learning in 140 microblogging for professional...

LEARNING IN 140 CHARACTERS: MICROBLOGGING FOR PROFESSIONAL

LEARNING

Carol Skyring

Dip T, Grad Dip Dist Ed, B Ed, M Ed (Research)

A thesis submitted to fulfil the requirements for the degree of

Education Doctorate

in the

Faculty of Education

Queensland University of Technology

Brisbane

December, 2013

Learning in 140 characters: Microblogging for Professional Learning Page ii

Learning in 140 characters: Microblogging for Professional Learning Page iii

Abstract

The World Wide Web (the Web) has grown into a global information and communication

space with more than a billion users and has entered a new, more social and participatory

phase where people create and manage online content rather than just viewing it; a place

where people can communicate knowledge, share resources and participate in social

networks. Online social networking sites provide tools that allow people to identify, meet,

connect, share information and collaborate with others. Online social networks are being

used to support professional learning where groups of people are using the Web to

communicate and collaborate in order to build and share knowledge and form professional

learning networks (PLNs).

The purpose of the study described in this thesis was to investigate how microblogging, a

form of online social networking, was being employed by educators to support their

professional learning. Educators have networked for many years in order to share practice,

however the Web has facilitated networking across greater geographical distances and

individuals are personalising their own social networks with the help of the Web. The role of

new technologies in professional teacher learning has been scarcely explored (Packer &

Daley, 2006) and research into the use of microblogging, in particular, is sparse. Through a

qualitative research design, that is, an exploratory case study using content analysis, an

online survey, and interviews, the study examined activities and perceptions of a group of

educators in order to provide an insight into how and why they engage in microblogging and

the value they place on microblogging as a professional learning tool.

The study drew on concepts from social constructivism to understand the learning

environment and how professional learning might occur through microblogging. Data were

gathered from three sources: a transcript of microblog posts, an online survey and one-on-

one interviews with purposively selected participants. The Community of Inquiry (CoI)

framework (Garrison, Anderson, & Archer, 2000) was used to analyse the content of

microblog posts and, while the content analysis provided a clearer picture of the types of

interactions that occur in microblogging and created a basis on which to further explore why

individuals participate in microblogging, a point of departure was found when the CoI

framework was used in a more contemporary learning setting. The study uncovered a fourth

“presence” which has been named “learning presence” and presents a new framework, the

Network of Exchange, which builds upon the CoI framework. The uncovering of the concept

of “learning presence” emerged concurrently with research by others into the CoI framework

which identified a construct labelled “learner presence”, characterised as a combination of

Learning in 140 characters: Microblogging for Professional Learning Page iv

self-efficacy and individual effort (Shea & Bidjerano, 2010). This concept was further

developed and labelled as “learning presence” (Shea & Bidjerano, 2012; Shea et al., 2013;

Shea et al., 2012) and continues to be an emerging concept in the field of CoI research.

The study showed that educators who participate in microblogging consider it to be a

meaningful form of professional learning and microblogging is an important component of

their PLN. The advantage of microblogging as a professional learning tool lies in its ability

to link educators globally to exchange ideas from different perspectives and to share

resources and teaching practices. Educators who microblog have access to relevant and

timely learning that is not constrained by time or distance and can be tailored to meet their

individual needs. The study found that educators who participate in microblogging engage in

a wide range of behaviours, however there were certain behaviours and activities that were

commonly exhibited. The educators in this study articulated many advantages for

participating in microblogging to support their professional learning and these were

synthesised into common themes.

Although the participants in this study were enthusiastic about microblogging and

believed that it contributed to their professional learning and positively impacted on their

teaching practice, they described a number of disadvantages of microblogging. The problem

common to all educators in this study was the large amount of information they received

from others in their microblogging network. It was found that some educators had effective

strategies for dealing with this, while others did not.

Finally, it must be noted that this study explored a specific technology (microblogging)

being used by a specific group of people (educators who would be considered innovators and

early adopters) for a specific purpose (professional learning) and therefore the results of this

research must be interpreted with the understanding that they do not reflect a more general

view. However, while these results may not be generalisable, they give an insight into the

way in which microblogging may be used to support professional learning and the

possibilities for other educators to build and participate in their own professional learning

network (PLN) which includes microblogging as one of the tools.

Keywords: collective intelligence, microblogging, online social networking, personal

learning networks, PLN, professional learning, professional learning networks, social

networking sites, SNS, Twitter

Learning in 140 characters: Microblogging for Professional Learning Page v

Table of Contents

Abstract .................................................................................................................................................. iii Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................... v List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................ ix List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ x List of Abbreviations and Terms ............................................................................................................ xi Statement of Original Authorship ......................................................................................................... xii Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................. xiii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background to the study ................................................................................................................. 3 1.2 Context ........................................................................................................................................... 3 1.3 Research aim .................................................................................................................................. 6 1.4 Research methodology ................................................................................................................... 6 1.5 Significance of the study ................................................................................................................ 8 1.6 Role of the researcher ................................................................................................................... 10 1.7 Overview of thesis ........................................................................................................................ 10 1.8 Chapter summary ......................................................................................................................... 11

CHAPTER 2: MICROBLOGGING IN CONTEXT ............................................................ 12 2.1 The Internet and the evolution of Web 2.0 ................................................................................... 12 2.2 History of online social networking ............................................................................................. 13

2.2.1 The emergence of microblogging .................................................................................... 14 2.2.2 Characteristics of microblogging ..................................................................................... 17 2.2.3 Affordances of microblogging ........................................................................................ 21 2.2.4 Twitter conventions ......................................................................................................... 21

2.3 Chapter summary ......................................................................................................................... 23 CHAPTER 3: LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................... 24

3.1 Theory informing this study: Social constructivism .................................................................... 25 3.1.1 Collective intelligence ..................................................................................................... 27 3.1.2 Community of Inquiry framework .................................................................................. 28

3.2 Online social networking .............................................................................................................. 30 3.2.1 Networks and communities: A distinction ...................................................................... 31 3.2.2 Social networking sites .................................................................................................... 31 3.2.3 Social networks for learning ............................................................................................ 34 3.2.4 Innovators and early adopters .......................................................................................... 35

3.3 Communication ............................................................................................................................ 36 3.3.1 Computer-mediated communication ............................................................................... 36 3.3.2 Analysing communication via microblogging ................................................................ 37

3.4 Professional learning .................................................................................................................... 38 3.4.1 Informal learning ............................................................................................................. 39 3.4.2 Learning networks ........................................................................................................... 40 3.4.3 Professional learning networks ........................................................................................ 41

3.5 Chapter summary ......................................................................................................................... 44

Learning in 140 characters: Microblogging for Professional Learning Page vi

CHAPTER 4: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY .................................................................. 45 4.1 Selection of methodology ............................................................................................................. 45 4.2 Case study approach ..................................................................................................................... 47

4.2.1 Exploratory case study .................................................................................................... 47 4.2.2 Unit of analysis ................................................................................................................ 48 4.2.3 Sampling .......................................................................................................................... 48

4.3 Research design ............................................................................................................................ 49 4.3.1 Phase 1 design ................................................................................................................. 50 4.3.2 Phase 2 design ................................................................................................................. 51 4.3.3 Phase 3 design ................................................................................................................. 52 4.3.4 Selection of participants .................................................................................................. 53 4.3.5 Ethical considerations ...................................................................................................... 55

4.4 Data collection .............................................................................................................................. 55 4.4.1 Phase 1: Microblog posts ................................................................................................. 56 4.4.2 Phase 2: Online survey .................................................................................................... 56 4.4.3 Phase 3: Interviews .......................................................................................................... 58

4.5 Data analysis ................................................................................................................................. 61 4.5.1 Phase 1: Content analysis ................................................................................................ 61 4.5.2 Phase 2: Online survey .................................................................................................... 62 4.5.3 Phase 3: Interviews .......................................................................................................... 62

4.6 Validity and trustworthiness ......................................................................................................... 63 4.6.1 Triangulation ................................................................................................................... 64 4.6.2 Role of the researcher ...................................................................................................... 64 4.6.3 Limitations of the study ................................................................................................... 64

4.7 Chapter summary ......................................................................................................................... 65 CHAPTER 5: FINDINGS – CONTENT ANALYSIS ......................................................... 66

5.1 Overview of microblog posts ....................................................................................................... 66 5.2 Overview of CoI coding ............................................................................................................... 68 5.3 Cognitive presence ....................................................................................................................... 69

5.3.1 Triggering events ............................................................................................................. 70 5.3.2 Exploration ...................................................................................................................... 70

5.4 Social presence ............................................................................................................................. 73 5.4.1 Emotional expression ...................................................................................................... 74 5.4.2 Open communication ....................................................................................................... 74 5.4.3 Group cohesion ................................................................................................................ 74

5.5 Teaching presence ........................................................................................................................ 75 5.5.1 Instructional management ................................................................................................ 76 5.5.2 Building understanding ................................................................................................... 76 5.5.3 Direct instruction ............................................................................................................. 77

5.6 A fourth presence: Learning presence .......................................................................................... 77 5.7 Overview of content analysis findings ......................................................................................... 78

CHAPTER 6: FINDINGS – SURVEY .................................................................................. 81 6.1 Purpose of the survey ................................................................................................................... 81 6.2 Demographics of respondents ...................................................................................................... 82 6.3 Microblog usage of respondents ................................................................................................... 84 6.4 Microblogging behaviour of respondents ..................................................................................... 86 6.5 The place of microblogging in PLNs ........................................................................................... 89

6.5.1 Timely information .......................................................................................................... 91 6.5.2 Diverse and global connections ....................................................................................... 91

Learning in 140 characters: Microblogging for Professional Learning Page vii

6.5.3 Valuable resources ........................................................................................................... 92 6.5.4 Advice and support .......................................................................................................... 93 6.5.5 Virtual conference attendance ......................................................................................... 93 6.5.6 Conversations and discussions ........................................................................................ 94 6.5.7 Access to experts ............................................................................................................. 94 6.5.8 Current trends .................................................................................................................. 95 6.5.9 Extending networks ......................................................................................................... 95 6.5.10 Reciprocity ...................................................................................................................... 96 6.5.11 Learning ........................................................................................................................... 97

6.6 Overview of findings from the survey ......................................................................................... 97 CHAPTER 7: FINDINGS – INTERVIEWS ...................................................................... 100

7.1 Profile of interview subjects ....................................................................................................... 100 7.2 Findings from the one-on-one interviews .................................................................................. 103

7.2.1 Types of microblogging activities ................................................................................. 104 7.2.2 Evidence of learning ...................................................................................................... 108 7.2.3 Learning from experts ................................................................................................... 111 7.2.4 Learning from peers ....................................................................................................... 112 7.2.5 Contributing to others’ learning .................................................................................... 113 7.2.6 Disadvantages of microblogging ................................................................................... 114 7.2.7 Additional comments ..................................................................................................... 116

7.3 Overview of findings from the interviews ................................................................................. 117 CHAPTER 8: DISCUSSION ............................................................................................... 118

8.1 Participant profile ....................................................................................................................... 118 8.2 Theoretical underpinnings .......................................................................................................... 120 8.3 What types of interactions occur in microblogging? .................................................................. 121

8.3.1 Variations to the CoI framework ................................................................................... 123 8.4 Network of Exchange (NoE) framework ................................................................................... 125

8.4.1 Professional learning in the NoE ................................................................................... 127 8.4.2 NoE coding template ..................................................................................................... 130 8.4.3 Cognitive Presence ........................................................................................................ 131 8.4.4 Social Presence .............................................................................................................. 133 8.4.5 Teaching Presence ......................................................................................................... 135 8.4.6 Learning presence .......................................................................................................... 136

8.5 Why do educators participate in microblogging? ....................................................................... 137 8.6 What is the perceived value of participation in microblogging? ................................................ 138 8.7 How can microblogging support professional learning? ............................................................ 139

8.7.1 PLNs and microblogging ............................................................................................... 140 8.7.2 Affordances of microblogging in action ........................................................................ 140 8.7.3 Harnessing collective intelligence ................................................................................. 142

8.8 Overcoming the disadvantages of microblogging ...................................................................... 142 8.9 Overview of the discussion ........................................................................................................ 145

CHAPTER 9: CONCLUSION ............................................................................................. 146 9.1 Summary of research context and findings ................................................................................ 147 9.2 Contribution of the study ............................................................................................................ 150 9.3 Research challenges ................................................................................................................... 150 9.4 Implications for practice ............................................................................................................. 151 9.5 Implications for theory ............................................................................................................... 154 9.6 Emerging questions and recommendations for further study ..................................................... 155

Learning in 140 characters: Microblogging for Professional Learning Page viii

9.7 Final words ................................................................................................................................. 156 REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 157 APPENDIX 1: ONLINE SURVEY ...................................................................................... 169

Learning in 140 characters: Microblogging for Professional Learning Page ix

List of Figures

Figure 1.1: Sequence of data collection and analysis ............................................................................... 6

Figure 2.1: Internet Relay Chat (IRC) Window ..................................................................................... 15 Figure 2.2: Instant Message (IM) Window ............................................................................................ 16 Figure 2.3: Construction of a microblog post using Twitter ....................................................................... 18 Figure 2.4: Example of Twitter posts ..................................................................................................... 18 Figure 2.5: Example of Plurk posts ........................................................................................................ 19 Figure 2.6: Example of responses to a Plurk post .................................................................................. 20 Figure 3.1: Conceptual framework ......................................................................................................... 24 Figure 3.2: Elements of an Educational Experience: Community of Inquiry ........................................ 29

Figure 3.3: The Networked Teacher ...................................................................................................... 42

Figure 3.4: The networked learner receives information from various sources and in turn becomes a source for others’ PLNs ............................................................................................................................. 43

Figure 3.5: Personally and socially maintained semisynchronous PLNs ............................................... 44 Figure 4.1: Sampling process diagram ...................................................................................................... 49

Figure 4.2: Sequence and phases of data collection and analysis .......................................................... 50

Figure 4.3: Purposive selection of participants for this study - based on sampling process diagram ............ 54 Figure 4.4: Data gathering methods used and their relation to the research questions ................................. 55

Figure 6.1: Years of teaching experience of respondents ......................... ....................................................... 84

Figure 6.2: Duration of respondents’ microblog usage compared with hours usage per week ..................... 85

Figure 6.3: Categories of people that respondents added to their microblogging network ........................... 86

Figure 7.1: Microblogging activities noted as contributing to learning ......................................................... 105

Figure 8.1: Elements of an Educational Experience: Community of Inquiry ...................................... 126 Figure 8.2: Network of Exchange (NoE) framework ........................................................................... 127

Learning in 140 characters: Microblogging for Professional Learning Page x

List of Tables

Table 2.1: Microblogging symbols, terms and conventions ................................................................. 22

Table 3.1: Community of Inquiry coding template ............................................................................... 29

Table 4.1: Profile of interview subjects ................................................................................................ 59

Table 5.1: Breakdown of microblog posts in each of the CoI elements ............................................... 69

Table 5.2: Cognitive presence coding (n-413) ...................................................................................... 70

Table 5.3: Social presence coding (n-150) ............................................................................................ 73

Table 5.4: Teaching presence coding (N=14) ....................................................................................... 75

Table 5.5: Overview of microblog post coding (n-600) ........................................................................ 79

Table 6.1: Gender of survey respondents sorted by age ....................................................................... 82

Table 6.2: Education sectors represented by survey respondents ......................................................... 83

Table 6.3: Microblogging behaviours of survey respondents ............................................................... 88

Table 7.1: Profile of interview subjects .............................................................................................. 101

Table 7.2: Categorisation of teaching experience and microblogging activity ................................... 102

Table 7.3: Activity ranking (in descending order) .............................................................................. 103

Table 8.1: Categories of microblogging activities and behaviours ..................................................... 122

Table 8.2: Community of Inquiry coding template with addition of microblog indicators ................ 124

Table 8.3: Network of Exchange coding template .............................................................................. 131

Table 8.4: NoE cognitive presence categories and indicators ............................................................. 132

Table 8.5: NoE social presence categories and indicators .................................................................. 133

Table 8.6: NoE teaching presence categories and indicators .............................................................. 135

Table 8.7: NoE learning presence categories and indicators .............................................................. 137

Learning in 140 characters: Microblogging for Professional Learning Page xi

List of Abbreviations and Terms

The abbreviations and terms used in this thesis are explicated in full (in first usage) and can

generally be determined from the text in which the abbreviation appears. The following

standard abbreviations and terms appear within the text and are set out below for clarity.

Aggregating: The process of collecting content from multiple online sources and

consolidating it in a single location for organisational purposes. This usually

involves the use of a website or computer software.

ALN: Asynchronous learning network

CMC: Computer mediated communication

CoI: Community of Inquiry

Hashtags: Words or phrases prefixed with the symbol #, commonly used in Twitter to

delineate discussion topics

ICT: Information and communication technology

IM: Instant messaging

IRC: Internet relay chat

Microblogger: A person who makes microblog posts

OECD: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

PLN: Professional (or personal) learning network

SMS: Short message service (text messaging on mobile phones)

SNS: Social networking sites

Tag: A keyword or term assigned to a piece of information that allows it to be

found again by browsing or searching

VoIP Voice over IP which allows audio phone calls using the Internet, for

example, Skype

Web 2.0: The next generation of Web-based software and services that allow users a

participatory role

Learning in 140 characters: Microblogging for Professional Learning Page xii

Statement of Original Authorship

The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet requirements for

an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my knowledge and

belief, this document contains no material previously published or written by another person

except where due reference is made.

Signature:

Date: 23 December, 2013

Learning in 140 characters: Microblogging for Professional Learning Page xiii

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank and acknowledge my family, friends, colleagues and microblogging

network who have supported my journey with this research. I would particularly like to

thank the supervisors who have supported me. Firstly, Dr Alan Roberts who began the

journey with me and was there until almost the end, secondly, Dr Vinesh Chandra who

stepped in towards the end and saw me over the line, and thirdly, Associate Professor

Margaret Lloyd - without whom I would never have completed this study to the level you

see before you. Enormous thanks and gratitude go to you Margaret for your endless

encouragement, guidance, faith, inspiration and words of wisdom.

I would like to acknowledge and thank Ryan Nilsson for the coding magic he performed that

so easily enabled the collection of a targeted set of data from the Twitterverse. I would also

like to thank the “underground team” – the group of peers who started their doctoral journey

with me and who were always available to respond to emails.

This study could not have been completed without the microblogging educators who so

willingly gave of their time to complete the online survey and so many of whom indicated

they were willing to give extra time to be interviewed. Particular thanks to the nine educators

who were chosen and gave their time and considered thoughts in the interview process.

Thank you all for the rich data you gave me to work with.

1Chapter 1: Introduction

Currently available forms of interactive software that connect people directly with each other

have changed people’s social interactions, and the trend of people connecting with, and

depending on, each other online is accelerating (Li & Bernoff, 2008). The World Wide Web

(the Web) has grown into a global information space with more than a billion users and has

entered a new, more social and participatory phase (P. Anderson, 2007) where people are

engaging in different types of online collaborative activities. In its role as a technical means

of connecting people, the Web provides an easy mechanism for peer-to-peer communication

(Haythornthwaite, 2005).

The Web is a place where people communicate knowledge, share resources and

participate in social networks (Ding, Jacob, Caverlee, Fried, & Zhang, 2009) and a place

which Ala-Mutka (2010) suggested could provide a new environment for lifelong learning

and which Rovai, Wighting, Baker and Grooms (2009) noted has enabled new educational

opportunities, such as instruction delivered via asynchronous learning networks,

synchronous online seminars, blogs, wikis, podcasts and 3D virtual worlds. Koper (2009)

also saw the possibilities of the Web for bringing people in contact with each other and with

direct sources of knowledge and suggested that this could be harnessed to construct learning

networks that connect people, knowledge, training possibilities and ideas.

However, it is to be noted that there are disadvantages to such an open and collaborative

online environment and to engaging in online social networking. Veletsianos and Kimmons

(2013) noted one concern as being the privacy of personal information, while Grosseck and

Holotescu (2008) noted the use of Twitter as being time consuming, addictive, open to spam

and encouraging bad grammar.

The ethos of the Web is one of sharing, decentralisation and democracy; making it an

ideal platform for groups to self organise and combine their ideas to create social networks

(Leadbeater, 2008). However, this developing networked society requires new skills and

competencies for working, studying and collaborating (Hakkarainen, Palonen, Paavola, &

Lehtinen, 2004). The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)

(2005) identified the ability to use technology interactively as a key competency needed by

individuals for a successful life and a well-functioning society and noted that an increasingly

diverse and interconnected world is being created in which individuals need to master

changing technologies in order to function well in this world.

Learning in 140 characters: Microblogging for Professional Learning Page 2

Greater access to the Web and the development of so called Web 2.0 applications have

enabled new forms of relationships and patterns of communicating and learning, where

learners are active participants, creators of knowledge, and seekers of engaging, personal

experiences (McLoughlin & Lee, 2008a). The Web has changed our experience of learning

by changing the spaces and times in which community based learning can take place

(Kendall, 2004) and by enabling people to act in mass collaboration, thus increasing the

ability to conceive, create, compute and connect (Libert & Spector, 2008). This learning

landscape potentially extends beyond the boundaries of classrooms and educational

institutions and involves a blending and merging of informal and formal learning

(McLoughlin & Lee, 2008b).

Educators, like other professionals, can no longer rely on their original professional

training and are required to maintain dynamically changing network connections

(Hakkarainen, et al., 2004). Networking is not new to educators, they have networked for

many years in order to share practice; valuing contact with colleagues in similar and

different settings (GTCE, 2005). What is new is the fact that the Web has facilitated

networking across greater geographical distances (Sliwka, 2003) and individuals are

personalising their own social networks with the help of the Web (Wellman, Boase, & Chen,

2002). Not only are these online social networks being used for social connections, they also

provide tools for personalising learning (Ala-Mutka, 2009) and have the ability to facilitate

personal learning networks (PLNs) (Grosseck & Holotescu, 2008).

Hence, the purpose of the study was to investigate how a particular online social

networking application, microblogging, was being employed by a group of technically

confident educators to support their self-directed professional learning. Microblogging is a

form of online social networking which enables people to share limited information about

themselves via their profile and share their activities in short posts of up to 140 characters.

Posts are made in response to the general question "What are you doing?" and the answers

include messages of context, invitation, social statements, inquiries and answers, news

broadcasts and announcements. Many posts are responses to other postings, pointers to

online resources that the user found interesting, musings or questions (Educause, 2007).

Some common contemporary microblogging services are Twitter [www.twitter.com] on

which this study was based, Plurk [www.plurk.com] and Yammer [www.yammer.com].

Through a qualitative research design using content analysis, an online survey and one-

on-one interviews, the study has examined activities and perceptions of a group of educators

in order to provide an insight into how and why they engage in microblogging and the value

they place on microblogging as a professional learning tool. The purpose of this chapter is to


introduce the context of the study. It begins with an examination of the background (Section

1.1) and context (Section 1.2) for the study. The aim of the study is examined (Section 1.3);

the research methodology presented (Section 1.4); the significance of the study discussed

(Section 1.5) and the role of the researcher outlined (Section 1.6). An overview of the thesis

is presented in Section 1.7 followed by a chapter summary (Section 1.8).

1.1 Background to the study The researcher’s interest in this topic emerged from her own microblogging activities which

involve connections with teachers and teacher educators from the United States of America,

the United Kingdom, Canada, South Africa, New Zealand and Australia. This group has

used microblogging to share ideas and resources and to ask each other for professional help

and support across a variety of topics and issues. Members of the group began referring to

the group as their PLN and an online discussion ensued as to whether the “P” in PLN

referred to one’s “personal” or “professional” learning network. It is to be noted that the

borders between personal and professional learning networks are blurred (Ivanova, 2009)

and PLN is variously used to mean personal or professional learning network in the

literature. Furthermore, some authors use the term personal learning environment (PLE)

interchangeably with PLN. For the purposes of this study, PLE is taken to mean the sum of

websites and technologies that an individual makes use of to learn (McElvaney & Berge,

2009), and PLN is taken to mean one’s professional learning network comprising of

individuals (Couros, 2010) (see Section 3.4.3).

On further investigation, it was found that research into the use of online social

networking, and microblogging in particular, was sparse, indicating that it was an emerging

field for investigation. In a survey of 550 educators who were active users of

telecommunications technology for professional development and student learning, Honey

and Henriquez (1993) found that one of the major benefits reported was the opportunity to

communicate with other educators and share ideas through email, forums and bulletin

boards. Given the shift in, and diffusion of, technology, this researcher was concerned to

know whether communication and exchange of ideas was enhanced in a more contemporary

setting by applications such as microblogging.

1.2 Context For much of the industrialised world, information and communication technology (ICT) is

now a ubiquitous tool in the workplace and at home, impacting on personal communication,

organisation of activities, information management and learning (Go & van Weert, 2004).

Sorensen and Murchú (2006) noted that learning through digital technology is a global


reality and that technology in the 21st century is without boundaries, that is, it is not limited

by location or time. Reinforcing this notion, the OECD (2005) stated that:

Information and communication technology has the potential to transform the

way people work together (by reducing the importance of location), access

information (by making vast amounts of information sources instantly

available) and interact with others (by facilitating relationships and networks

of people from around the world on a regular basis). (p. 11)

Online social networking sites such as Six Degrees, Friendster and MySpace began to

appear in 2002 and were initially designed to foster the development of explicit ties between

individuals as “friends” (Downes, 2005). There are a variety of online social networking

sites that link individuals virtually and enable rapid exchange of knowledge, high levels of

dialogue and collaborative communication through text, audio and video (Siemens, 2006).

