topics in order to provide further insights into the benefits and pitfalls of Twitter.

While most researchers have argued that Twitter can encourage creativity and stimulate conversation and collaboration, research is still in its infant stages in exploring the ‘different approaches to teaching and learning . . . in order to take advantage of the potential of digital media and Web 2.0 applications’ that Hicks and Graber (2010: 627) suggest exist. Despite the small sample size, this work offers valuable insights into the applicability and usability of Twitter as a teaching practice. As an informal, active, outside the classroom tool, Twitter can be a powerful teaching practice to relate theoretical concepts to practical applications in everyday life.

As a first step, this study showed that the use of Twitter can display both sides of the coin as it depends on the course content, the assignment task, and the instructor’s intent whether or not Twitter is the right tool for learning aspects of the subject matter. So, in some contexts Twitter will better aid students in learning a particular subject matter compared with more traditional teaching methods, but in other contexts it would hinder them. If instructors intend to engage students on a particular subject matter, bridging theory and practice while including real-world examples (linear applicative learning), Twitter provides distinct advantages over the traditional individual homework assignments and in-class discussions. Offering a 24/7 available communication platform, Twitter is a powerful tool in applying and creating ideas. In contrast, if the instructor intends to foster critical, in-depth and self-reflective thinking among the students and their peers, this study suggests Twitter is likely to be an unsuitable teaching practice for the class.

Assuming continuous growth of the social network, Twitter may become a phenomenon that captures our millennial student generation. If wisely introduced by educators this tool could become a powerful medium that extends beyond classrooms.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Professors Kathleen McKinney and Pat Crawford for their valuable feedback on earlier drafts. I am also grateful to Professors Trixie Smith, Manuel Colunga, Janice Molloy, and Wen Li for helping me think through the structure of this article. Furthermore, many thanks go to my students, without whom this research would not have been possible.

References

Aspden

Thorpe

(2009) Where do you learn? Tweeting to inform learning space development. Educause Quarterly 32(1). Available at: http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolum/WhereDoYouLearnTweetingtoInfor/163852

Bonwell

Eison

(1991) Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, DC: George Washington University, School of Education and Human Development.

Borasky

(2010) A visual history of Twitter’s growth. Available at: http://borasky-research.net (accessed 10 December 2010).

Cherney

(2008) The effects of active learning on students’ memories for course content. Active Learning in Higher Education 9(2): 152–71.

Chickering

Gamson

, eds (1991) Applying the Seven Principles for Good Practice in Undergraduate Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

ComScore (2010) Data passport – first half of 2010. Measuring the digital world. Available at: http://www.slideshare.net/StephaneHuy/comscore-2010-rapport-premier-semestre (accessed 15 December 2010).

Conlon

(2004) A review of informal learning literature, theory and implications for practice in developing global professional competence. Journal of European Industrial Training 28(2–4): 283–95.

Corbeil

(2011) The birth of a social networking phenomenon. In: Wankel

(ed.) Educating Educators with Social Media (Cutting-edge Technologies in Higher Education, Volume 1). Bingley: Emerald Group, pp. 13–32.

Croxall

(2010) Reflections on teaching with social media. ‘ProfHacker’, Chronicle of Higher Education, 7 June 2010. Available at: http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Reflections-on-Teaching-with/24556/ (accessed 5 September 2010).

10.

DeCosta

Clifton

Roen

(2010) Collaboration and social interaction in English classrooms. English Journal (High school edition) 99(5): 14.

11.

Dewey

(1938) Experience and Education. New York, NY: Collier Books.

12.

Dunlap

Lowenthal

(2009) Tweeting the night away: Using Twitter to enhance social presence. Journal of Information Systems Education 20(2): 129.

13.

Ebner

(2009) Introducing live microblogging: How single presentations can be enhanced by the mass. Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching 2(1): 108–19.

14.