Microblogging is a form of online social networking that allows users to post short messages

of 140 characters or less on the Web and viewing of these messages may be restricted to

certain individuals or made public to anyone using the Web (Costa, Beham, Reinhardt, &

Sillaot, 2008; Grosseck & Holotescu, 2008). Microblogging is used to communicate actions

and projects, to put questions, to ask for directions, support, advice, and to validate open-

ended interpretations or ideas (Grosseck & Holotescu, 2008).

There is a vast amount of literature relating to the use of computer-mediated conferencing

in instructional learning environments (Hult, Dahlgren, Hamilton, & Söderström, 2005) but

much is still unclear about the use and role of online social networking in general, and

microblogging in particular, for professional learning. Millen and Patterson (2002) identified

that there was a growing body of research investigating various aspects of online

communities but that much of this research has been descriptive and focused on the nature of

the social interaction and reported about the various activities of the members and visitors.

Several studies have investigated the use of online social networking for the purpose of

strengthening a community (Prell, 2003) but there have been few studies into the formation

of professional learning networks through online social networking; notable examples of

which are Alderton, Brunsell, and Bariexca (2011), Grosseck and Holotescu (2011), Lalonde

(2011) and Veletsianos and Kimmons (2013). Additionally, one survey of social media use

by higher education faculty (n=1,920) in Northern America found that 10% of respondents

reported using microblogging for professional, nonteaching, purposes (Moran, Seaman, &

Tinti-Kane, 2011) however the survey did not examine or report on these purposes.

Carmichael, Fox, McCormick, Procter and Honour (2006) noted that a significant change

which had occurred in the United Kingdom was the development of thinking about networks


and networking and this had led to considerable interest in how educational networks might

be the means by which a range of professional learning could be enabled. Although the

investigations by Carmichael, et al. (2006) revealed electronic aspects of networking to be a

minor part of teacher and school networks, a picture of intra-school and inter-school

networking emerged that was supported to differing extents by electronic and other means.

Hakkarainen, et al. (2004) asserted that educational institutions will be required to find new

models and practices for facilitating the creation and sharing of knowledge and they will

need to develop new technologies in this endeavour. Similarly, Ala-Mutka (2009) noted that

there was a lack of awareness of the potential for learning in online networks and advised

that educational institutions should acknowledge the important role of these informal online

networks and prepare people to take part in them.

An alternate, and skeptical, view is expressed by Koper (2009) who believes that just

reading books, blogs and other news sources is not sufficient to acquire new skills, complex

knowledge or to leverage oneself to a higher level of functioning. This argument could

equally be applied to the use of microblogging for professional learning and raises questions

about how and why educators are using microblogging to support their professional learning.

Additionally, in a study of virtual learning communities, Henri and Pudelko (2003) noted

that, from an educational perspective, research is polarised between those who question the

validity of the notion of a virtual community, to others, who without questioning it, are

investigating its pedagogical potential and implementation. This study belongs to the second

of these groups and did not question the validity of a virtual learning community, but sought

to investigate the pedagogical potential of microblogging in such a community.

The focus of this study was the use of microblogging for self-directed professional

learning by educators who wrote their microblog posts in the English language. While

individuals with a wide variety of ages and backgrounds participate in microblogging, this

study explored the relationship between microblogging and professional learning by

focusing on the activities of educators who currently use microblogging and would therefore

be considered innovators and early adopters. Participants in the study included teachers,

teacher educators, school principals, university lecturers and technology support officers.

Although each of these types of “educators” work in different educational institutions with

different aims, and have different concerns and practices, they have in common that they are

involved in the education of others and they have individual professional learning needs. In

studying this particular group of individuals and their involvement with microblogging,

questions regarding how these individuals relate and collaborate were explored.


1.3 Research aim The aim of this study was to examine the use of microblogging for self-directed professional

learning amongst educators and to investigate the value that educators place on

microblogging as a professional learning tool. The study examined how distributed groups

support each other and learn together using microblogging to share knowledge. The findings

from this study will provide some understanding of, and recommendations for, the use of

microblogging for professional learning (see Section 9.4). In examining how and why

individuals engage in microblogging and the value they place on microblogging as a

professional learning tool, the study focused on the following research questions:

1. What types of interactions occur in microblogging?

2. Why do educators participate in microblogging?

3. What is the perceived value of participation in microblogging?

4. How can microblogging support professional learning?

The research questions are based on the known practice of microblogging in professional

networks and address gaps in the literature. The significance of this research is discussed in

Section 1.5.

1.4 Research methodology In order to explore the nature of microblogging and to understand its use for professional

learning, this study used a qualitative methodology, namely, a case study approach (Yin,

2009). This research was based on multiple sources of data collected through three

instruments in three sequential phases (as illustrated in Figure 1.1).

COLLECTION 1 3855 microblog posts collected from 300 educators

ANALYSIS 1 Content analysis of microblog posts for themes

COLLECTION 2 Online survey to further explore themes

ANALYSIS 2 Survey analysis and identification of interview subjects

COLLECTION 3 One-‐on-‐one interviews with 9 educators

ANALYSIS 3 Interview analysis for deeper understanding

PHASE 1

PHASE 2

PHASE 3

Figure 1.1: Sequence of data collection and analysis


The instruments used in each of the three phases of the study are described below.

Phase 1: Content Analysis: Phase 1 of the research was designed to address the first of the

research questions, that is, the types of interactions that occur in microblogging. Microblog

posts (n-3855) from a delimited period were collected and a sample (n-600) were analysed to

determine the types of messages that were being posted. The content analysis framework

used was the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework (see Section 3.1.2) developed by

Garrison, Anderson and Archer (2000) to guide transcript analysis. It is to be noted that

Garrison, Anderson and Archer (2001) built on the CoI framework to create the Practical

Inquiry model. The Practical Inquiry model was created to assess outcomes of collaboration

in a higher education online course environment and reflected four phases of critical thinking

and cognitive presence. As the focus of this study was microblogging, which is an open and

informal learning environment, it was deemed that the CoI framework was a more

appropriate tool to use.

Phase 2: Online survey: Phase 2 of the research was designed to address the second and

third of the research questions, that is, why educators participate in microblogging and the

perceived value of participation in microblogging. An invitation was distributed asking

educators who microblog to complete an online survey (see Appendix 1) to determine

demographics, frequency and type of microblogging use and the value placed on

microblogging as a professional learning network (PLN) tool. Survey questions relating to

the type of microblog posts were formulated from the categories that emerged in the content

analysis, which were cross-referenced with those reported in the literature (Alderton, et al.,

2011; Educause, 2007; Grosseck & Holotescu, 2008; Holotescu & Grosseck, 2009; Java,

Song, Finin, & Tseng, 2007; Parry, 2008). From the survey respondents (n=121), nine

participants were purposively chosen to participate in the third phase of the data gathering,

namely, one-on-one interviews.

Phase 3: One-on-one interviews: Phase 3 of the research was designed to address the fourth

of the research questions, that is, how microblogging can support professional learning. The

interview subjects (n=9) were asked a series of semi-structured and open-ended questions

(see Section 7.2). The interviews were designed to capture educators’ subjective experiences

and attitudes towards microblogging and to build on the information gathered in Phase 1 and

Phase 2 of the study.

The research was informed by the theory of social constructivism. Social constructivism

posits that learner construction of knowledge is the product of social interaction,

interpretation and understanding (Vygotsky, 1962). Further to this, Adams (2006) adopted a


constructivist viewpoint to propose that new technologies offer exciting ways to understand

and “repopulate” professional discourse on learning and teaching.

1.5 Significance of the study The significance of this study lies in its investigation of the use of an online collaborative

tool (microblogging) for professional learning purposes. It was noted by Costa, et al. (2008)

that microblogging is being increasingly used for informal learning and networking.

Furthermore, Couros (2006) identified that some teachers used technology to embrace and

participate in an open and distributive culture, and Duncan-Howell (2007) noted that

increasing numbers of teachers were accessing information on the Web for their learning and

professional development. However, in terms of educational technology, there has been little

attention paid to how this type of learning takes place (Attwell, 2006a). In their examination

of the use of online communities for professional teacher learning, Packer and Daley (2006)

stated that “the role of new technologies in professional teacher learning is an area that is as

yet scarcely explored” (p. 2). Elsewhere they noted that:

The potential of technology to support collaborative learning based on notions

of shared knowledge construction, and to build forums for the co-construction

of knowledge, has scarcely touched classrooms, and it is no surprise that it has

touched teachers’ professional development even less. (p. 3)

As early as 2004, it was reported that educators were creating intentional online

communities to support learning but these often ended with fractured groups that

communicated intermittently (Barab, Kling, & Gray, 2004). Unlike these online

communities, social networking sites are organised around people rather than topics of

interest and are structured as personal networks with the individual at the centre of their own

community. The introduction of social networking sites has introduced a new organisational

framework for online communities and with it, a new research context. boyd1 and Ellison

(2007) maintained that, methodologically, the ability of online social networking researchers

to make causal claims is limited by a lack of experimental or longitudinal studies. Although

the situation is rapidly changing, it can be contended that scholars still have a limited

understanding of who is and who is not using these sites, why, and for what purposes. This

1 boyd stipulates that her name be in lower case.


study helps to fill this gap in the research by examining in detail how and why one sector of

society, that is, educators, is using microblogging.

Furthermore, in examining online social networks, researchers have been particularly

concerned with how people make friends, how many friends they have and the reliance on

social networks for social support (Golder, Wilkinson, & Huberman, 2007). Only as recently

as 2011 has research emerged into the use of social networking as a tool to support learning

for example Alderton, et al. (2011), Lalonde (2011), Veletsianos and Navarrete (2012) and

Veletsianos and Kimmons (2013), with Alderton, et al. advising that:

Additional studies looking at how other online learning communities may be

used as professional development venues would be beneficial and add to the

knowledge base of online learning, professional development, and learning

networks. (p. 1)

Additionally, in their study of scholars and “faculty” members, that is, university

academic staff in Northern America, Veletsianos and Kimmons (2013) found little current

empirical literature on faculty experiences and participation in online social networking, and

what was available, leaves questions about what barriers and issues faculty face when

adopting such technologies into their practice. One of the questions suggested for further

research from the Veletsianos & Kimmons (2013) study was how faculty members use

different social networking sites for professional purposes. Similarly, Ala-Mutka (2009)

noted the need to investigate whether online social interactions between people, and the new

opportunities provided by technology, could be harnessed to support lifelong learning in

order to help individuals adapt to changes in job requirements.

This study builds upon the research into the social use of online social networks and

extends knowledge and understanding about the use of online social networking, specifically

microblogging, for professional learning. By using the Community of Inquiry (CoI)

framework (Garrison, et al., 2000) to analyse the content and interactions that occur in

microblogging, the study extends the application of this instrument as encouraged by

Garrison, Anderson and Archer (2010):

In particular, the CoI instrument provides a means to study the dynamics of

online communities of inquiry, both among and within the presences. We also

look forward to seeing the framework used as a predictor of learning

processes and learning outcomes from both the perspective of individual

courses/programs of studies and lifelong learning attitudes and participation.


This is an enormous challenge that may take well into the next decade to

explore and understand. (p. 9)

1.6 Role of the researcher The researcher assumed the role of observer for the collection of data from both the

microblog posts and the online survey. Apart from distributing an invitation to participate in

the survey, the researcher did not initiate or respond to any microblog posts during the data

collection period in order to remain neutral and apart from the network.

For the case studies, the researcher assumed the role of interviewer and interpreter. The

researcher asked semi-structured and open-ended questions and then interpreted the

responses, looking for the occurrence of common themes.

1.7 Overview of thesis The thesis is presented in nine chapters. This chapter has introduced the background and

context of the study and defined the research aim. It has also presented the methodological

approach employed for the study. The following chapter, Chapter 2, presents an overview of

the emergence of microblogging in the context of the development of the World Wide Web

and explains the characteristics and conventions of microblogging in general, and Twitter, in

particular. A review of literature relevant to the study including the theory informing the

study, namely, social constructivism, and the three major areas of concern for the study, that

is, social networking, communication and professional learning are presented in Chapter 3.

The methodology and research design for the study are presented in Chapter 4. As noted

in Section 1.4, a case study approach was adopted and data were collected through three

instruments, namely, a collection of microblog posts, an online survey and one-on-one

interviews. Chapter 4 also outlines the method and purpose of the data analysis, that is,

content analysis and an online survey to gain an overall picture of the use of microblogging

for professional learning, and a more fine-grained analysis through the use of interviews with

purposively chosen participants.

The findings of the study are presented in Chapters 5 to 7. Chapter 5 presents the findings

from the content analysis of a collection of microblog posts, which specifically addressed the

first research question pertaining to the types of interactions that occur in microblogging.

Chapter 6 presents the findings from the online survey, which focused on addressing the

second and third research questions about why individuals participate in microblogging and

the perceived value of that participation. Following this, Chapter 7 presents the findings


from the one-on-one interviews, which addressed the fourth research question relating to

how microblogging could support professional learning.

Chapter 8 consists of a detailed discussion and synthesis of the findings from each of the

data collections outlined in Chapters 5-7. The final chapter (Chapter 9) presents conclusions

and includes implications for theory and practice.

1.8 Chapter summary Social media has had a clear influence on contemporary life, and in the recent past, various

forms of online communication have been used by educators to form and sustain

professional learning communities. This study was interested in whether the newer

technology of microblogging might be used in similar ways. This chapter has introduced the

thesis and has provided an outline of the context of the research and its research design. The

following chapter, Chapter 2, will serve as an overview to the process of microblogging,

which was the focus of this study.


2Chapter 2: Microblogging in Context

This chapter provides an overview of the emergence of microblogging in the context of the

development of the World Wide Web and explains the characteristics and conventions of

microblogging in general, and Twitter, in particular. This overview is provided in order to

describe the context in which the study was undertaken. Section 2.1 presents a brief history

of the Internet and the evolution of Web 2.0 and Section 2.2 presents a history of online

social networking which includes an overview of the emergence of microblogging, the

characteristics, affordances and conventions of microblogging.

2.1 The Internet and the evolution of Web 2.0 The Internet emerged in 1969 as the Advanced Research Projects Agency Network

(ARPANET), a network developed and used by the United States Department of Defense

(Hart, Reed, & Bar, 1992). This early form of the Internet was opened to commercial

interests in 1988 (Leiner et al., 2000) and comprised a network of computer networks which

transmitted messages to one another using a common set of operating rules (Clarke, 1998). It

was not until the 1990s that the Internet became widely available and used, due to the work

of Tim Berners-Lee and Robert Cailliau of CERN who proposed the World Wide Web as a

“web of nodes” storing “hypertext pages” viewed by “browsers” which was launched in

December of 1990 (Berners-Lee & Cailliau, 1990).

The term “Web 2.0” was coined by O’Reilly Media in 2004 as part of a marketing

exercise for a conference (O’Reilly, 2005). Web 2.0 consists of a collection of technologies

or social tools that enable connectivity, active participation and the collaborative sharing and

creating of knowledge and ideas (Lu, Lai, & Law, 2010), and has been variously described

as “a state of mind, an attitude, a new business model, the next generation of Web-based

software and services, a set of development principles, a revolution” (Birdsall, 2007, p. 1).

The commonality among descriptions of Web 2.0 is the reference to the participatory role

given to users of the Web (Birdsall, 2007; Maness, 2006; Miller, 2007) and the underlying

feature of Web 2.0 applications is that of harnessing collective intelligence (R. Mason &

Rennie, 2008; O’Reilly, 2005; P. C. Rogers, Liddle, Chan, Doxey, & Isom, 2007). Since

2003, the Internet has seen growth in end user-driven applications such as blogs, podcasts,

wikis, microblogs and social networking websites. Redecker, Ala-Mutka, Bacigalupo,

Ferrari and Punie (2009) refer to these applications as Web 2.0 because of the way in which

they exploit the Internet’s connectivity to support the networking of people and content.


In contrast, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, one of the creators of the World Wide Web, maintains

that Web 2.0 is just an extension of the original ideals of the Web and, as such, it does not

warrant a special label (P. Anderson, 2007). When asked in an interview about the common

explanation that Web 1.0 was about connecting computers and making information available

and Web 2.0 is about connecting people and facilitating new kinds of collaboration, Berners-

Lee replied:

Web 1.0 was all about connecting people. It was an interactive space, and I

think Web 2.0 is, of course, a piece of jargon, nobody even knows what it

means. If Web 2.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then that is people to people.

But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along.

(Laningham, 2006, Podcast)

However, as Web 2.0 is a widely used term in the literature, and is conceptually linked to

microblogging, this study has adopted the term Web 2.0 to mean a participatory medium that

enables users to connect and collaborate and that underpins the emergence of online social

networking.

Web 2.0 provides a set of applications that enable people to connect and contribute as

much as they can consume, and these applications have changed the Web into a participatory

medium in which users are socially connected and can actively create, evaluate and

distribute information (Lerman, 2007). Community structures and culture are evolving

through this electronic interaction and new patterns of social interaction and interchange

have emerged (Keeble & Loader, 2001). By changing the social interactions and the modes

and patterns of our lives, Web 2.0 can lead to changes in education (Aviram & Tami, 2004).

With greater access to broadband services and Web 2.0 applications, new forms of

relationships and patterns of communicating and learning have emerged; where learners are

active participants, creators of knowledge, and seekers of engaging, personal experiences

(McLoughlin & Lee, 2008a).

2.2 History of online social networking The idea of connecting people by using networked computers in order to boost their

knowledge and their ability to learn dates as far back as Licklider (1960). The existence of

online interactive communities was envisaged as consisting of “geographically separated

members, sometimes grouped in small clusters and sometimes working individually. They

will be communities not of common location, but of common interest” (Licklider & Taylor,

1968, pp. 37-38). Tim Berners-Lee, one of the creators of the Web, saw it as a collaborative

workspace where everything was linked to everything and the assumption was that everyone


would be able to edit in this space (P. Anderson, 2007). Rheingold (2000) was one who

identified the potential of the Web for connecting people: “the first time I saw the Web, I

wanted to create communities there” (p. 334).

Parallel to these developments, computer bulletin boards that allowed people to read and

write messages to and from each other appeared in 1978 (Rheingold, 2000). The beginning

of the first “social” uses of the Web evolved during the 1990s when tools such as listservs

and discussion software were used to link people around the world with common interests.

The notion of online social networking first appeared on the Web in the late 1990s, with

services that allowed groups of people to coordinate and interact. The first public online

social networking site, SixDegrees.com, appeared in 1997 but the service failed to attract a

self-sustaining community (boyd, 2007). Many features of social networking sites were

available in differing formats before this time, but SixDegrees.com was the first platform to

combine all of these features. The uptake of social networking was slow and it has been

argued that it was not until 2004 that these sites became widely popular (boyd & Ellison,

2007).

While there has been an expansion in the number of online social networking sites,

perhaps more importantly, sites have undergone a significant evolution since 2004. The

online social networking sites that emerged in the late 1990s consisted of groups of users

organising and communicating on the Web through coordinated networks (Hornik, 2005)

while the online social networking sites that have emerged in the 21st century allow users to

share conversations, ideas and music. This 21st century form of online social networking was

noted by Brown and Adler (2008) as creating a new kind of participatory medium that could

potentially change the traditional Cartesian view of knowledge and learning (“I think,

therefore I am,”) to a view of learning that says, “We participate, therefore we are.”

2.2.1 The emergence of microblogging

Microblogging is a form of online social networking which became available on July 13,

2006 with the launch of Twitter, the first major microblogging service (Naone, 2008).

Twitter is a mobile social network that lets users post entries of 140 characters or less

through a website or a mobile phone (Fitton, Gruen, & Poston, 2009), with the brevity of

posts creating both opportunities and drawbacks (Mergel & Greeves, 2013). As with online

social networking sites (as described in Section 3.2), microblogging sites allow users to

connect with each other as friends or followers.

Makice (2009) believed that microblogging emerged from three main sources: Internet

relay chat (IRC), instant messaging (IM), and mobile phones, while Fitton, et al. (2009) and


Meraz (2011) attributed the emergence to instant messaging (IM), the mobile phone short

messaging system (SMS) and blogging. This section will explore all four sources: IRC, IM,

mobile phones (SMS) and blogging.

Internet Relay Chat was invented in 1988 by Jarkko Oikarinen, a graduate student at the

University of Oulu, Finland (Oikarinen, 2004). IRC consists of various servers

(computerised machines) that allow groups of people across the world to communicate in

real-time using text (Mutton, 2004). Once connected to IRC you can join one or more

channels (often called rooms) and converse in real time with others there (Caraballo & Lo,

2000). Conversations may be public, where everyone in a channel can see what you type; or

private, that is, messages between only two people. Figure 2.1 is an illustration of an IRC.

Figure 2.1: Internet Relay Chat (IRC) Window (Source: https://help.ubuntu.com/5.10/kubuntu/images/C/kubuntu-konversation.png)

Instant messaging (IM) is real-time communication similar to IRC in that users type

messages into a computer. However, users do not go into “rooms” to converse with whoever

is there, instead there is a single individual with whom they communicate (Nardi, Whittaker,


& Bradner, 2000). A window is opened for the conversation, where messages scroll upward

and eventually out of view as the conversation ensues (Grinter & Palen, 2002). Some

systems support multiparty messaging, allowing more than two people to chat in the IM

window. Figure 2.2 is an illustration of IM.

Figure 2.2: Instant Message (IM) Window (Source: http://farm1.static.flickr.com/34/73540501_a23aec02ef.jpg Creative Commons licence)

The short message service (SMS) enables users to send and receive text messages (up to

160 characters) to and from mobile phones (Ferrer-Roca, Ca´rdenas, Diaz-Cardama, &

Pulido, 2004). SMS was used to send the first text message on a mobile phone on December

3, 1992; however, it was 1999 before SMS was able to communicate between

telecommunication networks, prompting an explosion of use (Makice, 2007).

Blogs (short for weblogs) are regularly updated online journals that allow people to easily

create and share online content (Ali-Hasan & Adamic, 2007). Blogs typically contain a

series of archived posts, which are arranged in reverse chronological order and readers


interact with the blog writer (blogger) by contributing comments in response to specific blog

posts. Blogging in its current form began in 1997 (Nardi, Schiano, & Gumbrecht, 2004).

Makice (2009) asserted that microblogging shows evidence of three of these cultures,

namely IRC, IM and SMS, converging at a time when people had become accustomed to

composing short messages on demand and mobile services allowed such communication.

Fitton, et al. (2009) observed that, like blogging, microblogging posts are generally

published publicly and like instant messaging (IM) allow people to communicate directly

with each other. However, Fitton, et al. (2009) also pointed out that unlike blogging,

messages are limited to 140 characters and that IM lacks the social networking features of

microblogging. The characteristics of microblogging are explored further in the following

section.

2.2.2 Characteristics of microblogging

Microblogging enables people to share limited information about themselves via their profile

and share their activities in short posts distributed to the Web by instant messages, mobile

phones or email (Java, et al., 2007). Users do not have to visit a website to access messages

from their network as there are a variety of applications that allow users to receive messages

on a mobile phone, have messages sent to their email account or feed them into an

aggregated web page (Fitton, et al., 2009).

Users are limited to 140 characters for each posting, which is displayed on the user's

profile page and delivered to other users who are connected to them. A microblog post may

include a link to a map of the user’s location and/or a photograph. Senders can restrict

delivery of their posts to those in their network or allow anybody to read them. Posts are

made in response to the question “What are you doing?” In practice, that question is usually

interpreted as, “What interesting thought do you want to share at this moment?” and the

answers include messages of context, invitation, social statements, inquiries and answers,

news broadcasts and announcements (Makice, 2009). Figure 2.3 illustrates a post from one

microblogging service, Twitter, and the way in which it is constructed.


Figure 2.3: Construction of a microblog post using Twitter

As previously noted, many posts are responses to other postings, pointers to online

resources that the user found interesting, musings or questions (Educause, 2007). Some

common microblogging services are Twitter [www.twitter.com], Plurk [www.plurk.com]

and Yammer [www.yammer.com]. Figures 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6 illustrate examples of posts from

two microblogging services, Twitter and Plurk.

Figure 2.4: Example of Twitter posts

Post 1

Post 2

Post 3

Post 4

Post 5

Post 7

Post 6

The person’s photo or other pictorial representation of themselves

The person’s name and ID (indicated by @)

The message which includes a web link

Date the message was posted.

Clicking the star will make this post a favourite – making it easy to retrieve.

Use of @ indicates it is in response to another microblogger

Indicates that someone has shared this post with their network

Clicking this symbol will allow one to reply to the post.

Additional information: number of shares (retweets), favourites and time of posting

Clicking this symbol will re-post the post to one’s own network

Clicking this symbol will give more or less information about the post. In this case the post is expanded to show the information highlighted

Use of # will place this post into a “conversation”


Figure 2.4 illustrates various types of postings that have been made in response to the

question “What are you doing?” This selection contains posts that are typical to

microblogging, namely:

a. Post 1: Re-sharing professional resources (evident by the use of “via @”).

b. Posts 2-3: Musing.

c. Post 4: Replying to another user (evident by the @ symbol).

d. Post 5: Sharing a picture (evident by the “twitpic” website address).

e. Post 6: Imparting social information.

f. Post 7: Venting about a technical problem and directing readers to an article on that

problem.

The selection of postings in Figure 2.4 also illustrates how experts and practitioners can

share information via microblogging. It contains posts from a social networking pioneer

(hrheingold – Howard Rheingold), two education experts (garystager – Gary Stager and

hjarche – Harold Jarche) and four educators.

Plurk is similar to Twitter in that users can make posts, which appear in a timeline

(Figure 2.5), but each post also has a drop down discussion area where comments can be

made by the user’s followers (Figure 2.6).

Figure 2.5: Example of Plurk posts

Figure 2.5 is an example of a Plurk timeline showing a variety of resource and

information sharing. The number to the right of each of the posts shows how many

comments have been made in response to that post, for example, “24” beside “athorp” (see

A B


A). The posting to the left of the screen (B) shows a drop-down discussion area

containing responses to the original post. This discussion feature of Plurk is outlined in

further detail in Figure 2.6, which shows a Plurk post “Why use blogs with students?” and a

selection of responses to this question. It can be seen that the initial question was posted at

3:52pm while the last of the responses shown in Figure 2.6 was posted at 4:11pm. Twenty-

five responses were posted in total with the last of them being posted at 8:35pm on that day.

Figure 2.6: Example of responses to a Plurk post

Individually, most microblogging messages are trivial, but the value of microblogging is

the cumulative effect of ideas shared between numerous people (Thompson, 2007). Comm

(2009) believed that the power of microblogging was in its ability to build a network of peers

who share ideas and creativity and stated that, for him, microblogging has brought advice

and suggestions from experts he could not have reached in any other way. This is supported

by the personal experience of Makice (2009) who felt that his connection with other people

in his academic program was constrained by time and space before he started microblogging,

and that the value of microblogging is in the casual and frequent contact members make with

their network throughout any day. This ability to keep in touch with people in a way that

time and space normally make impossible was termed “ambient intimacy” by Reichelt

(2007) in a blog post describing his personal experience with microblogging. Reichelt (2007)


also stated that the simplicity of microblogging was the key to its success and likened the

short messages and simple text to Internet Relay Chat (IRC) (refer Figure 2.1). This ease of

use combined with the ability to post messages from mobile devices differentiates

microblogging from other forms of online forums.

2.2.3 Affordances of microblogging

The term affordance refers to the features of objects that are useful to action, and an

affordance is a feature that makes a course of action available (Baumeister & Vohs, 2007).

Kirschner, Strijbos, Kreijns, and Beers (2004) noted three affordances that define the

usefulness of electronic collaborative learning environments:

i) technological affordances, which refers to usability, that is, whether the system

“allows for the accomplishment of a set of tasks in an efficient and effective

way that satisfies the user” (p. 50);

ii) social affordances, which are the properties of an online environment that “act

as social-contextual facilitators relevant for the learner’s social interaction” (p.

51), that is, there can be social interaction; and

iii) learning (or educational) affordances, which are the characteristics of an

artefact “that determine if and how a particular learning behavior could possibly

be enacted within a given context” (p. 51).

Ala-Mutka (2009) noted that ICT provides online communities with many specific

affordances for learning:

It [ICT] offers new ways of launching reflection, experimentation, creativity,

and supports social experience differently from face-to-face settings. It also

provides tools for personalising learning paths and knowledge management.

Additionally, ICT provides new ways to gather and follow implicit

knowledge demonstrated in online activities. (p. 6)

These affordances are a feature of microblogging and are enabled by a number of specific

conventions such as retweets, hashtags and lists, all of which provide ways for educators to

extend their PLNs (Lalonde, 2011) and support their professional learning. Microblogging is

examined in the light of these affordances in Section 8.7.2

2.2.4 Twitter conventions

Twitter was the first microblogging service to be launched (as outlined in Section 2.2) and is

now one of several microblogging services available (as outlined in Section 2.2.1). There are

certain symbols, terms and conventions used by microbloggers, and in order to fully analyse


microblog posts, it is necessary to understand these. Common symbols, terms and

conventions for Twitter, the service examined in this study, are explicated in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1

Microblogging symbols, terms and conventions

Symbol/Term/

Convention

Meaning

tweet A microblog post using the Twitter platform.

poster or tweep A term for someone who publishes a microblog post.

RT Stands for “retweeting” and is used when one person shares a tweet they

have received. This practice is also referred to as on-sharing.

DM Stands for “direct message” and is used to exchange private messages

between people connected with each other on Twitter.

@ The @ symbol is used preceding someone’s Twitter account name to

reply to them or to signify that you are sharing something another person

has shared with you.

# A hashtag (#) is a prefix used to group tweets on a particular topic so that

anyone interested in that topic can easily track and find the postings.

People use these for 1) synchronous chats, for example #edchat where

educators come together at a pre-determined time to discuss a pre-

determined topic by posting with #edchat included in their tweet; or 2)

asynchronous postings on topics of relevance to a particular group of

educators, for example #ceoelearn where education leaders post thoughts,

ideas and resources about elearning with #ceoelearn included in their

tweet; or 3) sharing tweets from a conference, where delegates are

posting their own thoughts and/or statements made by speakers at a

conference with, for example, #icef11 included in their tweet. This

practice is known as back channeling.

meetup When microbloggers come together online at the same time to exchange

ideas synchronously – refer to point 1) above


2.3 Chapter summary This chapter has provided an overview of microblogging and explained the characteristics

and conventions of Twitter in order to describe the context in which the study was

undertaken and an understanding of conventions and symbols which were used in the

microblog posts analysed in this study. The following chapter, Chapter 3, will present the

literature review that has informed the design and analysis of the study.


3Chapter 3: Literature Review

The literature review presented in this chapter considers the three major areas of concern for

the study, that is, (a) online social networking, (b) communication, and (c) professional

learning. Within these areas there are three contributing sub-themes that impact on the study,

that is, (i) computer mediated communication (CMC), (ii) learning networks, and (iii)

professional learning networks (PLNs). Figure 3.1 illustrates the inter-relation of these areas

in a conceptual framework with the educator as the central agent.

Figure 3.1: Conceptual framework

As previously noted, this study aims to examine the use of microblogging for self-

directed professional learning by educators (see Section 1.3). To achieve this aim, an

understanding of online social networking and the concept of microblogging more

specifically, is useful. Furthermore, an examination of the ways in which individuals engage

and communicate via microblogging will establish the place of microblogging in educators’

professional learning networks. This chapter opens with an examination of the existing

literature pertaining to the theory informing the study, that is, social constructivism and

Professional

Learning

Networks

ONLINE SOCIAL

NETWORKING

(Section 3.2)

COMMUNICATION

(Section 3.3)

PROFESSIONAL

LEARNING

(Section 3.4)

Computer-

mediated

Communication

Learning

Networks

EDUCATOR


includes an overview of the concept of collective intelligence and the Community of Inquiry

(CoI) framework (Section 3.1). It is followed by an investigation of the literature pertaining

to online social networking and microblogging (Section 3.2); communication in general and

computer-mediated communication in particular (Section 3.3); and the characteristics of

professional learning and professional learning networks (PLNs) (Section 3.4). A summary

of the chapter is provided in Section 3.5.

3.1 Theory informing this study: Social constructivism Understandings of, and approaches to, learning have changed substantially in recent decades,

especially with the advent of information technology (Lu, et al., 2010). Learning is more

than a transfer of knowledge. The current trend is toward systems that support people as

learner/teachers, that is, everyone is both a learner and a teacher, with the learner as a

participant in the dynamic creation and discovery of what is to be learned (P. C. Rogers, et

al., 2007). This type of learning is particularly enabled in the Web 2.0 environment where, as

noted by O’Reilly (2005), successful Web 2.0 applications embrace the power of the web to

harness collective intelligence. Similarly, it was noted by Lu, et al. (2010) that the

philosophy behind the design of Web 2.0 was well aligned with, amongst others, the theory

of social constructivism and the notion of collective intelligence.

The underlying pedagogical assumptions of this study were that knowledge is socially

constructed and that individuals perceive an educational value in participating in social

networks. In order to investigate these assumptions, and in the light of emerging research in

various disciplines that characterised the nature of learning as increasingly social, connected

and distributed (Couros, 2006), the study drew on the theory of social constructivism. The

theory of social constructivism posits that learner construction of knowledge is the product

of social interaction, interpretation and understanding (Vygotsky, 1962) and that the learning

experience needs to be situated in a real-world context (J.S. Brown, Collins, & Duguid,

1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Resnick, 1991). Rather than just seeing people as receptors of

data, Vygotsky envisioned humans as using social interaction to build both their social

milieu and its inner representations.

Constructivism emphasises that knowledge is created, or constructed, rather than

transmitted and that learning is more effective when individuals discover things for

themselves (Leidner & Jarvenpaa, 1995). Knowledge is built through people influencing

each other’s constructive processes by providing information, pointing things out to one

another, asking questions, and arguing with and elaborating on each other’s ideas (Resnick,

1991) - activities which are undertaken and supported by online social networking.

Increasingly, online social networking can be seen as constructivist in its nature by the way


in which learners become involved as active participants and creators of knowledge that is

shared with fellow learners (McLoughlin & Lee, 2008a).

Davis and Sumara (2003) noted that constructivism consists of a diversity of discourses

that have been clustered together and that constructivist theories vary considerably across

such fundamental issues as their objects of inquiry and their advice to educators. This study

was informed by the theory of social constructivism which emphasises both the interaction

of learners with others in cognitive development (Rice & Wilson, 1999) and the importance

of social context and the role of social interaction in the process of constructing knowledge

and understanding (Pritchard, 2010).

While constructivism has received much attention in schools, it is also applicable in post-

compulsory education and in professional practice (Atherton, 2005). A constructivist

viewpoint was adopted by Adams (2006) to propose that new technologies offer exciting

ways to understand and repopulate professional discourse on learning and teaching.

Jonassen, Davidson, Collins, Campbell and Haag (1995) stated that computer-mediated

communication supported a constructivist approach to knowledge construction and learning,

and Cragg, Dunning and Ellis (2008) found social constructivism to be a useful approach to

the analysis of online behaviour.

Although constructivism was not originally theorised with ICT in mind, Tam (2000)

provided a clear link between the theoretical principles of constructivism and technology

supported learning environments by pointing out that while a person sitting in front of a

computer might be seen as undertaking individual learning, they can be connected to

diversified and socially rich learning contexts. Similarly, Fitzpatrick, Hayes and O’Rourke

(2009) noted that online collaborative learning was underpinned by an essentially

constructivist approach to the creation of knowledge through social collaboration and

interaction and thus seen as a fundamental social activity. Social constructivism should

likewise provide a useful framework for examining the use of microblogging, an activity in

which an individual is connected online to others.

However, Drexler (2010) warned that constructing a personal learning network may not

necessarily facilitate comprehension or deep understanding and that the learning potential

exists in what the learner does with the compilation of content and how it is synthesised.

Hence, in Phase 3 of this study, interviews with educators (n=9) explored how they

perceived that their learning from their PLN was evidenced.


3.1.1 Collective intelligence

The notion of collective intelligence has been stated as a feature of Web 2.0 and social

networking (R. Mason & Rennie, 2008; O’Reilly, 2005; P. C. Rogers, et al., 2007) and is

therefore of interest to this study. The phenomenon of collective intelligence has been

described as an aggregation of skills, understanding and knowledge and “a form of

universally distributed intelligence, constantly enhanced, coordinated in real time, and

resulting in the effective mobilization of skills” (Lévy, 1997a, p. 13). Jenkins (2006a)

referred to collective intelligence more simply as “a situation where nobody knows

everything, everyone knows something, and what any given member knows is accessible to

any other member upon request on an ad hoc basis” (blog post). In relation to learning, Lévy

(1997b) noted that collective intelligence requires “the pooling of memory and experience,

the exchange of knowledge as everyday practice, and new flexible forms of organization and

co-ordination in real time” (p. 253).

Collective intelligence was noted by Jenkins (2006b) as one of the new media literacies,

which shifted the focus of literacy from one of individual expression to community

involvement and which involved social skills developed through collaboration and

networking. Pea (1993) believed that part of knowing how to learn involved knowing how to

create and exploit social networks and the expertise of others and noted that new

technologies opened up new possibilities for distributed (or collective) intelligence.

However, exchange of information alone is not enough, and Rheingold (2012) explicitly

advised that individuals should add value to the information they found by helping others to

transform that information into knowledge by adding context, as this was fundamental to

collective intelligence.

Finally, Lévy suggested that a new level of collective intelligence had been made possible

through the digital tools made accessible by the Web and, in an interview with Rheingold

(2011), described the skills needed to participate in collective intelligence thus:

The essence of this new skill is to create a synergy between personal

knowledge management and collective knowledge management. You have to

connect to people and find information sources, then filter, select, and

categorize information for your own purposes. You have to decide which

information to accumulate personally, to store or memorize. When you do

this, you can share your personal knowledge with knowledge communities

through social bookmarking or blogging or Twitter.


3.1.2 Community of Inquiry framework

The content analysis framework used in this study was the Community of Inquiry (CoI)

developed by Garrison, Anderson and Archer (2000). The CoI framework was based on the

use of computer mediated communication (CMC) and computer conferencing in supporting

an educational experience. The asynchronous nature of this text based environment where

participants have never met and in which there are a lack of visual cues, is similar to that

experienced in microblogging. Accordingly, the CoI framework was deemed appropriate for

use in this study.

The framework comprises three elements, which interact to influence and shape

educational experiences, and the model assumes that learning occurs within the community

through the interaction of these three core elements. The three elements are cognitive

presence, social presence and teaching presence, and are described thus:

i) Cognitive Presence is the extent to which learners are able to construct and

confirm meaning through sustained reflection and discourse (Garrison, et al.,

2001).

ii) Social Presence is the ability of participants to identify with the community (for

example, course of study), communicate purposefully in a trusting environment,

and develop inter-personal relationships by way of projecting their individual

personalities (Akyol, Garrison, & Ozden, 2009).

iii) Teaching Presence is the design, facilitation, and direction of cognitive and

social processes for the purpose of realising personally meaningful and

educationally worthwhile learning outcomes (T. Anderson, Rourke, Garrison, &

Archer, 2001).

Also, it is important to note the three overlapping areas of each pair of elements (see

Figure 3.2), which represent three key responsibilities and features of an authentic

educational experience (Garrison, Cleveland-Innes, & Fung, 2004). These are:

• Supporting Discourse

• Selecting Content

• Setting Climate


Figure 3.2: Elements of an Educational Experience: Community of Inquiry (Garrison, et al., 2000, p. 88)

The Community of Inquiry framework involves a coding template (see Table 3.1), which

provides categories and indicators for each element of the framework. These categories were

used to determine if microblogging comprised posts from each of the elements, that is,

cognitive, social and teaching presence. The outcomes of this analysis are presented in Chapter 5.

Table 3.1

Community of Inquiry coding template (Garrison, et al., 2000, p. 89)

Elements Categories Indicators (examples only)

Cognitive Presence Triggering Event Sense of puzzlement

Exploration Information exchange

Integration Connecting ideas

Resolution Apply new ideas

Social Presence Emotional Expression Emoticons

Open Communication Risk-free expression

Group Cohesion Encouraging collaboration

Teaching Presence Instructional Management Defining & initiating discussion topics

Building Understanding Sharing personal meaning

Direct Instruction Focusing discussion


The value of social presence in facilitating the development of higher-order cognitive

presences and deep learning was questioned by Annand (2011) who asserted that further

CoI-based research indicated that students did not attach much value to the group-based

influences of social presence. This assertion was an extension of the research by Shea and

Bidjerano (2009) who reported that students who experienced low social presence but high

teaching presence still reported high cognitive presence. This study will further investigate

the role of all three presences, that is, cognitive, social and teaching presence in a more

contemporary learning environment.

3.2 Online social networking Social networking is a phenomenon which has existed since the beginning of societies

(Cachia, 2008) and the social network metaphor has been used for more than a century to

describe complex sets of relationships between members of social systems, from

interpersonal to international (Freeman, 2004). A social network is a set of people (or

organisations or other social entities) connected by a set of social relationships, such as

friendship, co-working or information exchange (Garton, Haythornthwaite, & Wellman,

1997). Wellman (1999) described personal social networks as networks of “informal,

interpersonal ties, ranging from a half dozen intimates to hundreds of weaker ties” (p. 355).

Similarly, Dieu and Stevens (2007) described a social network as a collection of individuals

linked together by a set of relations, and Fahy, Crawford and Ally (2001) noted that social

networks link likeminded people, allowing information and viewpoints to move among

them.

A fundamental change is occurring, where people are extending and personalising their

social networks with the help of the Web (Wellman, et al., 2002). As predicted by Bandura

(2001), evolving information technologies are serving as vehicles for building social

networks that allow people to link together, exchange information and share new ideas.

According to Sliwka (2003), electronic means have facilitated networking across greater

geographical distances and are increasingly important, allowing people to form global

networks. In networked societies, boundaries are more permeable, interactions are with

diverse others, linkages switch between multiple networks, and hierarchies are flatter and

more recursive (Castells, 2000; Wellman, 1997). Rather than relating to one group, people

live and work in multiple sets of overlapped relationships, cycling among different networks

(Wellman, et al., 2002). Networks have a certain degree of self-management and are organic,

dynamic structures, changing in terms of type and number of participants and their roles,

with the participants in networks sharing a common purpose and staying active in the

network only as long as it delivers a profit for them (van Aalst, 2003).


3.2.1 Networks and communities: A distinction

Community is not well understood in terms of learners and learning, and in the literature the

term is used synonymously with “community of inquiry”, “learning community”, or

“community of practice” (Conrad, 2005, p. 2). In learning communities, members work

together over time to produce artifacts that are then developed through sustained enquiry to

further community understanding (Bielaczyc & Collins, 1999). Communities of practice are

defined as groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and

learn how to do it better as they interact regularly (Wenger, 2006). Communities of practice

(Lave & Wenger, 1991) is a concept that in recent times has increasingly been associated

with professional learning.

This study was concerned with networks rather than communities, that is, with peer

exchange of information through online social networking (specifically microblogging), and

adopted the definition put forth by Johannisson (1987) that social networks are “comprised

of various independent actors who develop relatively loose relationships between each other

to pursue some common goals” (p. 9). Brown and Duguid (2002) referred to networks that

link people who work on similar practices but who may never get to meet as “networks of

practice” (p. 141) and distinguished them from communities of practice. Cummings and van

Zee (2005) examined the similar phenomena “networks for learning” and “communities of

practice” (p. 8) and distinguished the different traditions and strands of thinking from which

they each emanated. In describing communities of practice, Wenger (1998) noted that the

term is “not a synonym for group, team or network” (p. 74) and that a community of practice

is not merely a network (Wenger, 2006). Similarly Wilson (2008) distinguished a

community of practice as having its common domain of practice to hold it together, while

learning networks support multiple domains with overlapping memberships. Rheingold

(2012) also addressed this distinction by stating that networks were not the same as

communities, although individuals could belong to both networks and communities

simultaneously.

However, there are aspects of “community” embedded in social networking and it is

inevitable that the word “community” will be used at times in this study. It is also possible

that there are aspects of communities of practice embedded in social networking and the two

concepts may complement each other.

3.2.2 Social networking sites

Online social networking has emerged in recent years and is conducted via websites. The

term “social networking sites” (SNS) is often used interchangeably with “social media sites.”

Social networking sites, however, appeared before social media sites (Kim, Jeong, & Lee,


2010). The emergence of SNS is often associated with the broader context of Web 2.0

(Harrison & Thomas, 2009) and these sites change the notion of the Web from the page

metaphor to a model predicated on micro-content, that is, content blocks that can be saved,

summarised, addressed, copied, quoted, and built into new projects (Alexander, 2006).

Online social networking has grown to an activity in which tens of millions of Internet users

are engaged both in their leisure time and at work (Cachia, 2008). boyd and Ellison (2007)

defined SNS as:

… web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-

public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with

whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of

connections and those made by others within the system. These sites allow

users to post a profile, to invite their friends, to join a variety of “groups”

with like interests and to make new “friends” through searching for others

with like interests. (p. 211)

Rheingold (2008), a pioneer of social networking, identified three common, interrelated

characteristics of participatory media such as online social networking. These being that:

i) every person connected to the network can broadcast as well as receive from

every other person;

ii) the value and power of these media derive from the active participation of many

people; and,

iii) information and communication networks enable broader, faster, and lower cost

coordination of activities in social networks.

Furthermore, Rheingold (2012) identified the advantages of microblogging as being

openness, immediacy and variety.

Social networking sites allow individuals to form ties across time, distance and personal

circumstance, connect with distant and local family, friends and co-workers, along with

strangers who share similar interests (Kraut et al., 2002). In addition to allowing people to

maintain contact with members of their social network and cultivate ties, SNS help

individuals to garner resources (Kavanaugh, Reese, Carroll, & Rosson, 2003) and to build

and maintain connections to information and experts (Ala-Mutka, 2009). Individuals are

linked because of their common interests and together they produce, collect, share and re-

mix artefacts (Dieu & Stevens, 2007).


After joining a social networking site, users start to build their network by linking with

others – commonly termed followers, friends, contacts or fans depending on the service

used. Connections are usually made public and this is an important component as it allows

users to extend their own networks by linking to “friends of friends” (boyd, 2007). It is

common practice to search the linkages of your connections to find new connections for your

own network thus extending the network in a nodal fashion. Once connected, people can

freely exchange messages, however, many of these exchanges are publicly visible and

individuals often write with the public audience in mind - described by boyd and Ellison

(2007) as “offering users an imagined audience to guide behavioral norms” (p. 220).

Online social networking initially focused on sharing information about one's personal

life, however, as noted by Mejias (2006) online social networking also has the potential to

connect learners to new resources and to each other in new ways and to integrate online and

offline experiences. Similarly R. Mason and Rennie (2008) saw the potential for learning

and concluded the following implications of social networking for education:

i) Users have the tools to actively engage in the construction of their experience,

rather than passively absorbing existing content.

ii) Content will be continually refreshed by the users rather than require expensive

expert input.

iii) Many of the new tools support collaborative work, thereby allowing users to

develop the skills of working in teams.

iv) Shared community spaces and inter-group communications are a massive part

of what excites young people and therefore should contribute to users’

persistence and motivation to learn. (R. Mason & Rennie, 2008, pp. 4-5)

Furthermore, Johnson and Brierley (2007) noted that:

For professionals and learners alike, the expanded social networks the

technology affords presents access to learning opportunities which reach

beyond both the office and the classroom walls, as well as providing

opportunities for inter-disciplinary cross-fertilisation. (p. 2)

However, on a cautionary note, Kim, Jeong and Lee (2010) identified that social networking

sites have had both a positive and negative impact, with many users spending excessive

amounts of time creating and viewing self-aggrandising or trivial updates and losing a sense

of what is appropriate.


3.2.3 Social networks for learning

Cross (2006) maintained that humans exist in, and are part of, social networks and that

learning consists of making and maintaining better connections to one’s networks.

According to Engel (1993), almost all networking is characterised by four types of activities:

the provision of services, learning together, advocacy, and management. It is the process of

using networks for learning together that concerns this study. van Aalst (2003) observed that

learning in networks represented a special mode of knowledge production and described the

advantages of networks for learning as being that networks:

i) open access to a variety of sources of information;

ii) offer a broader range of learning opportunities than in hierarchical

organisations;

iii) promise a more flexible but also more stable base for co-ordinated and

interactive learning; and

iv) help to create and access tacit knowledge.

Similarly, Hopkins (2003) identified the common characteristics of networks in education

as being “the reduction of isolation; collaborative professional development; joint solutions

to shared problems; the exchange of practice and expertise; the facilitation of knowledge

sharing and school improvement; and opportunities to incorporate external facilitation” (p.

154). Furthermore, McLoughlin and Lee (2008b) maintained that online social networking

sites support and encourage informal conversation, dialogue, collaborative content

generation and knowledge sharing, and are focused on knowledge creation and community

participation, allowing learners to access peers, experts, and the wider community in ways

that enable reflective, self-directed learning. The potential value of microblogging as a

professional development tool for sharing useful information and knowledge was noted by

Giustini and Wright (2009) who believed it had a role in informal “on-the-fly” learning in

the workplace (p. 13). Similarly, Ebner, Lienhardt, Rohs, and Meyer (2010) concluded that

microblogging should be seen as a completely new form of communication that can support

informal learning beyond classrooms. However, Ala-Mutka (2009) found that people do not

often explicitly mention learning as a reason for participating in online collaborative

activities, but noted that research shows they do actually learn in these environments.

In their study of the way in which a group of North American K-12 teachers used Twitter

as a professional learning network, Alderton, et al. (2011) found that in order to create a

personal learning network meaningful to their professional needs, the educators in their

study chose to follow other educators or content experts related to their field of teaching over


82% of the time. Similarly, a study of K-12 teachers by Lalonde (2011) found that

microblogging was useful for professional learning and specifically showed that:

… Twitter plays a role in the formation and development of PLNs by

allowing educators to; engage in consistent and sustained dialogue with their

PLN, access the collective knowledge of their PLN, amplify and promote

more complex thoughts and ideas to a large audience, and expand their PLN

using features unique to Twitter. (p. 2)

However, although online social networking provides opportunities for learning, not all

individuals are equipped with the skills or knowledge to benefit from these learning

opportunities (Ala-Mutka, Punie, & Ferrari, 2009). Additionally, Veletsianos and Kimmons

(2013) cautioned that there were concerns that influenced how and when educators would

adopt online social networking for personal or professional purposes. Among these were:

• privacy of personal information;

• homophily, that is, the tendency of only connecting with similar or like-minded

people and thus reinforcing established views; and

• concerns regarding social boundaries between teachers and students and the

maintenance of professional image.