Ebner

Lienhardt

Rohs

Meyer

(2010) Microblogs in Higher Education – A chance to facilitate informal and process-oriented learning? Computers and Education 55: 92–100.

15.

Fox

Zickuhr

Smith

(2009) Twitter and status updating, fall 2009 – Report: Social Networking, Web 2.0. Available at: www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/…/PIP_Twitter_Fall_2009web.pdf (accessed 10 January 2011).

16.

Greenhow

Robelia

Hughes

(2009) Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age. Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now? Educational Researcher 38(4): 246–59.

17.

Grosseck

Holotescu

(2008) Can we use Twitter for educational activities? Paper presented at the 4th International Scientific Conference eLSE: eLearning and Software for Education, Bucharest, Rumania, 17–18 April

18.

Hannay

Fretwell

(2011) The higher education workplace: Meeting the needs of multiple generations. Research in Higher Education Journal 10(March): 1–12.

19.

Hicks

Graber

(2010) Shifting paradigms: Teaching, learning and Web 2.0. Reference Services Review 38(4): 621–33.

20.

Huberman

Romero

(2008) Social networks that matter: Twitter under the microscope (updated 1 September 2010). Available at: http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/scl/papers/twitter/ (accessed 5 January 2011).

21.

Jamieson

(2009) The serious matter of informal learning. Planning for Higher Education 37(2): 18–25.

22.

Java

Song

Finin

Tseng

(2007) Why we Twitter: Understanding microblogging usage and communities. In: Proceedings of the Joint 9th WEBKBB and 1st SNA-KBB Workshop 2007, August 2007. Available at: http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/get/a/publication/369.pdf (accessed 16 September 2010).

23.

Junco

Heibergert

Loken

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

24.

Marsick

Watkins

(1990) Informal and Incidental Learning in the Workplace. New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

25.

McFedries

(2007) Technically speaking: All a-Twitter. IEEE Spectrum 44(10): 84.

26.

McKinney

Heyl

, eds (2008) Sociology Through Active Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE/Pine Forge Press.

27.

Meyers

Jones

(1993) Promoting Active Learning: Strategies for the College Classroom. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

28.

Parry

(2008) Twitter for academia. Available at: http://academhack.outsidethetext.com/home/2008/twitter-for-academia/ (accessed 10 September 2010).

29.

Perez

(2009) Professors experiment with Twitter as teaching tool. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 27. Available at: http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/43747152.html (accessed 2 February 2011).

30.

Reuben

(2008) The use of social media in higher education for marketing and communications: A guide for professionals in higher education. Available at: http://doteduguru.com/id423-social-media-uses-higher-educationmarketing-communication.html (accessed 10 September 2010).

31.

Rheingold

(2010) Attention and other 21st-century social media literacies. Educause Review (1527–6619) 45(5): 14.

32.

Richardson

(2009) Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

33.

Rogers-Estable

(2009) Web 2.0 and distance education: Tools and techniques. Distance Learning 6(4): 55–60.

34.

Schroeder

Minocha

Schneider

(2010) The strengths, weaknesses, and threats of using social software in higher and further education teaching and learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 26: 159–74.

35.

Stevens

(2008) Trial by Twitter: The rise and slide of the year’s most viral microblogging platform. TESLEJ: Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language 12(1). Available at: http://tesl-ej.org/ej45/int.html (accessed 15 September 2010.)

36.

Twitter (2010) Twitter: www.twitter.com (accessed 20 December 2010).

37.

Wankel

(2009) Management education using social media. Organization Management Journal 6(4): 251–63.

38.

Yang

(2001) Predicting academic performance in management education: An empirical investigation of MBA success. Journal of Education for Business 77(1): 15–20.

39.

Young

(2009) Teaching with Twitter: Not for the faint of heart. Chronicle of Higher Education. Available at: http://chronicle.com/article/Teaching-With-Twitter-Not-for/49230/ (accessed 10 September 2010).