3.2.4 Innovators and early adopters

Educators who are currently using microblogging would be considered innovators and early

adopters in E. M. Rogers’ (1995) diffusion of innovations theory which defines the five

categories of innovation adopters as innovators, early adopters, early majority, late majority

and laggards. Although this study is not intended to investigate the diffusion of

microblogging as an innovation, E. M. Rogers’ theory can help to understand that the

participants involved in the study would be venturesome and prepared to take risks. E. M.

Rogers (1995) distinguished diffusion of innovation (which permeates society and groups)

from the adoption of an innovation (which pertains to the individual) and defines adoption as

“the mental process through which an individual passes from first hearing about an

innovation to final adoption” (p. 35). E. M. Rogers (1995) acknowledged the idea of an

adopter adapting an innovation to a specific need; an idea referred to by Couros (2006) as

“personalization of innovation” (p. 36). Couros (2006) witnessed this personalisation

throughout his career as a teacher and a professional development leader and noted it as an

important feature for consideration.


Surveys of online social networking usage indicate that uptake varies between age

groups, with younger adults most likely to use various forms of social networking. In a

survey of the demographics of social media users (n=1802), Duggan and Brenner (2012)

found that those under 50, and especially those 18-29, are the most likely to use Twitter.

Similarly, in a survey of North American high school and middle school teachers (n=2462),

Purcell, Heaps, Buchanan, and Friedrich (2013) found that the percentage of teachers who

use social networking sites is largest amongst teachers aged 22-34 years (30%) compared to

those aged 35-54 years (27%) and those older than 55 (19%). Additionally, a survey of

social media use by higher education faculty (n=1920) found that only 10% of respondents

reported using microblogging for professional, nonteaching, purposes (Moran, et al., 2011).

Accordingly, as noted, the participants in this study were innovators and early adopters who

have adapted a technology to suit their professional learning needs and are not representative

of all educators.

3.3 Communication Communication is key to this study, specifically, communication amongst educators via

online social networking in the form of microblogging. In order to understand this form of

communication, it is necessary to define the meaning of communication and to investigate

computer-mediated communication (CMC) – the type of communication which characterises

microblogging.

Simply put, communication is a means of getting a message from one point to another

(O'Hair & Eadie, 2009). Bandura (2001) noted that the communication process had

traditionally been conceptualised as being unidirectional, that is, flowing from a source to a

recipient and he acknowledged the emphasis that Rogers (1995) placed on the mutuality of

influence in interpersonal communication, that is, it is a two-way process of convergence.

Rogers (1995) defined communication as a process in which participants create and share

information with one another in order to reach a mutual understanding; and he defined a

communication channel as the means by which messages get from one person to another. In

this study, microblogging is the communication channel through which educators are

creating and sharing information.

3.3.1 Computer-mediated communication

Computer-mediated communication (CMC) refers to the use of networks of computers to

facilitate interaction between spatially separated learners (Jonassen, et al., 1995); with two

distinct types of CMC identified in the literature: synchronous, where interaction takes place

in real time, and asynchronous where participants are not online simultaneously (Simpson,


2002). As recently as 2009, it was noted that compared with other areas of media and

communication, CMC research was in its infancy and that the concept of CMC had changed

from being regarded as communication via email or chat rooms to encompass human

interaction via a variety of mediums (Lengel, 2009). Microblogging is a form of CMC that is

mostly asynchronous but can be synchronous if the participants happen to be online at the

same time. Comparisons have been drawn between CMC and that of face-to-face and written

communication:

…CMC is recognized as combining qualities that are typically associated

with face-to-face interactions – i.e. immediacy and informality of style,

transience of message, reduced planning and editing, rapid feedback (or

immediate feedback in certain discourse types, e.g. electronic-chat) – with

properties of written language – i.e. lack of visual and paralinguistic cues,

physical absence of the addressee, [and] written mode of delivery.

(Georgakopoulu, 2011, p. 94)

Furthermore, Georgakopoulu noted that CMC created opportunities for new relationships

and communities outside the confines of physical proximity, as described by Rheingold

(2000).

According to Jonassen, et al. (1995), a constructivist approach to knowledge construction

and learning can be well supported through a variety of technologies and, furthermore, the

power of CMC as a learning environment lies in its capability to support conversation and

collaboration. In 2001, Garrison, Anderson and Archer noted that the adoption of CMC in

higher education had far outpaced an understanding of how it should best be used to promote

higher-order learning. According to Garrison, Anderson and Archer (2001), a community of

inquiry is an extremely valuable, if not essential, context for higher-order learning and that

the creation of a critical community of inquiry within a virtual text-based environment is a

major challenge facing educators.

3.3.2 Analysing communication via microblogging

An analysis of communication via microblogging is necessary as the first step in

understanding the types of interactions that occur – a key area of interest for this study. How

communication via microblogging is analysed is of theoretical and methodological interest

to this study.

It has been suggested, as noted in Section 3.3.1, that microblogging, like CMC, is

recognised as combining qualities that are typically associated with both face-to-face


interactions and written language (Georgakopoulu, 2011). A distinguishing characteristic of

microblog posts is that they do not appear in any logical sequence to the casual observer.

However, with the use of certain online tools, microbloggers are able to organise their own

and others’ posts into a logical timeline and sequence.

There are several frameworks that have been developed and used for content analysis of

CMC and online communities. Fahy, Crawford and Ally (2001) advise that researchers need

to rethink the methods of enquiry typically employed in content analysis of transcripts in

order to be able to describe online interaction more than impressionistically and to measure

effects more than anecdotally. For this study, the researcher had firstly to make a decision on

the unit of analysis on which to perform content analysis. The choices included:

• analysing each individual sentence as a single unit and viewing structural patterns

in relation to selected elements of network theory as in the Transcript Analysis

Tool (TAT) developed and used by Fahy, et al. (2001);

• identifying and analysing a consistent “theme” or “idea” (unit of meaning) in a

message and to approach this as the unit of analysis (Henri, 1992); or,

• analysing the complete message posted at a certain moment in the discussion

(Gunawardena, et al., 1997; Rourke, et al., 2001).

As each microblog post is only 140 characters, and often consists of only one sentence, it

was decided for this study that the entire post would be taken as the unit of analysis. The

content analysis framework used in this study was the Community of Inquiry (CoI)

framework developed by Garrison, Anderson and Archer (2000) which identifies the core

elements of a collaborative constructivist learning environment required to create and sustain

a purposeful learning community (Garrison, Cleveland-Innes, & Fung, 2010). The three core

elements identified by the CoI framework are cognitive presence, social presence and

teaching presence, which overlap to represent three key responsibilities and features of an

authentic educational experience (see Section 3.1.2 and Figure 3.2).

3.4 Professional learning Professional learning is a long-term process characterised by self-evaluation, reflective

practice and continuing personal and professional development (Neil & Morgan, 2003).

Professional development programs for educators were traditionally designed to change

behaviour (Duncan-Howell, 2007), however, Masie (2008) contended that there has been a

shift away from single-source knowledge and learners are turning to a wider set of resources

for information and knowledge. The true competence for a learner of the knowledge society

is the capability to stay connected and belong to digital communities in which interests are


continuously shared (Pettenati & Cigognini, 2007). Learning is a social process in which

interactions with the environment, both human and non-human, play an important role

(Divjak, 2004) and it occurs not as a response to teaching, but as a result of a social

framework that fosters learning (J. S. Brown & Duguid, 2002).

Simons and Ruijters (2001) highlighted the importance of profession-related collective

learning and differentiated between collective learning, where learners consciously strive for

outcomes, and learning in social interactions. The second of these, learning in social

interactions, is the type of professional learning of interest to this study, that is, where people

undertake learning together without any intended collective outcomes and which results in

the learning processes being collective but the learning outcomes being individual. This type

of learning is referred to as non-formal learning by Tissot (2000) and is described as

resulting from daily activities that are not organised or structured and, in most cases,

unintentional from the learner’s perspective. Others describe this type of learning as informal

learning (see for example, Conner, 2004; Cross, 2006; Shackleton-Jones, 2008).

This study investigated the use of microblogging in professional learning networks

(PLNs) which are informal learning constructs (Lalonde, 2011). Therefore, the following

sections present an overview of literature in the fields of informal learning, learning

networks, in general, and PLNs as a particular form of learning network.

3.4.1 Informal learning

Informal learning is the lifelong process in which every person acquires

knowledge, skills, attitudes, and values from daily experiences and resources

in his or her environment. Informal learning, in contrast with formal learning,

occurs outside formal classroom settings and is not part of a school program,

activity, or assignment. Informal learning is voluntary, self-directed, lifelong,

and motivated mainly by intrinsic interests, curiosity, exploration, fantasy,

task completion, and social interaction. (NSF, 2001, p. 15)

Conner (2004) believed that informal learning was a lifelong process whereby individuals

acquire attitudes, values, skills and knowledge from daily experience and through the

educative influences and resources in their environment. These influences may be family and

neighbours, work and play, the market place, the library and the mass media. The estimates

of how much we learn informally vary; Cross (2003) maintained that 80% of what we learn

is by informal means and Conner (2004) found that informal learning accounts for over 75%

of the learning taking place in organisations today. Shackleton-Jones (2008) noted that, in

recent years, organisations have begun to distinguish between formal and informal learning


and to realise the value of informal learning. Furthermore, Bartlett-Bragg (2007) noted that

organisations are becoming increasingly interested in emerging technologies for the capture

of tacit knowledge from informal learning situations.

What is apparent is that new technologies have enabled increased opportunities for access

to informal learning by anyone, anywhere (Divjak, 2004; Rennie & Mason, 2004). Cross

(2006) described informal learners as free-range learners who expect the freedom to

“connect the dots” for themselves. In the future, these learners will be knowledge workers

with instant, ubiquitous access to the Web and the measure of their learning is about what

they and their network connections can do – not what they individually “know.” However,

Rennie and Mason (2004) cautioned that more information is not always synonymous with

more understanding; that prioritising this information can be a difficult task and that it is the

interaction around information that is much more significant than the information itself.

3.4.2 Learning networks

The concept of learning networks was presented by Illich (1971) when he posed the

question, "What kinds of things and people might learners want to be in contact with in order

to learn?" (p. 78). Illich noted that information can be stored in things and in people, and that

in order to learn, one needs both information and critical response to its use from somebody

else. The term learning webs was used by Illich to describe “the autonomous assembly of

resources under the personal control of each learner” (1971, p. 70), that is, what current

literature defines as learning networks which are enabled and facilitated by technology.

Learning networks have been defined as “groups of people who use computer-mediated-

communication networks to learn together, at the time, place, or pace that best suits them and

is appropriate to the task” (Harasim, Hiltz, Teles, & Turoff, 1995, p. 4). Similarly, Koper,

Rusman and Sloep (2005) characterised a learning network as a self organising ensemble

connected through, and supported by, information and communication technologies, and

Cross (2006) maintained that learning is optimising our connections to the networks that

matter to us and that we use these networks to gather information and to learn things.

Being engaged in online social networks becomes an alternative to finding resources

through searching the Web by giving an individual access to a wide range of resources in the

form of links to web pages, articles and book references (Dalsgaard, 2006). Online social

networking also allows learners to create personalised learning strategies and to connect with

societal players outside of the boundaries of formal education, thus enriching learning

experiences (Redecker, et al., 2009). Punie and Ala-Mutka (2007) maintained that in the

future every educator will have a personal, digital learning space that is accessible anywhere,

anytime and via multiple devices.


The question arises as to how, and what, individuals learn in such a network. Downes

(2010) maintained that the “pedagogy” behind the learning network is that it “offers a portal

to the world, through which learners can explore and create, according to their own interests

and directions, interacting at all times with their friends and community” (p. 21). Learning

networks were the subject of a study by Aviv, Erlich, Ravid and Geva (2003) who conducted

a network analysis of asynchronous learning networks (ALN) and found that the knowledge

construction process reached a very high phase of critical thinking in the structured ALN

under study, while the unstructured ALN studied reached only a low phase of cognitive

activity and critical thinking. The study described in this thesis investigated an unstructured

ALN in the form of a professional learning network (PLN). Academic research on PLNs is

somewhat anecdotal (Couros, 2010), however, what can be gleaned from the literature is

presented in the following section.

3.4.3 Professional learning networks

The origin of the term personal (or professional) learning network (PLN) is difficult to

ascertain (Downes, 2009) and it is challenging to find a definition for the concept of PLN

(Couros, 2008b). The term appears to have been first used by Tobin (1998) who described a

PLN as “a group of people who can guide your learning, point you to learning opportunities,

answer your questions, and give you the benefit of their own knowledge and experience”

(web page). More recently, professional learning networks have been variously described in

the literature as: a collection of people and resources that guide learning, point one to

learning opportunities, answer questions, and give one the benefit of their knowledge and

experience (Nielsen, 2008); a place where one creates their own classrooms, curricula and

textbooks for study of whatever one is passionate about (Richardson, 2008); a system of

interpersonal connections and resources that support informal learning (Trust, 2012); and a

technology-supported community of people who help each other better understand certain

events and concepts in work or life (Koper, 2009). Building a PLN requires that you not only

seek to learn from others, but also that you help others in the network to learn (Plickert,

Côté, & Wellman, 2008), referred to as reciprocity. Wasko and Faraj (2005) proposed that

electronic networks are sources of learning and innovation because mutual engagement and

interaction in the network creates relationships between individuals and the collective as a

whole.

Hord and Sommers (2008) noted that a major challenge to developing PLNs as entities

was a lack of time and space. These two dimensions may be overcome by an online PLN as

learners can collaborate asynchronously in a virtual space (Couros, 2008a). Although

microblogging is a relatively new tool, Grosseck (2009) listed it as a possible tool for use in


PLNs and for fostering professional connections. Microblogging has been described as the

perfect social networking application to monitor new developments in a subject area on an

international scale (Rigby, 2008) and one which brings a steady flow of relevant content

(Lopp, 2008).

In his study of learning networks, Couros (2006) found that teacher practice and content

knowledge were more likely shaped by geography than by digital connectedness. However,

he identified that some teachers used technology to embrace and participate in an open and

distributive culture and consequently had a much broader frame of reference. These network

participants were “connected to a greater social network that informed their practice, and

their beliefs and perceptions regarding education” (Couros, 2006, p. 176). This type of

networked teacher is represented by Couros (2006) as being in the centre of a range of

information sources, which include a range of people and social networking technologies

(see Figure 3.3).

Figure 3.3: The networked teacher (Couros, 2006, p.177)

In further work on this topic, Warlick (2009) emphasised the importance of harnessing

new technologies to create and grow PLNs and identified three types of PLNs:


- personally maintained synchronous PLNs which consist of people you consult with

and which are enabled by various tools on the Web that allow you to connect in real-

time with others;

- personally and socially maintained semi-synchronous PLNs, (a term coined by

Heppell (2008)) to describe connections that occur almost, but not quite,

synchronously and are enabled by tools such as microblogging); and

- dynamically maintained asynchronous PLNs which connect the learner with content

sources as opposed to people.

Warlick (2009) represented these three types of PLNs as in Figure 3.4.

Figure 3.4: The networked learner receives information from various sources and in turn becomes a source for others’ PLNs (Warlick, 2009, p. 15)

This study is concerned with the second type of PLN identified by Warlick (2009), that is,

personally and socially maintained semi-synchronous PLNs as represented in the top right of

Figure 3.4 and extracted and enlarged for focus in Figure 3.5.


Figure 3.5: Personally and socially maintained semisynchronous PLNs (extracted from Warlick 2009)

Johnston, Peters and Gassenheimer (2006) maintained that participants interact in order to

share knowledge and to build new understandings and Tobin (1998) described the

importance of a PLN as that it provided pointers to sources of information, answered

questions, coached and reinforced learning. Knowledge transfer in PLNs is spontaneous and

the value of knowledge to be transferred is determined by the potential users who declare an

interest in the transfer (Buchel & Raub, 2002). van Aalst (1999) argued that knowledge

should be considered as what people invest in terms of intuition, ideas, ideals and actions

and that personal experience and knowledge developed in groups and networks was gaining

weight as compared with scientific knowledge. Similarly, Sliwka (2003) maintained that

networking was an important aspect of creating, mediating and using knowledge. This study

aims to investigate the ways in which knowledge is being shared through microblogging and

the value that participants place on this method of knowledge exchange.

3.5 Chapter summary This chapter has presented a review of the relevant literature pertaining to the three major

areas of concern for the study, that is, (a) online social networking, (b) communication, and

(c) professional learning; and has introduced concepts that are important for this study, for

example social constructivism and collective intelligence. The following chapter (Chapter 4)

presents the research methodology to be employed for the study and has been informed by

the literature presented in this chapter.


4Chapter 4: Research Methodology

Through a qualitative approach, enriched by the use of descriptive statistics, this study

explored the ways in which, and the reasons why, microblogging participants share their

knowledge and experience in order to support their professional learning. The data included

the meanings and purposes of participants and the researcher interpreted those sets of

meanings in order to yield insight and understanding into the use of microblogging for self-

directed professional learning. This approach captured an understanding of the participants’

experiences, attitudes and perceptions in using microblogging for self-directed professional

learning and enabled the researcher to address the research questions as stated in Section 1.3,

that is:





This chapter presents and justifies the research design and specific methodology adopted

by this study to examine the use of microblogging for self-directed professional learning by a

group of educators. The chapter describes the methods employed and their application within

the study and is presented in seven main sections: Section 4.1 discusses the methodology

selected for the study and the rationale for its use; Section 4.2 details the case study approach

used; Section 4.3 presents the research design including the sequence of the study and the

selection criteria used to choose participants in the study; Section 4.4 overviews the data

collection process; Section 4.5 details how the data were analysed; Section 4.6 addresses the

validity and trustworthiness measures employed in the study, including the role of the

researcher and the limitations of the study; and Section 4.7 provides a summary of the

research methodology.

4.1 Selection of methodology A feature of microblogging networks is that they comprise individuals who access their

network at various times and for different reasons. Therefore, in order to understand the

network, the researcher had to understand the individuals involved in the network. An

understanding of how and why educators use microblogging for professional learning could

only be attained by employing a research methodology that investigated the whole (the


network) by examining all or some of its parts (the individuals in the network). Accordingly,

the research described in this thesis adopted a qualitative approach, which employed an

exploratory case study, whereby the case study served as a means to explore educators’ use

of microblogging. The research was conducted as an interpretive study in which the

researcher generated explanations for the social phenomena being studied (Hatch, 2002), and

these explanations, based on the social constructions of meaning, relied heavily on

observations and interviews (R. Mason, 1992).

As previously noted (Section 3.2.1), this study was concerned with peer exchange of

information through online social networking (specifically microblogging) and adopted the

definition put forth by Johannisson (1987) that social networks are “comprised of various

independent actors who develop relatively loose relationships between each other to pursue

some common goals” (p. 9). In this study, the common goal being examined was the use of

microblogging for professional learning and, in order to examine this goal, a qualitative

approach was considered to be most appropriate.

Qualitative research aims to discover and understand how individuals make sense of what

happens in their lives and involves asking research questions about the meanings that

individuals assign to particular experiences (Locke, Spirduso, & Silverman, 2000). Creswell

(2003) noted several characteristics of qualitative research, namely, that it (a) takes place in a

natural setting, (b) uses multiple methods that are interactive and humanistic, (c) is emergent

rather than tightly prefigured, and (d) is fundamentally interpretive. Merriam (1998)

recommended the qualitative case study as an ideal methodology for understanding and

interpreting observations of educational phenomena. Additionally, it was recommended by

Creswell (2003) that a case study approach was appropriate where the research aimed to

explore processes, activities, and events; as was the aim in this study.

Accordingly, in order to explore the nature of microblogging and to understand its use for

professional learning, this study used a qualitative research approach, that is, a case study

(Yin, 2009). This study met all of the criteria presented by Yin (2009) for employing a case

study strategy, that is, the researcher was seeking answers to “how” and “why” questions and

had little control over the events being studied; the object of study was a contemporary

phenomenon in a real-life context where boundaries between the phenomenon and the

context were not clear; and where it was desirable to use multiple sources of evidence.

Details of the research design for this study are presented in Section 4.3.


4.2 Case study approach A case study is both a process of inquiry and the product of that inquiry (Stake, 2005) and is

designed to bring out the details from the viewpoint of the participants by using multiple

sources of data (Tellis, 1997). According to Creswell (2003), case studies may explore a

program, event, activity, process, or one or more individuals, and a general pattern of

understanding emerges as initial codes develop into broad themes and coalesce into a broad

interpretation. Furthermore, Stake (2005) advised that a case may be simple or complex and

that the researcher may be interested in a general phenomenon more than in each individual

case and may, therefore, simultaneously carry on more than one case study, with each being

a concentrated inquiry into a single case. In this study, the researcher was interested in a

general phenomenon (educators’ use of microblogging for professional learning) more than

individual cases, and therefore used multiple sources of data (microblog posts, survey and

interviews) from many individual cases, which were coalesced into a single case study.

Leading authors label the types of case studies that can be undertaken differently, even

though there are similarities in their descriptions. For example, Stake (1995) identified case

studies as intrinsic, instrumental, or collective. The study described in this thesis would be

considered an intrinsic case study as it was exploratory in nature, and the researcher was

guided by her interest in the case itself rather than in extending theory or generalising across

cases (Grandy, 2010). Yin (2003) alternatively identified six kinds of case studies: single or

multiple case studies either of which can be exploratory, descriptive or explanatory. This

study did not seek to describe or explain a case, or to compare between cases, therefore in

order to examine how and why educators used microblogging for professional learning the

researcher adopted an exploratory case study approach.

4.2.1 Exploratory case study

The exploratory case study is an approach which provides the researcher with a high degree

of flexibility in the design of the research and the data collection and is used to investigate a

phenomenon which lacks detailed preliminary research (Streb, 2010). This approach uses a

number of data sources to ensure that the phenomenon is explored through a variety of

lenses, allowing for multiple facets of the phenomenon to be revealed and understood

(Baxter & Jack, 2008). Yin (2003) suggested that, in an exploratory case study, fieldwork

and data collection should be undertaken prior to the final definition of the study questions.

However, the study described in this thesis took the view of Stake (1995) that the research

issues may evolve over time, but should be organised around some pre-defined research

questions.


An exploratory case study allows the researcher to explore answers to “what,” “how,”

and “why” by focusing on contemporary events without exercising any control over actual

behavioural events. In this study, the four research questions (see Section 1.3) sought to

discover answers to “what” (Questions 1 and 3), “how’ (Question 4) and “why” (Question

2). This provided a rationale for conducting an exploratory case study, the design of which is

described in detail in Section 4.3.

4.2.2 Unit of analysis

Determining the unit of analysis can be a fundamental problem of case studies (Yin, 2009)

but is a critical factor in order to maximise what can be learned in the period of time

available for the study (Tellis, 1997). The case may be an individual or it may be an event or

entity other than a single individual. Miles and Huberman (1994) defined the case as a

phenomenon of some sort that occurred in a bounded context and thus the case was the unit

of analysis. Santos (2012) advised that a learning community should be studied as a social

phenomenon and that the community itself should constitute the unit of analysis rather than

the individuals. As this study was concerned with a learning network, which, as described in

Section 3.2.1, has aspects of a learning community embedded within it, the network itself

was studied as the case. The aim of the study was not to analyse the individuals who

participated in a learning network through microblogging but to explore how and why they

participated in microblogging and what value they placed on these activities in their PLN.

4.2.3 Sampling

Sampling is described as the process of selecting a portion, or sample, from a larger group of

potential participants (Fritz & Morgan, 2010) and such sampling can be probable, that is, a

random sample, or non-probable, that is, a selected sample (Babbie, 2010). In non-

probability sampling, the researcher considers the theoretical or target population, that is, all

of the participants of theoretical interest to the study and then chooses a portion of this

population that is accessible. Fritz and Morgan (2010) referred to this as the accessible

population or sampling frame and described how the researcher then creates a smaller group

of individuals selected from the accessible population and ends with the actual sample

comprising the individuals who agree to participate and whose data are used in the analysis

(see Figure 4.1).


Figure 4.1: Sampling process diagram (Fritz & Morgan, 2010, p. 1303)

The sampling process described by Fritz and Morgan (2010), and represented in Figure

4.1, was used to select participants for this study and is discussed in detail in Section 4.3.2.

This form of non-probability sampling selects participants because they meet pre-established

criteria and is appropriate when researchers are interested in studying the traits of a specific

group in some depth (Saumure & Given, 2008). In particular, this study used purposive (or

purposeful) sampling, a term applied when a researcher makes theoretically informed

decisions about who to include in the study sample (Scott & Morrison, 2006). This purposive

sampling was carried out by the researcher in the full knowledge that this sample did not

represent the wider population of educators but merely represented itself (Cohen, Manion, &

Morrison, 2007). It is noted that Saumure and Given (2008) cautioned that non-probability

sampling raises some concerns and these are addressed, as they apply to this study, in

Sections 4.3.4 and 4.6.3.

4.3 Research design As microblogging is an emergent technology with a short history of application for

professional learning, this provided a rationale for conducting an exploratory case study.

This approach allowed the researcher to address the questions of “what,” “how,” and “why”

educators use microblogging to support their professional learning. The study was structured

around three sequential data collections, as outlined in Section 1.4, with each data collection

building on the previous so that a general pattern of understanding emerged. In Phase 1,

microblog posts from 500 educators, who wrote their microblog posts in the English

language, were collected over a period of 24 hours and analysed. The information gained

from this analysis was used to identify themes and the types of communication that were

occurring. These themes were further explored in Phase 2 through an online survey, which

was completed by 121 educators who were drawn from a wider pool (refer section 6.1). In

order to explore these emerging themes more deeply, nine survey respondents were

purposively chosen for one-on-one interviews conducted as Phase 3 of the research. For ease


of reference, Figure 1.1 representing the sequence and phases of data collection and analysis

is reproduced here (Figure 4.2). Each of the phases is described in more detail in Sections

4.3.1 – 4.3.3 which is followed by an overview of the participants and selection criteria for

the research (Section 4.3.4).

Figure 4.2: Sequence and phases of data collection and analysis

4.3.1 Phase 1 design

Phase 1 of the study was designed to answer the first of the research questions, that is, what

types of interaction occur in microblogging. The researcher collected a representative sample

of English language microblog posts, over a delimited time period, posted by educators who

resided in different countries and worked in a variety of education sectors. The participants

were located by searching through the connections of educators in the researcher’s own

microblogging network and identified as educators through their public biographies. In order

to collect sufficient data, but not have an overwhelming amount of data, the researcher

identified 500 educators who microblog and “followed” them. This added the sample of

educators to the researcher’s microblogging network and gave her visibility of their posts,

thus allowing her to collect and collate all of their posts over a defined period. In order to

capture posts from the broad geographical representation of educators in the sample, a 24-

hour period was chosen as the defined unit of time in order to cater for time zone differences.

The day of the week chosen was a Thursday, December 1, 2011 (in Australia) as, with time

zone differences, this would be a day when educators in all countries would be working. It is

to be noted that only 300 educators from the sample group of 500 educators posted during

COLLECTION 1 3855 microblog posts collected from 300 educators

ANALYSIS 1 Content analysis of microblog posts for themes

COLLECTION 2 Online survey to further explore themes

ANALYSIS 2 Survey analysis and identification of interviewees

COLLECTION 3 One-‐on-‐one interviews with 9 educators

ANALYSIS 3 Interview analysis for deeper understanding

PHASE 1

PHASE 2

PHASE 3


the chosen 24-hour period. The Phase 1 data collection process is described in detail in

Section 4.4.1.

The microblog posts collected (n=3855) were subject to a content analysis in order to

answer the first of the research questions, that is, what types of interaction occur in

microblogging. The Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework (Garrison, et al., 2000) was used

to analyse the posts (refer to Section 3.1.2). The CoI framework is comprised of three

elements, which interact to influence and shape educational experiences, and the model

assumes that learning occurs within the community through the interaction of three core

elements. As this study set out to explore learning in a network, which has characteristics

similar to a community (see Section 3.2.1), the CoI framework was considered to be most

appropriate for the content analysis. Analysis using the CoI framework allowed the

researcher to categorise the types of interactions and identify themes, which would be further

explored in Phase 2 of the study. The Phase 1 data analysis process is described in detail in

Section 4.5.1.


Phase 2 of the study was designed to answer the second and third of the research questions,

that is, why educators participate in microblogging and the perceived value of their

participation in microblogging. An online survey was used because it offered several

advantages (Cohen, et al., 2007; Gillham, 2000b):

• it was low cost in time and money;

• it allowed the researcher, who was based in Australia, to reach a large number of

participants in other countries;

• participants could complete the survey at a time and place that suited them;

• it ensured that there was a standardisation of questions; and

• the analysis of closed questions is straightforward.

The survey comprised 14 open and closed questions (see Appendix 1), which included

multiple choice questions; open-ended questions requiring text responses; and Likert type

items comprised of a 5-point scale. The survey remained open for responses for seven days,

from July 30 to August 4, 2012. The Phase 2 data collection process is described in detail in

Section 4.4.2.

Over the seven days, responses were collected from educators (n=121) who belonged to

various demographic groups in regards to age, experience and educational sector in which


they worked. Respondents resided in a variety of countries including Australia, Brazil,

Canada, England, France, Greece, Netherlands, New Zealand, Philippines, South Africa,

Sweden, United States of America and Wales. The analytical features of the survey software

were used to tabulate responses to individual questions and to cross-tabulate various closed

questions in order to extract specific data from different combinations of data. The Phase 2

data analysis process is described in detail in Section 4.5.2.


The third, and final, phase of the study was designed to answer the fourth of the research

questions about how microblogging can support professional learning. One-on-one

interviews were held with purposively selected educators who completed the online survey

in Phase 2. As indicated by Yin (2003), interviews are one of the most important sources of

case study information, and are considered indispensible in case study research by Gillham

(2000a), who especially noted the semi-structured interview as being a rich source of data.

Lincoln and Guba (1985) outlined several purposes for conducting interviews and, of these,

obtaining here-and-now constructions of activities and motivations, together with

verification and extension of information from a variety of sources for the purpose of

triangulation, were the reasons for employing interviews in this study. The interviews were

designed to capture educators’ subjective experiences and attitudes towards microblogging

and to build on the information gathered in Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the study. As the

interview subjects were situated in different countries the interviews were conducted and

recorded via a Voice over IP (VoIP) service, namely Skype, and during each interview the

researcher took extensive notes. This method of synchronous “virtual interviewing” was

recognised by Fontana and Frey (2005) as an emerging trend in interview technique. The

interviews followed a semi-structured format and were conducted between September 22

and October 19, 2012 with each interview taking approximately 30 minutes to complete. The

Phase 3 data collection process is described in detail in Section 4.4.3.

The interview recordings and researcher notes were analysed to determine common

themes which had emerged from the content analysis of microblog posts (Phase 1) and the

online survey (Phase 2), and to provide a deeper understanding of why individuals

participate in microblogging and the value they perceive in their participation in

microblogging. The responses were analysed to determine how microblogging could support

professional learning. The Phase 3 data analysis process is described in detail in Section

4.5.3.


4.3.4 Selection of participants

The phenomenon explored by this study involved a specific technology (microblogging)

being used by a specific group of people (educators) for a specific purpose (professional

learning). As outlined in Section 1.2, the educators who participated in this study included

teachers, teacher educators, school principals, university lecturers and technology support

officers who wrote their microblog posts in the English language and who would be

considered innovators and early adopters. A call to participate was issued globally, and

educators from Australia, Brazil, Canada, England, France, Greece, Netherlands, New

Zealand, Philippines, South Africa, Sweden, United States of America and Wales responded.

However, it is to be noted that microblogging experience rather than culture was the

important characteristic required of the sample group. From this sample of participants, it

was possible to determine why educators participated in microblogging, what was the value

they perceived in such activities and how microblogging could support professional learning.

As described in Section 4.1, in order to understand how and why educators use

microblogging for professional learning it was necessary to examine individuals in order to

understand the whole phenomenon. As advised by Creswell (2003), qualitative research

involves purposefully selecting participants who will best help the researcher investigate the

research questions. This strategy allows particular settings, persons, or events to be selected

because of the important information they can provide that could not be obtained as well

from other choices (Maxwell, 2009). Accordingly, the study was based on non-probability

sampling (Scott & Morrison, 2006) whereby the participants were purposively selected

because they illustrated a feature in which the researcher was interested, that is, they were

educators who microblog.

Because of the sequential nature of the study, the sampling process, as described by Fritz

and Morgan (2010) and represented in Figure 4.1, involved gradually narrowing the

participants from the theoretical or target population, that is, all educators who microblog, to

the actual sample which comprised the individuals who agreed to participate and whose data

were used in the analysis. From a theoretical population of all educators who microblog, the

accessible population was 500 educators who microblog. This accessible population was

used in Phase 1 of the study, that is, the analysis of microblog posts to determine what types

of interaction occur. For Phase 2, a sample of 121 educators who microblog completed the

online survey and this helped the researcher to determine why educators participate in

microblogging and the perceived value of this participation. Further purposive selection

occurred for Phase 3 of the research whereby nine educators who had completed the survey

were identified for one-on-one interviews because they indicated that:


a. their PLN was “extremely” important in their overall professional learning (n=66);

b. microblogging was “extremely” important in their PLN (n=49)

c. they considered participation in microblogging to be a meaningful form of

professional learning (n=104); and

d. they commented on how they used microblogging for professional learning (n=90).

In summary, the study drew firstly on a large number of participants for the content

analysis of microblog posts (n=500), then drew on a smaller population for the online survey

(n=121) and finally gathered data in one-on-one interviews from a small number of

educators who valued microblogging in their PLN (n=9). The process of purposively

selecting participants for this study is represented in Figure 4.3, which builds upon the

sampling process diagram (Fritz & Morgan, 2010, p. 1303) presented in Figure 4.1.

Figure 4.3: Purposive selection of participants for this study - based on sampling process diagram (Fritz & Morgan, 2010, p. 1303)

The sample of participants in all phases of the study consisted of educators who resided

in a number of different countries (refer Section 6.2), represented a wide age group (refer

Table 6.1), ranged in experience in both education (refer Figure 6.1) and microblogging

(refer Figure 6.2), and who worked in different sectors of education (refer Table 6.2). The

aim was for the sample to represent itself rather than to seek generalisability across educators

in general (Cohen, et al., 2007; Silverman, 2005), thus decreasing the generalisability of

findings. Consequently, this study is not generalisable to all educators, to all microbloggers,

to other professions, or to all forms of professional learning.


4.3.5 Ethical considerations

Research into microblogging use raises complex issues in regards to ethics and the processes

of ethical clearance. While all microblog posts are publicly viewable and can be found via

Internet search engines, users do not write posts with the expectation that they will be quoted

in other mediums. Consequently, all Twitter handles have been removed except that in

Figure 2.3, for which agreement to be published in this thesis has been obtained from the

Twitter user.

4.4 Data collection In conducting a case study, multiple methods of data collection are generally used and may

include participant observation, direct observation, ethnography, interviews, focus groups,

documentary analysis and questionnaires (Hartley, 2004). Baxter and Jack (2008) advised

that each data source contributes to the researcher’s understanding of the whole phenomenon

and that this convergence of data adds strength to the findings and understanding of the case.

Accordingly, this study used three data collection tools, each designed to address one or

more of the stated research questions (refer Figure 4.4), and to build on the previous so that a

general pattern of understanding emerged. Data collection tools were:

• collection of microblog posts over a 24-hour period (Phase 1);

• an online survey (Phase 2); and

• one-on-one interviews (Phase 3).

Figure 4.4: Data gathering methods used and their relation to the research questions

During the data collection stage, the researcher moved between the tasks of data

collection and data analysis in order that each set of data could build on the previous data

collection phase. The collection of microblog posts provided an insight into the types of

Research Questions


1. 2. Why do educators participate in microblogging?

2. 3. What is the perceived value of participation in microblogging?

3.

4. 4 How can microblogging support professional learning?

Collection of microblog posts

Online survey

One-‐on-‐one interviews


interactions that occur in microblogging. Data collected from the survey functioned to give a

broader picture of the use of microblogging for professional learning and to identify specific

individuals for deeper investigation through one-on-one interviews. The interviews provided

in-depth contextual information about individuals’ use of microblogging for professional

learning. The three sets of data provided a picture of microblogging usage that moved from

the broad to the specific. The three phases of data collection are discussed in Sections 4.4.1 -

4.4.3, with details of data analysis provided in Section 4.5.

4.4.1 Phase 1: Microblog posts

As this study was ultimately interested in how microblogging was used to support

professional learning, it was necessary to first determine the types of interactions that took

place between educators who microblog. The first data collection was designed to collect a

wide sample of microblog posts made by educators and analyse their content in order to

examine what types of interactions were occurring. By searching the microblogging

networks of educators in her own network, the researcher identified 500 educators through

their public biographies (see Section 4.3.1). This sample represented a broad demographic in

regards to age, education sector in which they worked, and geographic location. The sample

of microblog posts was collected over a 24-hour period in order to capture data from

educators around the world, irrespective of time zone. During this 24-hour period, 300

educators made at least one microblog post and 3855 posts were collected.

A custom-designed software program extracted the posts made by the identified

educators and merged them into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet so that the researcher could

more easily analyse the data. Information collected consisted of (a) the post, (b) the educator

who made the post, and (c) the time the post was made. The researcher added a comments

column to the spreadsheet and, initially, one column for the coding process. Once coding

began, it became evident that some posts crossed boundaries and could sit in two, or in some

cases, three categories from the coding framework. In order to accommodate these coding

exceptions, a second and third column were added.

4.4.2 Phase 2: Online survey

Denzin and Lincoln (2003) noted that qualitative research may employ surveys as a

technique for gathering data. Surveys are used in qualitative research to gather data at a

particular point in time with the intention of “describing the nature of existing conditions, or

identifying standards against which existing conditions can be compared, or determining the

relationships that exist between specific events” (Cohen, et al., 2007, p. 205). Once the types

of interactions that were taking place in microblogging were identified from the content

analysis in Phase 1, an online survey was administered to further explore microblogging


activities and to determine the reasons why educators microblog and the value they place on

microblogging for their professional learning (see Appendix 1). The survey took the form of

a voluntary, self-administered, anonymous online questionnaire (Dillman, 2007) which was

distributed to potential participants via social networking sites. The viral nature of social

networking meant that the call for participants was broadcast to thousands of educators and

reached beyond the original 500 whose posts had been collected for analysis in the Phase 1

of the research. The survey instrument was a commercially available online survey tool and

was open for seven days, from July 30 to August 4, 2012 during which time 121 responses

were collected.

The survey was constructed according to the principles advised by (Dillman, 2007) and,

in particular, incorporated the following design features to ensure ease of use:

• a welcome screen gave information about the survey and how the results would be

used and instructed respondents how to proceed through the survey;

• the questions in the first part of the survey were easy to answer demographic

questions about the respondent;

• questions were clearly laid out and numbered, with all questions belonging to a

particular theme visible on the same page, which had the theme listed as the title of

the page;

• colour was excluded to aid readability and navigational flow;

• consistency in appearance of questions across different computer operating systems

and browsers was an in-built feature of the software used;

• drop-down boxes were not used - the survey consisted of radio (check) boxes for all

multiple choice questions;

• respondents were not forced to answer all questions before being allowed to answer

any subsequent questions; and

• open-ended questions and questions of the “check all that apply” structure were used

sparingly.

As noted, the survey comprised 14 open and closed questions (see Appendix 1), which

included multiple choice questions; open-ended questions requiring text responses; and

Likert type items comprised of a 5-point scale. Survey respondents were asked to provide

information about their background, their microblogging habits and the place of


microblogging in their professional learning network (PLN). The questions were organised

around four themes:

• demographics – to determine gender, age, educational sector, teaching experience

and geographic location;

• microblog usage – to determine the microblogging services used, microblogging

experience, time spent microblogging per week and number of social networking

communities to which they belonged;

• microblogging behaviour – to determine the types of people they “follow” and the

types of behaviours in which they engage; and

• PLN use – to discover the value they placed on their PLN and the value of

microblogging in their professional learning.

Respondents were asked to provide their contact details if they were willing to participate

in a one-on-one interview with the researcher, which constituted the next stage, that is, Phase

3 of the data collection. Sixty-three respondents indicated that they were willing to

participate in the interview process and gave their name and email address.

4.4.3 Phase 3: Interviews

Participants for the interviews were purposively selected from the survey respondents who

indicated that they were willing to participate in the interview process (n=63). The criteria

that participants needed to meet before being considered for this phase of the study were that

they had indicated in the survey that:





d. they commented on how they used microblogging for professional learning (n=90).

Of survey respondents (n=63) who indicated that they were willing to participate in the

interview process, a reduced number (n=49) met the selection criteria listed above. Through

cross-tabulating these 49 responses in the survey instrument, the researcher chose to

interview a target group of educators (n=9). In order to collect sufficient data, but not have

an overwhelming amount of data, nine interview subjects were chosen who represented the

widest possible range of characteristics, which included:


• working in a variety of educational sectors, that is, K-12 schools; vocation, education

and training (VET) organisations; and universities;

• representing both genders;

• having a variety of years of teaching experience, that is, from less than one year to

more than twenty years;

• belonging to various age groups, that is, from 20 to 59 years of age;

• having used microblogging for a varying amounts of time, that is, from less than one

year to more than six years;

• having used microblogging for various amounts of time per week, that is, from one

hour to twelve hours; and

• residing in a variety of countries (n=4).

The profiles of the nine interview subjects are summarised in Table 4.1. The educators

are listed in the order in which the interviews were conducted and throughout the remainder

of this document are referred to as “Educator A”, “Educator B” and so on.

Table 4.1

Profile of interview subjects

Educator: A B C D E F G H I

Sector VET VET K-12 K-12 K-12 Uni Uni Mentor Ed Tech

Gender M F F F M F M F M

Years teaching

experience

16-20 16-20 <1 11-14 1-5 6-10 16-20 20+ 6-10

Age 50-59 50-59 40-49 40-49 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 30-39

Years of

microblogging

1-3 4-6 <1 1-3 1-3 >6 4-6 1-3 1-3

Microblogging

hours per week

4-6 1-3 4-6 4-6 4-6 10-12 11-12 4-6 1-3

Country USA Aust UK USA Canada USA USA Aust Aust


The goal of the interviews was to see the topic from the perspective of the interview

subjects and to understand how and why they came to that particular perspective (King,

2004). The research questions for this study (as outlined in Section 1.3) did not seek to

quantify individual experience, but focus on how participants described their use of

microblogging for professional learning. The aim of the interviews was to understand

individuals’ perspectives on the use and value of microblogging for their own professional

learning.

Patton (2002) identified three types of open-ended interviews as basic approaches to

collecting qualitative data: (a) the informal conversational interview, (b) the general

interview guide approach, and (c) the standardised open-ended interview. Each serves a

different purpose and differs in the extent to which interview questions are determined

before the interview occurs. Interviews in this study were semi-structured, that is, they had a

given agenda and open-ended questions, and most closely aligned to Patton’s (2002)

standardised open-ended interview whereby each respondent was taken through a set of

carefully worded questions. The semi-structured interview is a particular form of interview

advocated by Cohen, et al. (2007) where the prepared schedule is sufficiently open-ended to

allow the interviewer to reorder the questions, make digressions and expansions, explore

new avenues and probe further with the interview subjects. This method provided a

consistent and yet flexible inquiry framework (McMillan & Schumacher, 2006).

A set of questions to be explored with each participant was determined before the

interview. The interviewer, however, was sufficiently open to explore previously

unconsidered topics that were introduced by the interview subjects. This was achieved

through establishing a conversational style between both parties rather than a gathering of

information by the researcher (Miles & Huberman, 1994). The degree of explanation,

probing and exploration by the interviewer was dependent on the individual interview

subjects and, in some cases was extensive, in others, less so. All interview subjects were

asked the following questions:

1. What types of microblogging activities contribute to your learning?

2. How is this learning evidenced?

3. In the survey you said that you follow experts - how and what do you learn from

these people?

4. In the survey you said that you follow peers - how and what do you learn from these

people?


5. How do you think you contribute to other people's learning?

6. What (if any) are the disadvantages for you of participating in microblogging as a

form of professional learning?

The interviews were conducted between September 22 and October 19, 2012 with each

interview taking approximately 30 minutes to complete. The interviews were digitally

recorded and the researcher made extensive notes during the interviews.

4.5 Data analysis This study used content analysis and an online survey to gain an overall picture of the use of

microblogging for professional learning, and a more fine-grained analysis was achieved

through the use of interviews with purposively chosen case study participants. As outlined in

Section 4.3.1 and Figure 4.2, each data collection built on the previous so that a general

pattern of understanding emerged. Data analysis was conducted at each phase of the study,

that is, content analysis of a collection of microblog posts (Section 4.5.1), analysis of online

survey responses (Section 4.5.2), and analysis and interpretation of responses in one-on-one

interviews (Section 4.5.3).

4.5.1 Phase 1: Content analysis

Content analysis was chosen as the method to analyse the microblog posts in order to

develop an understanding of the types of interactions that were occurring. The aim of the

content analysis was to reveal information that was not situated at the surface of the

transcripts (De Wever, Schellens, Valcke, & Van Keer, 2006) as microblog posts are only

140 characters long and often employ their own version of shorthand. Of the 3855 collected

posts, 600 were analysed as it was possible from this sample to determine the types of

interactions that were taking place. M. Mason (2010) advised that, in qualitative research,

samples must be large enough to assure that most or all of the perceptions that might be

important are uncovered. Saturation is considered to have been reached when “no new

information seems to emerge during coding, that is, when no new properties, dimensions,

conditions, actions/interactions, or consequences are seen in the data” (Strauss & Corbin,

1998, p. 136) and this point was reached when 600 posts had been analysed.

The content analysis framework used in this study was the Community of Inquiry (CoI)

framework developed by Garrison, Anderson and Archer (2000) and outlined in Section

3.1.2. The framework comprises three elements; cognitive presence, social presence and

teaching presence; which interact to influence and shape educational experiences, and the

model involves a coding template (see Table 3.1), which provides categories and indicators


for each element of the framework. These categories were used to determine if

microblogging comprised posts from each of the elements, that is, cognitive, social and

teaching presence. Microblog posts were counted in order to illustrate the categories

encountered in the sample, that is, descriptive statistics were used. Descriptive statistical

methods are used in a qualitative study as the foundation for inferential methods which use

them as their building blocks (B. L. Brown, 2010).

In addition to analysing the microblog posts with the CoI coding template, the researcher

interpreted the types of interactions in order to compile a list of “behaviours” that could be

further explored through the online survey. These were cross-referenced to the

microblogging activities and behaviours described in the literature (Alderton, et al., 2011;

Educause, 2007; Grosseck & Holotescu, 2008; Holotescu & Grosseck, 2009; Java, et al.,

2007; Parry, 2008) to formulate question 11 in the survey (see Appendix 1). The findings

from the content analysis of microblog posts are presented in detail in Chapter 5.

4.5.2 Phase 2: Online survey

As noted in Section 4.4.2, the survey was used as an instrument to gather qualitative data,

which would be used by the researcher to further explore the categories, or themes, that

emerged from the content analysis of microblog posts. Survey respondents were asked to

provide information about their microblog usage, behaviours and attitudes in order to

provide insight into the value they placed on their participation in microblogging. In order to

compare and contrast results, the data gathered from the closed questions was tabulated and

presented graphically, while the data gathered from the open questions was analysed into

common themes. This analysis provided answers to research questions pertaining to why

individuals participate in microblogging and the value they perceive in their participation in

microblogging. The findings from the online survey are presented in detail in Chapter 6.

4.5.3 Phase 3: Interviews

In addition to recording the interviews that were conducted with the nine purposively chosen

educators, the researcher took extensive notes. These recordings and notes were analysed to

determine common themes, which provided a deeper understanding of why individuals

participate in microblogging and the value they perceived in their participation in

microblogging. As the goal of this narrative analysis was to look at the phenomenon in

depth, a process of thick description (Dawson, 2010; Denzin, 2001) was used in which the

researcher interpreted the interview responses in order to achieve insight into how

microblogging could support professional learning. The findings from the one-on-one

interviews are presented in detail in Chapter 7.


4.6 Validity and trustworthiness Validity is addressed differently in quantitative and qualitative research. Winter (2000) noted

that it was difficult to establish a common definition of “validity”, and proposed that validity

does not not merely concern the factual events or statements recorded during the data

gathering, but the research process as a whole. It was suggested by Cohen, et al. (2007) that

in qualitative research, “validity might be addressed through the honesty, depth, richness and

scope of the data achieved, the participants approached, the extent of triangulation and the

disinterestedness or objectivity of the researcher” (p. 133). Accordingly, as stated in Section

1.6, the researcher did not initiate or respond to any microblog posts during the data

collection period in order to remain neutral and apart from the network.

Several techniques were used to increase the trustworthiness of this study. In Phase 1,

participants were unaware of the study, and their publicly available microblog posts were

collected during a random 24-hour period, with no notification to participants that data

collection was being undertaken. These measures were taken to ensure that the data collected

in Phase 1 consisted of microblog posts made by educators who had not been influenced by

the aims of the study, thus avoiding a halo effect (Standing, 2004). Furthermore, the analysis

of Phase 1 data was undertaken using a recognised framework (CoI), which provided a

content analysis process appropriate for the type of data collected. The reliability of the CoI

coding was established by one of the methods suggested by Rourke, Anderson, Garrison and

Archer (2001), that is, by the researcher recoding a data sample after an interval of time and

comparing this to her original coding. As the second coding agreed with the original, the

process was deemed to be trustworthy.

In Phase 2 of the data collection, that is, the online survey, a combination of open and

closed questions was used which included multiple choice questions; open-ended questions

requiring text responses; and Likert items comprised of a 5-point scale. This variety of

question types enabled respondents to personalise and clarify their answers. Additionally, so

as not to limit the scope of the study, the survey was distributed internationally in order to

collect the widest possible sample of responses.

The one-on-one interviews in Phase 3 of the data collection were designed to build upon

the first two phases, that is, the content analysis and survey. The interviews provided an in-

depth investigation of the categories, or themes, that emerged in Phases 1 and 2 and allowed

the researcher to confirm the microblogging usage and behaviours uncovered early in the

study.


4.6.1 Triangulation

Triangulation refers to the practice of using multiple sources of data or multiple approaches

to analysing data to enhance the credibility of a research study and typically involves

examining data from interviews, focus groups, written archives, or other sources (Cohen, et

al., 2007; Hastings, 2010; Locke, et al., 2000; Maxwell, 2009; Stake, 2003; Yin, 2009).

Qualitative research designs frequently involve collection of data from different sources and

by different methods for the purpose of triangulation. Accordingly, this study used multiple

sources of evidence, that is, content analysis of microblog posts, an online survey and

interviews to ensure that the methodology and findings were trustworthy. The researcher

used the process of triangulation in order to make the data more objective and less subjective

(Stake, 2005), to confirm theories using different forms of data (Harper, 2005) and to

strengthen the study through a combination of methods (Patton, 2002).

According to Yin (2003), data are successfully triangulated when information on the

same question is gathered from different sources, and all sources point to the same answer.

In this study, data were triangulated by analysing three data sets (content analysis, online

survey, one-on-one interviews) and comparing the results across data sets (Garrison,

Cleveland-Innes, Koole, & Kappelman, 2006). The initial data were analysed according to

the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework to determine categories of activities. These

emerging categories, or themes, were applied to both the online survey and the one-on-one

interviews so that interrelating themes could be verified across all data sets.

4.6.2 Role of the researcher

As noted in Section 4.1, qualitative research is interpretative and Creswell (2003) warns that

this introduces a range of strategic, ethical, and personal issues into the research process

which require the researcher to identify their biases, values, and personal interests about their

research topic and process. Creswell (2003) also advised that a qualitative researcher views

social phenomena holistically and, during the research, systematically reflects on who she is

in the inquiry and is sensitive to her personal biography and how it shapes the study.

Accordingly, the researcher acknowledges that she had prior experience, and an interest, in

the use of microblogging for self-directed professional learning.

4.6.3 Limitations of the study

As this was an exploratory case study of the way in which a specific technology

(microblogging) was being used by a specific group of people (educators), the findings

cannot be extrapolated to broader populations. It is recognised that the non-probability

sampling used in this study limited the researcher's capacity to point to the transferability of


data and there is a possibility that the researcher may have shown bias in selecting study

participants by using this technique (Saumure & Given, 2008). Additionally, it is recognised

that a precondition for successful adoption of a technology tool is a positive attitude towards

its potential (Honeycutt & Herring, 2009) and the educators involved in this study were all

microblogging users with a positive attitude towards that technology. As advised by Guba

and Lincoln (1989, p. 45) “phenomena can be understood only within the context in which

they are studied; findings from one context cannot be generalized to another; neither

problems nor their solutions can be generalized from on setting to another”. Accordingly, the

results of this study are only valid with regard to the analysed sample and the specific

industry, that is, educators and education.

4.7 Chapter summary The methodology outlined in this chapter was deemed the most appropriate for investigating

the way in which microblogging, a form of communication that has characteristics of both

written and verbal communication, was being used for professional learning by educators.

Specifically, it allowed the researcher to address the stated research questions. Chapter 5

details the data collection instruments and discusses the findings from the first phase of the

research, that is, the content analysis of microblog posts.


5Chapter 5: Findings – Content Analysis

This chapter presents the findings resulting from the first phase of the adopted methodology

as described in Chapter 4, that is, content analysis of a sample of microblog posts from a

delimited time period. The results presented in this chapter address the first of the research

questions stated in Section 1.3, that is, what types of interactions occur in microblogging.

Section 5.1 presents a brief overview of the microblog posts collected; Section 5.2 presents a

brief overview of the Community of Inquiry (CoI) coding template, which was the

framework used for the content analysis; Sections 5.3- 5.5 present the findings for each of

the CoI elements: cognitive, social and teaching presence; Section 5.6 presents a fourth

element uncovered from the data, learning presence; and finally, Section 5.7 presents an

overview of content analysis findings.

5.1 Overview of microblog posts This section focuses on the microblog posts collected from a group of educators (n=500)

during a 24-hour period from 11am (AEDT) on December 1, 2011. During this period, 300

educators who regularly blog, made a total of 3855 posts. As discussed in Section 4.5.1, data

saturation was reached when 600 posts had been analysed.

As noted in Section 2.2, microblogging is a form of computer-mediated communication

(CMC) whereby the use of networks of computers facilitate interaction between spatially

separated learners (Jonassen, et al., 1995). Furthermore, there are two distinct types of CMC

identified in the literature: synchronous, where interaction takes place in real time, and

asynchronous where participants are not online simultaneously (Simpson, 2002).

Microblogging is a form of CMC which is mostly asynchronous, but can be synchronous if

the participants happen to be online at the same time.

The microblog posts analysed in this study exhibited characteristics of verbal language

similar to those noted by Georgakopoulu (2011) in his examination of computer-mediated

communication (CMC) (see Section 3.3.1). For example, in the microblog posts collected,

vernacular expressions such as “you’re a worry!”, “yep”, “holy smokes” and “freaking

amazing” combined with the use of punctuation for emphasis, for example “Say ??? No

?????? to ????????? Internet ???????? censorship” are characteristic of spoken rather than

written language. In addition, the 140 character limit necessitates the abbreviation of words

and paragraphs, for example, “fav” used as a shortened form of favourite, “r” for “are,” “u”


for “you,” “btw” for “by the way” and “imo” for “in my opinion.” These conventions are

evident in other forms of CMC, for example text messaging on mobile phones (SMS).

As a further example, the following microblog posts exhibit informality of style and

reduced planning and editing akin to face-to-face interactions:

I may faint #energydrink #overload

LOL (@YouTube http://t.co/polHoPdM)

I dont get even . . . . . I get odder

The informal, face-to-face style of writing was most evident when participants were

responding to each other, as indicated by the @ symbol in the following examples. It is

unknown whether those making the statements had met their addressee face-to-face but each

of these exhibits the informality of a face-to-face interaction:

@suifaijohnmak I know what you mean. Delicious is another example.

@lasic yes indeed I have! Though not for as long as I would have liked :/

This informality was further evident when participants were sharing their location. This is

a particular affordance of various social networking tools that allows people to “check in”

where they are and post this information to their various social networks. This usually

involves the inclusion of a map and may include comments and/or a photograph taken by the

participant. The example below is a microblog post stating that this person is at a particular

location, indicated by the “(@ Saasu HQ)”:

Spreading the @Saasu love :-) (@ Saasu HQ) http://t.co/fMoMIclg

Even when they were sharing resources, a more formal activity, the style was informal and

showed reduced planning and editing, for example:

Wonderful voice lesson idea! A 6-Trait Writing Lesson inspired by the format

of NPR's “This I Believe” Podcasts http://t.co/AT3pYZxU

It is also to be noted that the cited microblog posts are public, that is, they are searchable by

search engines and anyone on the Web can find and view them.

The focus was on analysing the content of the messages to determine what type of

information was being posted. The messages were coded using the Community of Inquiry

(CoI) framework (see Figure 3.2 and Table 3.1) developed by Garrison, Anderson and

Archer (2000). The CoI framework contains three core elements: cognitive presence, social


presence and teaching presence. As described in Section 3.1.2, cognitive presence concerns

the construction of meaning and confirmation of understanding; social presence

encompasses the ability of participants to coalesce for a common purpose; and teaching

presence must manage and monitor the cognitive and social dynamic to create a purposeful

community of inquiry.

5.2 Overview of CoI coding The Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework (see Figure 3.2) provides a coding template

which consists of categories and indicators for each element of the framework (see Table

3.1). These categories were used to determine if microblogging comprised posts from each

of the elements, that is, cognitive, social and teaching presence. As noted by Garrison, et al.

(2001), content analysis is challenging, as it requires coders to determine, based on transcript

evidence, to which element and category an interaction belongs. This was a challenge faced

in this study, as there were numerous posts that could have been assigned to more than one

category and sometimes more than one presence. For example, the post “Using hashtag

#nancybhi for @nancywhite visit to @boxhilltafe” could have been interpreted as belonging

to the element of cognitive presence, the category of exploration and the indicator of

information exchange; as it was merely giving information to others as to where they could

share and collaborate on ideas gleaned from a seminar with an expert on a particular topic.

Alternatively, it could have been interpreted as belonging to the element of social presence,

the category of group cohesion and the indicator of encouraging collaboration; as the person

who made the post was encouraging others to join the conversation and discuss ideas being

shared from a face-to-face workshop. In instances where this occurred, the researcher noted

the most salient category for each post, with any secondary category being noted in a second

column. In the discussion that follows (Sections 5.3 to 5.5), the primary category has been

used for discussion purposes.

Microblog posts corresponded with all three elements of the CoI model and it is useful to

observe the number of posts within each element. There were 413 posts (68.9%) within the

element of cognitive presence, 150 posts (25.0%) within the element of social presence and

14 posts (2.3%) within the element of teaching presence (see Table 5.1). There were 23 posts

(3.8%) that did not fit any of the elements. These consisted of comments about a cricket

match that was taking place at the time (n=14, 2.3%) which have been categorised as

“unrelated” and instances where people were asking for specific help (n=9, 1.5%) which

have been categorised as “learning presence.” The term “learning presence” has been

adopted by this study to describe instances where participants were asking for specific help

in order to understand a concept. This is discussed in detail in Section 5.6.


Table 5.1

Breakdown of microblog posts in each of the CoI elements

Elements

Number

(n=600)

Percent

Cognitive Presence 413 68.9%

Social Presence 150 25.0%

Teaching Presence 14 2.3%

Learning Presence 9 1.5%

Unrelated 14 2.3%

The following section provides an explanation of the CoI coding elements, namely,

cognitive presence, social presence and teaching presence. It also examines how the

categories and indicators within these elements were exhibited in the microblog posts of this

group of educators. The newly created category of learning presence is discussed in detail in

Section 5.6.

5.3 Cognitive presence As noted in Section 5.2, the majority of posts (n=413, 68.9%) in the total sample analysed

demonstrated cognitive presence, that is, they belonged to one of four categories: triggering

event, exploration, integration or resolution. Example indicators for each of these categories

were given by Garrison, et al (2000, p. 89) as: sense of puzzlement (triggering event),

information exchange (exploration), connecting ideas (integration) and apply new ideas

(resolution). Of these, and as summarised in Table 5.2, only “triggering event” and

“exploration” categories were noted in the sample coded, that is, no posts were categorised

as integration or resolution. It is to be noted that Table 5.2 varies from the CoI coding

template in that, in addition to the CoI indicators, it contains indicators as exhibited in the

microblog posts analysed. While the CoI indicator of “information exchange” was exhibited

as such in microblog posts, the CoI indicator of “sense of puzzlement” was exhibited in

microblog posts as “posing a question”.


Table 5.2

Cognitive presence coding (n=413)

Categories Indicators (CoI) Microblog Indicators n (%)

Triggering Event Sense of puzzlement Posing a question 1 (0.2%)

Exploration Information exchange Information exchange 412 (99.8%)

Integration Connecting ideas N/A 0 (0%)

Resolution Apply new ideas N/A 0 (0%)

One could conjecture that the category of “integration,” indicated by “connecting ideas,”

and the category “resolution,” indicated by “apply new ideas,” were not evident because of

the 140 word limit of microblog posts. This word limitation reduces the capacity for the type

of extended explanation that would be needed for connecting and applying new ideas.

5.3.1 Triggering events

Only one post, that is, 0.2% of all posts in the cognitive presence element, was coded as a

triggering event. It took the form of someone posing a question:

So, what is to stop P2PU making all universities redundant? #fb

This message refers to the Peer 2 Peer University (P2PU), a grassroots open education

project that organises learning outside of institutional walls and gives learners recognition

for their achievements, and was intended to trigger responses and discussion from other

educators. It is not evident from the microblog posts collected and analysed whether this post

did trigger some discussion. This may have stood as a rhetorical question that did not really

need an answer or, alternatively, it was intended to trigger a response but did not in this

timeframe or from the target group. While posing a question is usually the way to trigger a

response, because of the brevity of Twitter posts (140 characters) it may also be a means of

making a statement. The use of a question mark in this post gives a sense of puzzlement

(which is an indicator of triggering) but doesn’t necessarily mean it will trigger a response.

5.3.2 Exploration

The category of exploration contained the majority of posts (n=412, 99.8%) in the cognitive

presence element and was evident through “information exchange” which took the form of

(a) sharing resources, or (b) sharing ideas. The first of these, the sharing of resources, was

manifest in three ways:


i) sharing a resource the poster knew of or had found;

ii) sharing a resource another person had posted; and

iii) aggregating resources posted by other people and sharing these in a newsletter

format.

Some of the direct examples of information exchange through sharing resources, typically

online, the poster knew of or had found were:

501 Writing Prompts http://t.co/ziW7QGpO

Ten Marks Math: Proven to Work http://t.co/EAQrSsZM

18 Incredible Ways to Create Digital Photo Collage http://t.co/wCUGLLF8

Part 1:Flipping The Classroom? 12 Great Resources To Keep You On Your

Feet http://t.co/fZRTQu1C Enjoy/Share #edchat #edtech #teaching

These are noted by their simplicity – little or no information is provided other than a

descriptive title and a link to the nominated resource.

Information exchange through sharing a resource that had been posted by another person,

that is, the second form of exchange noted above, is evident by the convention of adding

“RT” to the post. As noted in Table 2.1, “RT” is an abbreviation for the word “retweet” and

is a standard convention used in Twitter to signify that you are sharing a post made by

another person. Examples of this type of information exchange were:

RT @TimesEducation: A hero in hard hat and boots http://t.co/IMAMv3UL

RT @SirKenRobinson: Here's my intro to London TEDX, the Learning

Revolution, just posted. Some thoughts, principles for debate

http://t.co/1XB5SM42

These are generally a verbatim reproduction of the original post, but occasionally the person

retweeting will add a comment of their own.

The third form of information exchange through sharing a resource was noted when other

people’s posts were aggregated into a newsletter, for example:

The lyn_hay Daily is out! http://t.co/a6Xif3oY? Top stories today via

@paullyoung


This is an extension of the previous idea, that is, rather than sharing a post made by just one

person, a number of other people’s posts are shared in an online document.

The second form of “information exchange” was exhibited through sharing an idea and

was either: (a) the poster’s own idea or thought, (b) reporting what a conference speaker had

said, or (c) engaging in a synchronous “meetup” where microbloggers use a hashtag (#) to

identify that they are participating in a particular discussion.

Some examples where the poster was sharing their own idea or thought were:

More people would learn from their mistakes if they weren't so busy denying

them

I love this expression: Teachers plan hard and teach easy

They appear as statements seemingly unrelated to other posts.

Other ideas were shared while educators were attending a conference or workshop. These

conference posts were evident by the use of a hashtag (#) which allows microbloggers to

easily track particular conference discussions. Some examples, were:

Watt: Technology immersion is driven by mobile devices #icelf11

A learning package not about the skill. Its about getting the identity and

professional community to give agency out in the world #nancybhi

In the above examples, the poster was capturing an idea expressed by an expert speaker

and sharing it with their network. In the first example, the conference is identified by

#icelf11 and in the second, by #nancybhi.

The third form of information exchange through sharing ideas, that is, engaging in a

conversation with others online with the specific purpose of exchanging ideas, was evident

in the use of particular hashtags. One of the most commonly used of these is “#edchat”

which is recognised by microbloggers as a hashtag that is used to start conversations on

particular topics. Participants vote on topics each week and discuss a particular topic every

Tuesday, just by adding #edchat to their tweets. Other hashtags used for engaging in

conversations are #ukedchat and #cpchat. Examples of microblog posts containing these

hashtags are:

Part 1:Flipping The Classroom? 12 Great Resources To Keep You On Your

Feet http://t.co/fZRTQu1C Enjoy/Share #edchat #edtech #teaching


Post your thoughts. An LMS will benefit your school. http://t.co/JgHPfxm0

#Ukedchat #cpchat

This section has presented an overview of the microblog posts categorised as being

examples of the cognitive presence element in the CoI framework. In particular, it has given

examples of the various types of information sharing exhibited, this being the indicator

demonstrated by the majority of posts (n=412, 99.8%) in the cognitive presence element

which will be discussed in Section 8.2.3. The following section will examine the microblog

posts coded as belonging to the social presence element.

5.4 Social presence Social presence is the ability of participants to identify with the community, communicate

purposefully in a trusting environment and develop inter-personal relationships by way of

projecting their individual personalities (Akyol, et al., 2009). As noted in Section 5.2, there

were 150 posts (25.0%) in the total sample analysed that demonstrated social presence, that

is, belonged to one of three categories: emotional expression, open communication or group

cohesion (Garrison et al., 2000). Of these, and as summarised in Table 5.3, all three

categories were noted in the sample coded, with the majority belonging to the category of

emotional expression. It is to be noted that Table 5.3 varies from the CoI coding template in

that, in addition to the CoI indicators, it contains indicators as exhibited in the microblog

posts analysed. While the CoI indicator of “risk-free expression” was exhibited as such in

microblog posts, the CoI indicator of “emoticons” was exhibited in microblog posts as

“emoticons and exaggerated punctuation”, and the CoI indicator of “encouraging

collaboration” was exhibited in microblog posts as “use of multiple @ symbols to link

people”.

Table 5.3

Social presence coding (n-150)

Categories Indicators Microblog indicators n (%)

Emotional Expression

Emoticons Emoticons and exaggerated punctuation

132 (88.0%)

Open Communication

Risk-free expression Risk-free expression 3 (2.0%)


Use of multiple @ symbols to link people

15 (10.0%)


5.4.1 Emotional expression

The category of emotional expression contained the majority of posts (n=132, 88.0%) in the

social presence element and was evident through the use of emoticons and exaggerated

punctuation. Some examples were:

@gcouros @hkowalchuk great connections with like-minded educators on

the same mission :-)

@TyTiesTies Love him!!!

@vpsingh so glad you liked it! Thanks for sharing it :) @dachisgroup

5.4.2 Open communication

Only three of the posts (2.0%) in the emotional presence element were coded as risk-free

expression, which was the indicator for open communication. The coded examples of risk-

free expression were:

@willrich45 I've watched some teachers do that. Most of their tweets had

nothing to do with education. I often wonder when they teach

Believe it or not, it's my life. Let me live it, thanks

@ahiskens So true - Australian states have a long history of failure to

connect #time2fix #ideaevent

Although only three posts were given the primary code of “risk-free expression”, it is to

be noted that open communication in the form of risk-free expression was evident across

many posts, regardless of whether they belonged to the element of cognitive presence, social

presence or teaching presence. This can be illustrated with a post noted in Section 5.3.2. For

example, the following post coded as information exchange also displays open

communication in the form of risk-free expression: “More people would learn from their

mistakes if they weren't so busy denying them”. In this case, the poster has felt free to express

an idea in an open way.

5.4.3 Group cohesion

The category of “group cohesion” comprised fifteen (10.0%) of the posts in the emotional

presence element. Group cohesion was overtly evident in two forms, firstly, by the use of

multiple @ symbols used to link people, and secondly by people openly asking others to

collaborate. Some examples of using multiple @ symbols were:


@WatchKnowLearn @CallanRG It’s a wonderful global collaboration

started by @coolcatteacher and @julielindsay. http://t.co/fT3waMQs

@ekouremenos You should connect with @Grade1

Some examples of group cohesion in the form of people asking others to collaborate were

the following posts which ask people to contribute ideas to a shared space:

RT @lindayollis: Our @clustrmaps Visitor Count is a Palindrome! Can u

add a new palindrome? #comments4kids #elemchat http://t.co/fypull7B

Would love your thoughts on The Sandbox Manifesto http://t.co/zJnG1zJn

@USCRossier @Storify @WendyGorton @USCAnnenberg

5.5 Teaching presence Teaching presence is the design, facilitation and direction of cognitive and social processes

for the purpose of realising personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile learning

outcomes (T. Anderson, et al., 2001). As noted in Section 5.2, there was very little teaching

presence evident in this data; only 14 posts (2.4%) in the total sample analysed demonstrated

teaching presence, that is, belonged to one of three categories: instructional management,

building understanding or direct instruction (Garrison, et al., 2000). Of these, and as

summarised in Table 5.4, all three categories were noted in the sample coded, with the

majority belonging to the category of direct instruction. It is to be noted that Table 5.4 varies

from the CoI coding template in that, in addition to the CoI indicators, it contains indicators

as exhibited in the microblog posts analysed. While the CoI indicators of “defining &

initiating discussion topics” and “sharing personal meaning” were exhibited as such in

microblog posts, the CoI indicator of “focusing discussion” was exhibited in microblog posts

as “providing an answer to a call for help.”

Table 5.4

Teaching presence coding (N=14)

Categories Indicators Microblog indicators n (%)

Instructional Management

Defining & initiating discussion topics


4 (28.6%)

Building Understanding

Sharing personal meaning


2 (14.3%)

Direct Instruction Focusing discussion Providing an answer to a call for help

8 (57.1%)


5.5.1 Instructional management

There were four posts (28.6%) in the “instructional management” category of the teaching

presence element and invariably consisted of posing questions to others. Each of these posts

is listed below as each illustrates a different way of defining and initiating discussion topics,

the indicator for “instructional management.”

In the first example, a thought-provoking question has been used to initiate discussion

amongst people participating in a hashtag chat, that is, a group of people who have come

together online at a pre-determined time to discuss a topic through Twitter and who all use a

specified hashtag so that they can easily find and follow posts into this discussion. In the

example below, this question was posed to initiate discussion amongst those participating in

the #toolschat discussion:

Q1. Do you believe an “influence tool” is a good thing #toolschat”

The second example also contains a thought-provoking question designed to initiate

discussion amongst people; by specifically inviting anyone to express their ideas on this

topic. However, in this example, although it contains the hashtags #elearning and #lmchat, it

is not being used in a synchronous chat session. It is designed to elicit responses, at any time

in the near future, from anyone following one or both of the hashtags:

Football Will Drive School Reform. What are your ideas?

http://t.co/gO1r3KRV #elearning #lrnchat

The third example of posing a question to initiate discussion is posted to microbloggers in

general, as is evidenced by the absence of a hashtag, and may, or may not, be designed to

elicit responses:

Anything wrong with a person with a salaried job Tweeting over 150 times

throughout a 24-hour period? Is there a ‘too much’ Twitter?

In the fourth and final example, a very broad question has been posed. As in the previous

example, it has been posted to microbloggers in general, as evidenced by the absence of a

hashtag, and may, or may not, be designed to elicit responses:

Key questions What could we do now that we haven't been able to do before,

think conceptually, how can we do that in our context?

5.5.2 Building understanding

There were two posts (14.3%) considered to be in the “building understanding” category of

the teaching presence element, that is, they displayed the indicator “sharing personal


meaning.” The first is sharing a quote that has some personal meaning, while the second

shares a topic that is important to the poster:

I Believe in Miracles! #Quotes http://t.co/40XRpe2F via @thedomesticexec

Nursing - needs must - forced to try something new - relevant

#sharingideasonline

5.5.3 Direct instruction

Examples of posts in the “direct instruction” category numbered eight (57.1%) in the

teaching presence element and consisted of providing an answer to a call for help, that is,

they were responses to specific questions that had been posed, for example:

@KKindrat Take a look at my blog: georgecouros.ca It is a portfolio. We

have something similar set up for schools

@PrincipalJ Just take a pen off the tray and then students can use their

finger to draw on the board

In each example, it is evident that the poster is responding to a specific question by the use

of the @ symbol before the questioner’s name.

5.6 A fourth presence: Learning presence As outlined in Section 5.2, there were instances (n=9, 1.5%) where participants were asking

for specific help as illustrated in the following examples.

@Vormamim what are endermen? mobee can't quite explain it well enough to

me

In this first example the poster, @malynmawby, was asking for help from a specific person,

namely @Vormamim, in order to understand something, that is, what endermen are.

Does anyone have videos on quality of life for @melanie_msmith who is a

grade 5 teacher? #cpchat #edchat PLS RT

In this second example the poster was asking for help to find specific teaching resources,

that is, videos on quality of life. In this example, the poster is asking for this help on behalf

of someone else, namely @melanie_msmith. Additionally, the poster is asking anyone who

sees this post to share it with their own networks, as indicated by the “PLS RT” which means

“please retweet”.


The term “learning presence” has been adopted by this study to describe instances where

participants were asking for specific help in order to understand something. This is discussed

in detail in Section 8.4.6.

5.7 Overview of content analysis findings The purpose of the content analysis of a selection of microblog posts was to discover what

types of interactions occur in microblogging. As noted, the posts were analysed using the

Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework and this analysis indicated that the majority of posts

fell into the elements of cognitive presence and social presence, with very few being

regarded as examples of teaching presence. Analysis also revealed a fourth element, namely,

learning presence. The occurrence of posts in each element have been synthesised from

Tables 5.2-5.5 and presented in Table 5.5.


Table 5.5

Overview of microblog post coding (n-600)

Elements Categories Indicators (CoI) Microblog Indicators

n (%)

Cognitive Presence (n=413)

Triggering Event Sense of puzzlement

Posing a question 1 (0.2%)


Information exchange

412 (68.7%)

Integration Connecting ideas

N/A 0 (0%)

Resolution Apply new ideas

N/A 0 (0%)

Social Presence (n=150)

Emotional Expression Emoticons Emoticons and exaggerated punctuation

132 (22.0%)


Risk-free expression

3 (0.5%)



15 (2.5%)

Teaching Presence (n=14)




4 (0.6%)




2 (0.4%)

Direct Instruction Focusing discussion

Providing an answer to a call for help

8 (1.3%)

Learning Presence (n=9)

Clarification N/A Asking for an answer

9 (1.5%)

Synthesising1 N/A Exposing an idea in order to get feedback1

-1

Unrelated (n=14)

N/A N/A N/A 14 (2.3%)

1 This category of learning presence became evident from the data collected and analysed in

Phase 2 and Phase 3 of the study and is described and discussed in Section 8.4.6.


The indicators for the categories varied from some of those noted as examples by

Garrison, et al. (2000). Thus, the content analysis provided (a) a point of departure from the

CoI when used in a more contemporary learning setting, and (b) a clearer picture of the types

of interactions that occur in microblogging thereby creating a basis to be further explored to

investigate why individuals participate in microblogging and the perceived value of this

participation. The interactions observed can be grouped into several broad themes, that is,

sharing of resources; personal and professional conversations; requests for help; offering

solutions; connecting people; and presenting ideas. These microblogging behaviours were

further explored through an online survey and these findings are presented in Chapter 6.


6Chapter 6: Findings – Survey

This chapter presents the findings resulting from the second phase of the research

methodology as described in Chapter 4, that is, the online survey. Section 6.1 presents the

purpose of the survey; Section 6.2 presents the demographics of the respondents; Section 6.3

presents the microblog usage of respondents; Section 6.4 presents the microblog behaviour

of respondents; Section 6.5 presents responses to how the respondents perceive Professional

Learning Networks (PLNs) and the place of microblogging in their PLN; and finally, Section

6.6 presents an overview of findings from the survey.

The results presented in this chapter address the second and third of the research

questions stated in Section 1.3, that is:

• Why do educators participate in microblogging?

• What is the perceived value of participation in microblogging?

6.1 Purpose of the survey An analysis of the microblog posts revealed that a vast amount of information was being

posted (3855 posts from 300 users) and the question arose as to what extent that information

was transformed into learning or applied to the users’ professional work. In order to further

explore this, an online survey was undertaken with the target group, that is, educators who

blog. The purpose of the online survey was to explore the themes that emerged from Phase 1

of the research in further depth and to provide insight into the value educators placed on their

participation in microblogging. As noted, the survey comprised 14 open and closed questions

(see Appendix 1), which included multiple choice questions; open-ended questions requiring

text responses; and Likert items comprised of a 5-point scale. The questions were organised

around four themes: (a) demographics, (b) microblog usage, (c) microblog behaviour, and

(d) PLN use. Questions of demographics and microblog usage were of a general nature;

while questions about individual microblogging behaviour were based on the activities that

emerged from an analysis of the Phase 1 data as summarised in Section 5.7, that is, the

sharing of resources; personal and professional conversations; requests for help; offering

solutions; connecting people; and presenting ideas. Questions around PLN use provided

insight into the value educators placed on their participation in microblogging.

An open invitation to participate was issued by the researcher via Twitter and this

invitation was extended to wider networks by numerous educators who participate in Twitter


and who received the initial invitation. The survey was available for one week during which

time educators (n=121) worldwide responded to the survey. Not all questions were

mandatory, therefore the number of responses for each question varied. The first page of the

online survey comprised an overview of the study and a consent mechanism whereby

respondents acknowledged that they had read and understood the survey statement and that

by completing the survey they were indicating consent to use their data for the purposes of

this study. All responses were anonymous, however, respondents were notified on the

opening page of the survey that the next phase of the study would involve one-on-one

interviews with a small number of respondents and that if they chose to give their name as a

person who would be willing to participate in the interview process, their responses would

no longer be anonymous. Sixty-three respondents indicated that they were willing to

participate in the interview process and gave their name and email address.

As noted in Section 3.2.4, data collected from the survey are not necessarily

representative of educators in general, as the survey targeted educators who microblog and

would therefore be considered innovators and early adopters. Because these educators are

involved in, and actively use, microblogging, they have a positive response to its use. The

aim of this study was to explore the use of microblogging by educators and accordingly, this

sample provides a valid portrait of that subset of educators.

6.2 Demographics of respondents Questions 1-5 of the survey were closed questions designed to collect demographic

information about the respondents (refer Appendix 1). This was designed to ascertain the

breadth of age, experience and educational sectors represented by the survey respondents as

well as their gender and country of residence. Table 6.1 presents a summary of the gender

and age characteristics of the survey respondents.

Table 6.1

Gender of survey respondents sorted by age

Age 20-29 n (%)

30-39 n (%)

40-49 n (%)

50-59 n (%)

60+ n (%)

Total n (%)

Female 6 (7.1%)

24 (28.6%)

18 (21.4%)

33 (39.3%)

3 (3.6%)

84 (69.4%)

Male 4 (10.8%)

14 (37.8%)

10 (27.0%)

8 (21.6%)

1 (2.7%)

37 (30.6%)

Total 10 (8.3%)

38 (31.4%)

28 (23.1%)

41 (33.9%)

4 (3.3%)

121 (100%)


It can be discerned from Table 6.1 that the majority of respondents to the survey were

female (n=84, 69.4%) who were aged 50-59 (n= 33, 39.3%). The largest representation of

female respondents (n=33, 39.3%) fell in the 50-59 age bracket, however, the largest

representation of male respondents (n=14, 37.8%) belonged to the 30-39 age bracket.

All sectors of education were represented with the greatest number coming from the K-12

sector (n=70, 57.9%), followed by the university sector (n=33, 27.3%). The pre-school sector

was under-represented with just one respondent (n=1, 0.8%) and the vocational education

and training (VET) sector was also under-represented (n=4, 3.3%). Thirteen respondents

(10.7%) listed their sector as “other” with some examples being: educational technologists,

those working in adult, organisational and community learning, and education consultants.

Table 6.2 presents a summary of the education sectors represented by survey respondents.

Table 6.2

Education sectors represented by survey respondents

Sector Pre-school n (%)

K-12 n (%)

VET n (%)

University n (%)

Other n (%)

Total n (%)

Total 1 (0.8%)

70 (57.9%)

4 (3.3%)

33 (27.3%)

13 (10.7%)

121 (100%)

Respondents had a range of teaching experience, with the largest category having more

than 20 years experience (n=32, 26.4%) followed by 6-10 years experience (n=27, 22.3%),

16-20 years experience (n=23, 19%), 11-15 years experience (n=20, 16.5%) and 1-5 year’s

experience (n=16, 13.2%). The only category poorly represented was those who had less

than one year of teaching experience (n=3, 2.5%). The breakdown of respondents’ teaching

experience can be seen in Figure 6.1.


Figure 6.1: Years of teaching experience of respondents

Respondents resided in a variety of countries including Australia, Brazil, Canada, England,

France, Greece, Netherlands, New Zealand, Philippines, South Africa, Sweden, United

States of America and Wales.

6.3 Microblog usage of respondents Questions 6-9 of the survey were designed to ascertain the microblog usage of respondents

(refer Appendix 1). Question 6 asked respondents which microblogging services they used

regularly, as distinct from SNS sites like Facebook and Google+. Of those who answered

this question (n=119), the most frequently used service was Twitter (n=112, 94.1%). This is

not surprising given that Twitter was the service used to distribute the invitation to

participate in the survey and it was also the microblogging service of focus for this study.

Other microblogging services used were Plurk (n=25, 21%), Tumblr (n=18, 15.1%), Yammer

(n=13, 10.9%) and Free & Social (n=1, 0.8%). Six people (5%) listed “other” services but,

when reviewed, these were shown to be general social networking sites rather than

microblogging services. As outlined in Section 3.2.4, educators who are using

microblogging could be considered innovators and early adopters and could be adapting

different technologies to meet specific needs (E. M. Rogers, 1995) an idea referred to by

Couros (2006) as “personalization of innovation” (p. 36).


Question 7 asked respondents how long they had been using microblogging, while

question 8 asked respondents to indicate the average amount of time they spent per week

microblogging. The most frequently reported length of time for respondents using

microblogging was 1-3 years (n=60, 50.4%) with only a small number of respondents having

used microblogging for more than 6 years (n=7, 5.9%). The latter is not surprising because,

as noted in Section 2.2, microblogging only became available on July 13, 2006 with the

launch of Twitter. The largest number of respondents indicated that they spend 4-6 hours per

week using microblogging (n=38, 31.9%) closely followed by 1-3 hours per week (n=35,

29.4%). Figure 6.2 presents a summary of the duration of respondents’ microblog usage

compared with the number of hours of use per week.

Figure 6.2: Duration of respondents’ microblog usage compared with hours usage per week

Question 9 asked respondents how many social networking communities (including

microblogging) they belong to. The largest category of respondents (n=54, 45.4%) belong to

4-6 social networking communities (including microblogging), while 39.5% ((n=47) belong

to 1-3 social networking communities. A small number of respondents (n=10, 8.4%) belong

to 7-10 social networking communities while even fewer (n=8, 6.7%) belong to more than

10 social networking communities.


6.4 Microblogging behaviour of respondents The third section of the survey (Questions 10 and 11) was designed to capture the

microblogging behaviour of educators. Question 10 asked respondents about the people they

chose to follow, that is, add to their microblogging network, respondents indicated that they

follow a variety of people ranging from celebrities (n=18, 15.3%) and students (n=18,

15.3%) to family and friends (n=65, 55.1%), peers (n=80, 67.8%), experts (n=97, 82.2%)

and colleagues (n=103, 87.3%). It can be seen from Figure 6.3 that the microblogging

networks of the educators in this study largely consist of colleagues, experts and peers. It is

of interest to note that a list of “Top 15” people to follow on Twitter as revealed by Time

Magazine in March 2013 (Lombard, 2013) comprised four journalists, two actors, two

writers, a newsfeed, a museum, a city mayor, a shop, an astrophysicist and a sports star.

Figure 6.3: Categories of people that respondents added to their microblogging network

Question 11 was designed to build upon the content analysis of microblog posts

undertaken and described in Chapter 5. As discussed in section 5.7, the interactions observed

in microblog posts were grouped into several broad themes, that is, the sharing of resources;

personal and professional conversations; requests for help; offering solutions; connecting

people; and presenting ideas. By cross-referencing these interactions with those reported in

the literature (Alderton, et al., 2011; Educause, 2007; Grosseck & Holotescu, 2008;


Holotescu & Grosseck, 2009; Java, et al., 2007; Parry, 2008), the following list of

microblogging behaviours was compiled:

• Share a resource, for example a website, book or video

• On-share a resource posted by someone in your network

• Aggregate other's posts into an online “newsletter”

• Share information from a conference or workshop using a hashtag (#)

• Save a resource posted by someone in your network

• Go back to a saved resource posted by someone in your network

• Follow a link posted by someone in your network

• Use hashtags (#)

• Engage in synchronous “meetups” using a pre-defined #

• Engage in a conversation with someone in your network

• Search for content

• Ask for a resource on a specific topic

• Ask for general help

• Ask for support

• Share professional frustrations

• Post an update of your activities

• Read activity updates of others in your network

• Act on something you have read in a microblog post

Survey respondents were asked how often they engaged in each of these microblogging

behaviours. The synthesis of these findings is presented in Table 6.3; listed in the random

order they appeared in the survey.


Table 6.3

Microblogging behaviours of survey respondents

Behaviour Never

n (%)

Sometimes

n (%)

Often

n (%)

Usually

n (%)

Always

n (%)

Total

n

Share a resource e.g.,

website, book, video

0

0.0%

28

23.9%

34

29.1%

31

26.5%

24

20.5%

117

On-share a resource posted

by someone in your network

3

2.5%

27

22.9%

33

28.0%

36

30.5%

19

16.1%

118

Aggregate other's posts into

an online “newsletter”

86

74.1%

13

11.2%

8

6.9%

8

6.9%

2

1.7%

116

Share information from a

conference/workshop using#

10

8.5%

33

28.0%

23

19.5%

31

26.3%

21

17.8%

118

Save a resource posted by

someone in your network

2

1.7%

14

11.9%

41

34.7%

39

33.1%

22

18.6%

118

Go back to a saved resource

posted by someone in network

5

4.2%

23

19.5%

32

27.1%

44

37.3%

14

11.9%

118

Follow a link posted by

someone in your network

0

0.0%

6

5.1%

35

29.9%

54

46.2%

22

18.8%

117

Use hashtags (#)

6

5.1%

28

23.7%

19

16.1%

36

30.5%

30

25.4%

118

Engage in synchronous

“meetups” using pre-defined #

28

23.7%

40

33.9%

24

20.3%

13

11.0%

13

11.0%

118

Engage in a conversation

with someone in network

4

3.4%

35

29.7%

23

19.5%

32

27.1%

24

20.3%

118

Search for content

6

5.1%

35

29.7%

27

22.9%

26

22.0%

24

20.3%

118

Ask for a resource on a

specific topic

7

5.9%

46

39.0%

25

21.2%

28

23.7%

13

11.0%

118

Ask for general help

18

15.3%

44

37.3%

30

25.4%

20

16.9%

9

7.6%

118

Ask for support

18

15.4%

50

42.7%

29

24.8%

16

13.7%

5

4.3%

117

Share professional

frustrations

25

21.2%

47

39.8%

20

18.6%

16

13.6%

8

6.8%

118


Post an update of your

activities

18

15.3%

28

23.7%

29

24.6%

26

22.0%

17

14.4%

118

Read activity updates of

others in your network

2

1.7%

18

15.3%

37

31.4%

35

29.7%

28

23.7%

118

Act on something you have

read in a microblog post

2

1.7%

19

16.2%

46

39.3%

41

35.0%

12

10.3%

117

As can be discerned from Table 6.3, most educators engage in most microblogging

behaviours at some time. The exceptions to this are that a large number of respondents

(n=86, 74.1%) never aggregate other people’s posts into an online newsletter; many do not

engage in synchronous “meetups” using a pre-defined hashtag (n=28, 23.7%); or share

professional frustrations (n=25, 21.2%). The behaviours most exhibited (n=12), as indicated

by less than 10% of respondents revealing that they “never” undertook them, listed from

most frequently exhibited microblogging behaviours to least frequently exhibited

microblogging behaviours, were:

i) Share a resource e.g., website, book, video

ii) Follow a link posted by someone in your network

iii) Read activity updates of others in your network

iv) Save a resource posted by someone in your network

v) Act on something you have read in a microblog post

vi) On-share a resource posted by someone in your network

vii) Engage in a conversation with someone in network

viii) Go back to a saved resource posted by someone in network

ix) Use hashtags (#)

x) Search for content

xi) Ask for a resource on a specific topic

xii) Share information from a conference/workshop using#

6.5 The place of microblogging in PLNs In the final section of the survey (questions 12-14), respondents were given a description of

PLNs as a collection of people and resources that guide learning, point individuals to

learning opportunities, answer questions, and give individuals the benefit of their knowledge


and experience (Nielsen, 2008) and, with this description in mind, were asked how important

their professional learning network (PLN) was in their overall professional learning

(question 12) and how important microblogging was in their PLN (question 13). Of the 112

who answered this question, the majority indicated that their PLN was extremely important

in their overall professional learning (n=66, 58.9%) and that microblogging was extremely

important (n=49, 43.4%) or very important (n=38, 33.6%) in their PLN. Only two

respondents (1.8%) indicated that their PLN was not very important in their overall

professional learning and three (2.7%) indicated that microblogging was not very important

in their PLN. When asked whether they considered participation in microblogging to be a

meaningful form of professional learning, the majority (n=104, 92%) agreed that it was, two

(1.8%) indicated that it was not meaningful and seven (6.2%) believe it to be occasionally

meaningful.

In addition to questions about the value of microblogging, survey respondents were asked

to provide a short account of how they used microblogging for their professional learning

and the advantages of participating in microblogging (question 14). Certain themes emerged:

i) access to timely information;

ii) making diverse and global connections;

iii) access to valuable resources;

iv) access to advice and support;

v) ability to attend a conference “virtually” by following the hashtags posted by

others;

vi) engaging in conversations and discussions;

vii) access to experts;

viii) keeping up with current trends;

ix) extending their networks beyond their local area;

x) reciprocity; and

xi) learning.

The following sections discuss in detail these eleven themes, for the most part, in the

respondents’ voices. It is to be noted that the online survey was taken anonymously so it is

not possible to identify the educators who made the responses quoted in this section.


6.5.1 Timely information

Finding information, resources and answers to questions at the point in time when they are

needed was noted as of value to microbloggers. One educator expressed the value to them as

being “instantaneous information being shared while learning takes place”, while others

expressed it thus:

“It is specific and immediately relevant. My PLN is a HelpDesk in a box

whether for professional questions, dialogue or therapy. If I have a question

about process, I can reach out to those who have been there and done that.

But I also use it to test and refine my own ideas and projects.”

“I can get help any time I need it through microblogging. I find lots of great

resources and I have networked with people from all around the globe. I get

support and guidance from others. I have been very purposeful in forming my

PLN and have built relationships with many of them.”

“I use microblogging to connect with others, broaden my horizons, and to

access resources to specific questions. The nature of microblogging allows

me to access PD during times & places that fit my life at any given moment.

PD via microblogging is self-directed as well as providing exposure to new

ideas.”

A common theme in all of these comments is the immediacy of responses and the breadth

of experience available through the network. This would indicate that educators like to have

information at the point in time in which they need it, and that they value the experience of

others in providing answers to their queries.

6.5.2 Diverse and global connections

The value of a diverse and global network was noted in Section 6.5.1; however, more insight

into this value is demonstrated in the following comments:

“I have curated a diverse PLN that range from undergraduate students (not

my own), graduate students, preservice and inservice teachers as well as

professors and administrators. This group provides stories of their own

learning as well as suggestions, comments and questions that further my

professional growth.”

“I was introduced to microblogging in using Plurk. I soon became connected

with many others also in the teaching profession. Having the ability to

interact with those others, who are from all parts of the country, gave me a


way to learn things about education and technology that I would never have

had if I hadn't been a part of this PLN.”

“I follow people from all over the world who post lots of information on what

is going on the uses of technology in language teaching and on education.

The main advantage is that if I want to know about something really new I

just have to check what these people are writing about.”

In addition to the value of the knowledge and experience shared through a diverse and

global network, some educators noted the role microblogging played in keeping them

connected to, or in some cases giving them, a network of peers. This was expressed by one

educator as “Twitter is my primary source of connection with distant colleagues” and by

another as:

“I use twitter to keep up to date with current and ex-colleagues. That works

well, as it hardly costs any time to see what they're doing. I've put twitter on

my netvibes start page, so each time I open a new browser window, it comes

up. When I've got something interesting to say I tweet, about 1 a day (mainly

always the news is positive). It's nice way to keep in touch.”

On a similar theme, another educator noted the importance of creating a peer network where

one didn’t exist because of geographic remoteness:

“I gain and share ideas and resources with other teachers from around the

globe; if I have questions, someone invariably has suggestions. I teach in a

rural school district where I'm the only teacher at my grade level;

microblogging gives me peers that I wouldn't ordinarily have.”

6.5.3 Valuable resources

The value of the resources shared via microblogging was embedded in many of the

comments, however, the following responses illustrate specifically how this aspect of

microblogging is valued:

“… microblogging also offers me access to resources I may have never

known about or found on my own, and quite possibly others have tried and

reviewed. The body of knowledge just grows and grows.”

“I enjoy utilizing resources that others share, sharing resources I find, too. It

is my first place to turn to when I need a quick resource or suggestion.”


These statements support and extend those cited in Section 6.5.1 about timely information

and indicate that educators value the resources shared by other educators. The reference to

the growing “body of knowledge” is an example of “collective intelligence” as outlined in

Section 3.1.1 and discussed further in Chapter 8

6.5.4 Advice and support

Closely related to the value of resources and connections presented above, is the value

educators place on the advice and support they obtain from their microblogging network.

Examples of the ways in which educators are seeking, and getting, advice and support are:

“If I am researching a specific topic, I like to ask input from my PLN.”

“I post lessons, reworked classroom policies, etc, and ask for feedback. What

did I miss, what pitfalls am I missing, etc.”

“…asking for help on bringing my own ideas to life - quicker than randomly

searching the Internet”

This would indicate that educators value the advice and support of colleagues, experts and

peers since survey respondents revealed that these were the types of people in their network

(see Section 6.4).

6.5.5 Virtual conference attendance

Survey respondents saw being informed about ideas and discussion at conferences by

following the hashtag posts made by delegates as valuable. This was noted as:

“…I connect with conferences virtually and make connections with experts

and professionals in my field of interest….”

“…I also sometimes use Twitter to monitor the conversation going on at

conferences I am unable to attend.”

“I use twitter hashtags to find out what's going on at conferences eg

#plelead…”

With diminishing professional development budgets, educators are not able to attend all of

the face-to-face conferences they might like. Microblogging has provided a substitute for

this by allowing those not on-site at the conference to follow the posts made by those who

are in attendance.


6.5.6 Conversations and discussions

The value of having conversations and discussions with other educators was noted by many

of the respondents. Typical responses were:

“I have found resources and new ideas at my fingertips. The discussions are

engaging; I rarely find the same level of engagement at work”

“I vent, I share, I learn, I share, I listen, I share, I get information from

others, I share, I develop friendships, I share.”

“Microblogging is a quick way to keep me updated, connected,

communicating and engaging with others sharing a similar professional

interest.”

“I talk to people. All sorts of conversations, all the time, both professional

and personal.”

These comments further support the comments made about the value of (a) diverse and

global connections (Section 6.5.2) and (b) the advice and support of other educators (Section

6.5.4) and would indicate that educators value professional learning which consists of

learning from other educators.

6.5.7 Access to experts

One of the advantages of microblogging that was noted by participants was that they could

be connected to experts in their field. The value of this access is encapsulated in the

following comments:

“Twitter has allowed me to read what experts and laymen in my particular

field are saying about my field, and allowing me to stay up to date with what

is happening in the world of education. I know that I am up on more of the

current research on teaching, learning, etc. than a lot of my non-Twitter

using colleagues as a direct result of following who I do.”

“The biggest advantage of participating in microblogging is building the

personal connections with educators from around the world. Via twitter, I

am put in an incredible position of learning from a greater pool of "experts"

(students and teachers alike) who offer a unique view of the world outside of

my own area. Together we pool our resources, offer advice & support, and

bounce ideas back and forth. I have collaborated more online with educators

than I have in my own school building.”


These comments would indicate that not only is the access to experts valuable, but that the

currency of information is important, a theme previously noted in Section 6.5.1.

6.5.8 Current trends

Related to all of the previous themes is the fact that microblogging allows educators to

remain informed about current trends in both learning and technology. Typical comments on

this theme were:

“Twitter allows me to understand current trends and resources as they

emerge. It connects me to other like minded professionals.”

“I rely on Twitter to stay current with advancements in my field. I've worked

hard to develop a healthy PLN and actively try to engage the members of my

network. The more people share, the more I learn and the more I grow as a

teacher.”

“I use it daily to keep a finger on the pulse of what is happening in education

and then I use it regularly to either gain answers to questions or share

answers to questions. I could not do what I do with technology without the

support of my PLN.”

“Most weeks I connect with maths teachers from around the globe for a

#mathchat. Everytime I tweet a link I direct it to specific groups of tweeps

such as #vicpln, #ozscichat, #slide2learn etc. These activities, along with

others, help me to keep up to date with the current debate on educational

reform, changing pedagogies and specific subject content and new web tools

to explore. It also enables me to ask questions and support/mentor others. I

no longer have to wait for out of date periodicals to land on my desk. I no

longer feel shy about asking questions. I no longer struggle to find

resources.”

This would indicate that educators have a desire to keep themselves abreast of current trends

and that they view microblogging as an ideal way to do this.

6.5.9 Extending networks

A number of participants mentioned that their microblogging activities allowed them to

extend their networks – both virtually and in the physical world. Examples of comments

were:


“Often I on-share ideas across platforms - a number of my PLN use Fb

preferentially over Twitter so I may on-share from Fb to Twitter”

“I have had people visit my school as a result of twitter groups to extend links

and have gained many resources and structure ideas that I never could have

accessed without long hard searches.”

“mBing has helped inspire me, connect me with those that are smarter and

more innovative than me and fuels me for a new year. It also connects me

with those that are as passionate as me.”

This would indicate that the “network” is a valuable feature of microblogging and that

educators engaged in more than one network, share resources and ideas across those

networks.

6.5.10 Reciprocity

Finally, the theme of reciprocity often emerged, for example:

“It also allows me to give back to my colleagues, which I can't always do

locally.”

“I use twitter to give and receive information”

Reciprocity in microblogging was noted by Rheingold (2012) as being when people give and

ask freely for information they need and was listed as one of the reasons he, himself, uses

Twitter. Couros (2006) also noted this phenomenon in his study of PLNs whereby network

participants engaged in both consumption and publication, that is, knowledge was shared and

exchanged, not simply taken. The comments from survey respondents indicate that they also

value this aspect of microblogging.

In his examination of social connectedness, Gladwell (2000) introduces the roles of

“connector”, “maven” and “salesman” and describes these roles as being critical in the

dissemination of information in what he refers to as social epidemics. Connectors, who play

the role of bringing people together and extending social networks, could be important

within professional learning networks (PLNs) because of the number and kinds of people

they know and subsequently link together. Maven is a Yiddish word used to describe

someone who accumulates knowledge, but, more importantly, as described by Gladwell

(2000) mavens aren’t passive collectors of information, they like to share their knowledge

and “to be a Maven is to be a teacher” (p. 69). This exchange of information is described in

the literature as reciprocity and is often referred to in relation to social networks; notably by


Johannisson (1987) in his examination of social exchange networks; by Putnam (2001) as to

to the value of networks and the associated norms of reciprocity in relation to social capital;

and was examined by Aviv, Erlich and Ravid (2005) in a detailed study in relation to

reciprocity and online learning networks. The final role introduced by Gladwell (2000) is

that of salesman and is used to describe those in the network who have the skill of

persuasion.

6.5.11 Learning

Many of the educators in this study believed that they learnt more from their microblogging

network than any other form of professional learning in which they had engaged. Following

are examples of comments on this theme:

“Have learnt more in the 4+ years that I have been on Twitter than I had in

the previous 20 years of attending workshops etc”

“I use it for learning, teaching and communicating with students and

teachers/peers. Great for sharing resources and getting feedback for ideas of

my own.”

“I follow links to resources, websites, blogs, articles etc which could have a

positive influence on my practice. I enjoy reading other's experiences and

learning from my peers. I have supportive followers within my network who I

can use as a source of advice and support.”

“Share resources; share student work; gather mid-project feedback for

improvement suggestions; test ideas; gather personal and professional

support; learn, learn, learn. :)”

As the focus of this study was the use of microblogging for professional learning, this theme

was explored further with the interview subjects who participated in Phase 3 of the study and

is discussed in detail in Section 7.2.2.

6.6 Overview of findings from the survey As noted in Section 6.1, the purpose of the online survey was to explore in further depth the

themes that emerged from Phase 1 of the research and to gather microblog usage, behaviours

and attitudes of educators in order to provide insight into the value they placed on their

participation in microblogging. The survey comprised 14 questions, which were organised

around four themes: (a) demographics, (b) microblog usage, (c) microblog behaviour, and

(d) PLN use. As noted, the survey was completed by 121 educators.


As revealed in Table 6.1, the majority of respondents was female (n=84, 69.4%) and

aged 50-59 (n=33, 39.3%) while the largest representation of male respondents (n=14,

37.8%) belonged to the 30-39 age bracket. Respondents came from all sectors of education;

with the largest category coming from the K-12 sector (n=70, 57.9%) and they had a range

of teaching experience, with the largest category having more than 20 years experience

(n=32, 26.4%) (see Figure 6.1).

With regard to microblog usage and behaviour, the majority use Twitter (n=112, 94.1%),

have been using microblogging for 1-3 years (n=60, 50.4%) and spend 4-6 hours per week

using microblogging (n=38, 31.9%). The largest category of respondents (n=54, 45.4%)

belong to 4-6 social networking communities (including microblogging), while a small

number (n=8, 6.7%) belong to more than 10 social networking communities.

The survey revealed that most educators engage in a variety of microblogging behaviours

at some time (see Table 6.3) with the most frequent being (see Section 6.4):

• share a resource, for example, a website, book, or video;

• on-share a resource posted by someone in your network;

• share information from a conference/workshop using a hashtag;

• save a resource posted by someone in your network;

• go back to a saved resource posted by someone in your network;

• follow a link posted by someone in your network;

• use hashtags;

• engage in a conversation with someone in your network;

• search for content;

• ask for a resource on a specific topic;

• read activity updates of others in your network; and

• act on something you have read in a microblog post.

The intent of this study was to investigate the value some educators place on

microblogging as a professional learning tool, and, importantly, the survey revealed that the

majority of respondents (n=104, 92%) indicated that they considered participation in


microblogging to be a meaningful form of professional learning. The majority of

respondents indicated that their PLN was extremely important in their overall professional

learning (n=66, 58.9%) and that microblogging was extremely important (n=49, 43.4%) or

very important (n=38, 33.6%) in their PLN. The themes that emerged from comments about

the value of microblogging for professional learning were timely information; diverse and

global connections; valuable resources; advice and support; virtual conference attendance;

conversations and discussions; access to experts; current trends; extending networks;

reciprocity; and learning. The value of microblogging for professional learning is captured in

this response from a survey participant (anonymous):

“I regularly follow hashtag chats (#ozengchat etc) to gain resources, ideas

and conversation about specific curriculum areas. I always use the

conference hashtag when attending conferences which allows me to share

and receive resources and ideas but I also follow conference hashtags for

conferences I don't attend and I feel that I still gain similar benefits simply by

participating in the hashtag from my desk/classroom. I follow educators and

teachers that I believe provide excellent conversation and resources for my

curriculum areas. The advantages are that I feel connected all the time and

even though I might not be able to access professional learning all the time

due to time or financial constraints, I can always access my PLN and the

fabulous people and resources that are shared in the microblogging space.”

The value of microblogging for professional learning was further explored in Phase 3 of

the study through one-on-one interviews. From the survey respondents who indicated their

willingness to participate in one-on-one interviews (n=63), a range of educators (n=9) were

chosen to be interviewed. The results of these interviews are the focus of Chapter 7.


7Chapter 7: Findings – Interviews

This chapter presents the findings resulting from the third phase of the research methodology

as described in Chapter 4, that is, the one-on-one interviews. The third, and final, phase of

the study was designed to answer the fourth of the research questions about how

microblogging can support professional learning. Section 7.1 presents a profile of the

interview subjects; Section 7.2 presents the findings from the interviews; and finally, Section

7.3 presents an overview of findings from the interviews.

7.1 Profile of interview subjects As noted in Section 4.3.4, the one-on-one interviews were held with purposively selected

educators (n=9) who completed the online survey administered in Phase 2 of the study. In

order to determine the interview subjects, the responses of educators who indicated that:





d. they commented on how they used microblogging for professional learning (n=90);

were cross tabulated.

This resulted in a smaller subset of educators (n=43) whose responses were further cross

tabulated with those who indicated that they would be willing to participate in the interview

process, and resulted in a group of possible candidates for interview (n=37).

In order to obtain a broadly indicative sample of interview subjects, further cross

tabulation of the group of possible candidates for interview (n=37) was carried out across

demographic information gathered in Questions 1-5 of the online survey. The sample group

chosen for interview (n=9) represented a cross section of variables (see Tables 4.1, 7.1).

These are:

• educational sectors – K-12, vocational education and training (VET), university and

teacher professional development (a mentor and a coach);

• gender - female (n=5) and male (n=4);


• teaching experience – from less than one year’s experience to more than 20 years’

experience;

• ages – from 20-29 years of age to 50-59 years of age;

• microblogging experience – from less than one year’s experience to more than six

years’ experience;

• time spent microblogging – from 1-3 hours per week to 11-12 hours per week; and

• nationalities – Australia, Canada, United Kingdom and United States of America.

Table 7.1 represents the profiles of interview subjects. This table is similar to that

presented as Table 4.1. The salient difference is the order of dimensions here altered

to facilitate discussion of an activity ranking based on interview subject’s experience.

Table 7.1

Profile of interview subjects

Educator: A B C D E F G H I

Years of

teaching

experience

16-20 16-20 <1 11-14 1-5 6-10 16-20 20+ 6-10

Years of

microblogging

1-3 4-6 <1 1-3 1-3 >6 4-6 1-3 1-3

Microblogging

hours per week

4-6 1-3 4-6 4-6 4-6 10-12 10-12 4-6 1-3

Sector VET VET K-12 K-12 K-12 Uni Uni Mentor Ed

Tech

Gender M F F F M F M F M

Age 50-59 50-59 40-49 40-49 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 30-39

Country USA Aust UK USA Canada USA USA Aust Aust


A subsequent categorisation of the interview subjects was needed to assist in interpreting

the collated data. This relates to the subject’s experience in: (a) teaching experience (in

years) and (b) their experience in microblogging, both in years of use and in hours per week

of engagement. The ranges offered in the survey for each of these three dimensions can be

interpreted as low, medium, high/high+. This is explained in Table 7.2.

Table 7.2

Categorisation of teaching experience and microblogging activity

Low Medium High High+

Teaching experience (years) <1-5 6-10 11-20 20+

Microblogging (years) <1 1-3 4->6

Microblogging (hours per week) 1-3 4-6 7-12

These three measures were then used to determine an “activity ranking” for each of the

educators interviewed (see Table 7.3). This was derived by first considering each educator’s

microblogging activity followed by a consideration of teaching experience (in years) which

acted as a discriminator in determining the activity ranking displayed in Table 7.3. For

example, there were only two (Educators F and G) with “high” in both years of use and

hours of engagement per week. Educator G was ranked ahead of Educator F due to greater

teaching experience. Similarly, teaching experience was used to discriminate between

Educators H and A who were respectively ranked in 5th and 6th position.


Table 7.3

Activity ranking (in descending order)

Educator Teaching

experience

Microblogging activity Activity Ranking

Years Hours per week

I Medium Low Low 9

B High High Low 8

C Low Low Medium 7

A High Low Medium 6

H High+ Low Medium 5

E Low Medium Medium 4

D High Medium Medium 3

F Medium High High 2

G High High High 1

In this, Educator G may be seen to have the most experience while Educator I may be said to

have the least experience in the context of microblogging as a professional learning network.

7.2 Findings from the one-on-one interviews The interview questions were designed to answer the fourth of the research questions about

how microblogging can support professional learning. As outlined in Section 4.4.3, all

interview subjects were asked the following questions:

1. What types of microblogging activities contribute to your learning?

2. How is this learning evidenced?

3. In the survey you said that you follow experts - how and what do you learn from

these people?

4. In the survey you said that you follow peers - how and what do you learn from these

people?


5. How do you think you contribute to other people's learning?

6. What (if any) are the disadvantages for you of participating in microblogging as a

form of professional learning?

Before examining the responses from interview subjects in detail, it is useful to note the

microblogging behaviour of the least, and one of the most, experienced microbloggers, that

is, Educator C (Activity Rank 7) who has just qualified as a teacher and has been using

microblogging for less than a year with Educator G (Activity Rank 1) who has been teaching

for 16-20 years and has been using microblogging for 4-6 years. Educator C follows 713

people and described how she started her microblogging network by following local

educators whose work she admired and then extended her network by following who they

were connected to, which led her to following educators globally. She sometimes asks for

help & advice, doesn’t contribute much and operates more as a follower than a leader.

Educator G follows 4,916 people and described how he consumes a lot of information and

has a system for managing this so that he can quickly scan numerous different categories and

lists for resources and “interesting thinking”. He shares numerous resources, learning from

the resulting reactions and dialogues from people who often share new resources in response,

which, in turn, cause him to think in different directions. Findings for each question are

presented in Sections 7.2.1 – 7.2.6. Interview subjects’ comments are presented as Educator

A-I and correspond to the profiles presented in Table 7.1.

7.2.1 Types of microblogging activities

In order to further explore microblogging activities exposed in Phases 1 and 2 of the study,

and to discover how microblogging contributed to professional learning, Question 1 asked

interview subjects, “What types of microblogging activities contribute to your learning?”

The types of activities that were put forward in response to this question corresponded with

those from the analysis of the microblog posts (refer Section 5.7) and with the responses

from the online survey (refer Section 6.4). In order to show which microblogging activities

the interview subjects believed contributed to their learning, their responses have been

tabulated against those from the wider survey and presented in Figure 7.1. The most

exhibited microblogging activities (n=12) (as extrapolated from responses to the online

survey) (see Section 6.4) have been listed. Those shaded represent the activities that were

noted by interview subjects as contributing to their learning.


Share a resource e.g., website, book, video

Follow a link posted by someone in your network

Read activity updates of others in your network

Save a resource posted by someone in your network

Act on something you have read in a microblog post

On-share a resource posted by someone in your network

Engage in a conversation with someone in network

Go back to a saved resource posted by someone in network

Use hashtags (#)

Search for content

Ask for a resource on a specific topic

Share information from a conference/workshop using#

Figure 7.1: Microblogging activities noted as contributing to learning

Each of the activities noted as contributing to learning in Figure 7.1 is now examined in

the light of responses from interview subjects. It is to be noted that the activity engage in

synchronous “meetups” using pre-defined # was not one of the most frequently cited

activities by survey respondents, however, it was noted by several interview subjects as

contributing to their learning. In contrast, it was noted by two interview subjects as not being

a useful learning activity. Therefore, it is examined in more detail in this section.


Exchanges with educators beyond his immediate group was noted by Educator I (Activity

Ranking 9) as an important contributor to his learning. This theme was echoed by others,

with the global nature of the connections noted as being of importance by Educators H and B

(Activity Ranks 5 and 8, respectively) who are both experienced educators with 16-20+

years of teaching experience. Educator E (Activity Rank 3) took this a step further, reporting

how he is “often looking for opportunities to collaborate with other teachers with whom to

exchange ideas and collaborate”. Once these connections have been made, the group of


teachers involved moves to another online platform in which they collaborate. Educator E

then compiles the ideas exchanged and shares it back with the group, thus contributing to

others’ learning in addition to his own learning. In contrast, Educator B (Activity Rank 8)

said that a tweet can start a long discussion which remains on Twitter. She explained: “I’ve

been involved in really long, big discussions (not hashtag ones – those as well) on Twitter

which we might have moved to another platform but we didn’t because we were all quite

happy doing it that way [on Twitter]”.

Educator F (Activity Rank 2) revealed that she is geographically “remote and

disconnected” and that microblogging is “a great way to feel like I’m still part of a larger

community” which contribute to her learning. This theme was expanded by Educator G

(Activity Rank 1) who said that you never know who will be present in the network at any

point in time and therefore never know who will interact or what direction the conversation

will take. He found this aspect of microblogging opened many unforeseen learning

opportunities for him and reported that:

“Sometimes I’ll drop in on a conversation – I’ll see a conversation playing

out elsewhere and I’ll drop in. That’s another place for learning and

dialogue and watching. They’re not pushing out resources but they’re

dialoguing about something and I learn from that.”

Similarly, Educator A (Activity Rank 6) related how regularly engaging with others in his

network “…challenges what I do on a regular basis or reinforces what I do on a regular

basis and causes me to rethink what I do”. Educator D (Activity Rank 4) explained how this

works for her:

“You do get other ideas from other teachers that you can kinda bounce back

and forth. Like I might say ‘I did this’ and then they might say ‘Oh I did this

and I twisted it this way’. You know, just so you can kind of further your

lessons.”

Use hashtags (#)

With regards to the use of hashtags, a common activity is to post on topics of relevance to a

particular group of educators by using a specific hashtag (refer Section 2.2.2). This then

becomes a collection of ideas and resources that can be accessed asynchronously through

searching for the specified hashtag. Educator H (Activity Rank 5) described how she first

experienced this practice as a component of a formal, online professional development

course in which she was a participant. She said: “As a result of that [course] there was a

hashtag that was used and I started using Twitter with that group of people who were doing


the course. I think the course has now run about five times so slowly that population is

building up”. She then described how the use of this hashtag has, over time, extended

beyond the participants in the original course and is used by numerous librarians and

educators to share links and help each other.


Educator B (Activity Rank 8) believed that microblogging was ideal for “just in time”

answers and that there was “always somebody awake” in her global network and available to

answer her questions. She revealed: “If I get really stuck on something and I just post out a

tweet, I can get an answer quite quickly. Sometimes I get a flood of responses, sometimes I

get only one and sometimes I get none”. Additionally, Educator B said, “It’s also great

because it means I can do the same for other people and I think a lot of this sort of

professional development is very much about reciprocation – about putting in as well as

taking out.” Similarly, Educator D (Activity Rank 4) posts questions to her network in order

to get answers and referred to Twitter as her “learning community”.

Share information from a conference/workshop using #

Several interview subjects noted the importance of following conferences through the

hashtag being used as a back channel. In this practice, delegates who are attending a

conference post their own thoughts and/or statements made by speakers at the conference

with a pre-defined hashtag included in their tweet (refer Section 2.2.3). Educator I (Activity

Ranking 9) explained that daily he checks his twitter stream to see what conference back

channels are active in his network and then follows the live stream of any that are of interest.

He explained:

“I think the best by far is when teachers use hashtags for whatever conference

or meetup that they might be at. Because I can then just log into tweetdeck,

and then I peruse who’s being active that day, and if I see an interesting

hashtag, I click on it and make it its own column [in Tweetdeck] and then I

can just follow all the back channel conversations. It’s awesome – one day I

felt like I was at four different conferences at once.”

Educator B (Activity Rank 8) regularly contributes to conference back channels and

revealed: “What I find really useful about tweeting from conferences is that it’s a very good

way of internalising it for me because I’m sort of summarising on the hoof and so that helps

to maintain my engagement in what’s going on”. She added that an important outcome was

that this produced an instant summary of the conference for later reference.


Finally, Educator H (Activity Rank 5) explained her use of conference hashtags:

“Following back channels for conferences have been fantastic and actually contributing to

conferences. So if they invite tweets from the virtual audience, I’ve participated that way”. She

added: “Also when I'm at a conference I will tweet back to my PLN so that people can get

feedback that way. So I use it following a back channel and contributing to the back channel”.

Engage in synchronous “meetups” using pre-defined #

Another use for hashtags is to organise synchronous chats, often referred to as “meetups”,

where educators come together at a pre-determined time to discuss a pre-determined topic by

posting with pre-defined hashtag included in their tweet (refer Section 2.2.3). While several

educators indicated that they regularly participated in these meetups, two of the less

experienced microbloggers indicated that they (a) find the meetups “overwhelming”

(Educator A, Activity Rank 6) and (b) sometimes get “lost” in the amount of activity and

often watch but not contribute (Educator C, Activity Rank 7).

Educator H (Activity Rank 5), who does engage in live meetups explained their value to

her:

“Last year I was using the mathchat hashtag and every Friday morning at

11o’clock there’s mathchat…that was a global chat and that was really good,

really interesting just to share ideas about all sorts of things maths teaching

wise.”

She added: “Global live chats are fantastic. There’s so many of them on now that I just drift

in and out of them sometimes”.

7.2.2 Evidence of learning

As this study was informed by the theory of social constructivism (see Section 3.1), the

researcher was concerned to explore in more depth how educators perceived their learning

from microblogging to be evidenced. Accordingly, Question 2 asked interview subjects to

relate how their learning was evidenced. All interview subjects considered that their learning

was extensive and evident in their practice. However, there were differences in the ways in

which their learning was evidenced, with some educators using other mediums to reflect

upon the ideas and resources they garnered through microblogging. For example, Educator H

(Activity Rank 5), an experienced educator, believes that through connecting with other

educators via microblogging, she has gained many and varied skills and knowledge in digital

pedagogy and she evidences this through reflections in her blog. She reported: “I now

syphon everything through the blog – everything is there. In actual fact I’ve gone back over


the months and I’ve retagged all my posts and organised it a bit better so I can use it as a

portfolio of learning over the past two years”.

Similarly, Educator E (Activity Rank 3), an early career teacher, described how if an idea

or resource catches his attention in microblogging, he will write a blog post about it and

invite other educators to contribute. Furthermore, Educator G (Activity Rank 1), an

experienced university lecturer, believes that microblogging posts feed his thinking and this

is reflected in his blogging and writing of policy briefs and research articles. He finds that

microblogging provides him with a constant source of ideas to stimulate his thinking and is

more current than traditional journals.

The educators with less teaching experience use microblogging as a source of information

and inspiration. For example, Educator F (Activity Rank 2), who is an educator and a PhD

student, stated that she consciously looks for, and observes, the way in which other educators

behave in the microblogging environment and is learning how to be a professional from

watching this behaviour. She reported: “I learn a lot about how to conduct myself as a

professional by watching my peers and my professors”.

Educator C (Activity Rank 7), who has just qualified as a teacher, said that she uses

microblogging to improve her knowledge or, as she stated it, to “discover things she’s never

known.” Through microblogging she has discovered several educational projects in schools

outside her area and has become involved in these projects by contributing her time and

expertise in particular topics. However, on a cautionary note about her learning being

evidenced in practice, she said about using Twitter to follow experts: “But I’m not sure how

it’s going to impact on my day-to-day teaching in the classroom. It affects my thinking about

what’s going on – but does it affect the children that I work with, mmm, not sure”.

Educator D (Activity Rank 4) believes that she learns more from being involved in

microblogging than she does from a graduate class, she explained:

“I’m finishing up my graduate degree in instructional technology. I definitely

get more information from Twitter than I do from my graduate classes. I

mean tools that are current. What I think Twitter does, is it keeps me

absolutely on the forefront of everything. You get information so quickly that

I just would never have access to if it wasn’t on Twitter.”

This sentiment was echoed by Educator E (Activity Rank 3) who feels he has learnt just as

much from being involved in microblogging as he learnt as an undergraduate student. As

with the other educators with less teaching experience, he indicated that he observed

successful teachers and subsequently tried to emulate them; which included incorporating


the learning activities and techniques they shared into his own teaching practice. Educator E

also stated that:

“Often I’ll just read something [on Twitter] and I’ll be like ‘Wow I can’t

believe that!’ Then I’ll just be like, has anyone else had similar experiences

like that and I try and get a better idea of what’s going on worldwide on any

given topic. I find since I’ve been on Twitter I’ve been really hungry for other

teachers’ experiences and feedback on things”.

With regards to the resources gathered via microblogging, the interview subjects differed

in their approach and how they felt their learning was evidenced, with some immediately

investigating and applying resources to their teaching practice, and others saving them for

later use. For example, Educator F (Activity Rank 2) said “A lot of times with the tips I put

them directly into practice… Other things are more longitudinal like deciding to plan a

lesson with a book that was suggested to me [on Twitter]”. In contrast, Educator G (Activity

Rank 1), Educator E (Activity Rank 3) and Educator D (Activity Rank 4) save resources

found via microblogging to another platform (Diigo and Evernote) where they are tagged or

categorised so that they can be easily searched when the educator is looking for a particular

set of information, for example, when assembling a new workshop or class. Similarly,

Educator B (Activity Rank 8) said that she continually learns about new tools, which she

remembers or saves to another platform (Diigo), and although they might remain unused for

a long period of time, she uses them when they are applicable to her class. However,

Educator D acknowledged that some of the resources she has saved are never reexamined or

used in her teaching practice.

Finally, some interview subjects believed that their learning was evidenced, and

reinforced, by sharing with colleagues and fellow microbloggers. For example, Educator I

(Activity Rank 9) said: “I find an idea or a concept on Twitter, or what not, that I find so

powerful that I’ll go and verbally share it with my colleagues… I guess for me I feel like if

it’s a really good idea then I’ll want to go and tell someone in person”. This sharing results

in a professional discussion that further helps to shape his ideas about teaching and learning.

Furthermore, he added: “Microblogging has made an impact in my teaching – without it I

never would have had access to those ideas”. Similarly, Educator G (Activity Rank 1)

reported that he regularly shares ideas and resources that he has found via microblogging

which, in turn, may lead to a discussion with other educators who microblog. He reported

that this was particularly important, because his colleagues are generally not available when

he wants to discuss an idea, but that there is always someone on microblogging who can, and

will, respond.


7.2.3 Learning from experts

Question 3 reminded interview subjects that in the survey they had said that they follow

experts, and asked how and what they learned from these people. When reflecting on how

and what they learnt from the experts who microblog, interview subjects reported that, in

particular, microblogging gives them opportunities that they would not usually have to

interact with experts. Experts were variously perceived by the interview subjects; with the

early career teachers perceiving more experienced teachers as experts, along with the more

traditional view of an expert as one who has published widely in the field. Educator G

(Activity Rank 1) follows experts in fields other than education, for example marketing and

science, in order to gain a different perspective from people who have a variety of different

experiences.

Many of the interview subjects engaged in conversation and asked questions of experts.

For example, Educator F (Activity Rank 2) reported that she engaged in both short and

longer-term conversations with experts and often this resulted in them following her

microblog activities. Similarly, Educator E (Activity Rank 3) said that he sometimes

responds to a microblog post by an expert, to which they will respond and frame in a

different way, and that he found great value in this, as experts give him a different

perspective and make him think. He also reported that if he is face-to-face with experts he is

shy, but via microblogging he is not, and has more time to frame his questions and

comments. Educator I (Activity Rank 9) said that he sometimes asks questions directly of

experts and sometimes asks a general question to which an expert will respond.

In contrast, Educator C (Activity Rank 7), a newly appointed teacher, does not regularly

interact with experts, but follows experts in order to gain insights into education, and gave

this thought about when professors and students microblog: “They’ve also encouraged all of

their students to tweet during lectures and they retweet what their students tweet and it’s

amazing because you’re almost in the middle of a lecture at the same time, it’s fascinating”.

Similarly, Educator I (Activity Rank 9) follows an experienced educator who microblogs

constantly about what her students are doing and the mistakes she believes she makes as a

teacher. Educator I reported that he finds it inspiring because:

“Here was this teacher who has obviously received accolades for her

professionalism and yet she’ll tweet about a mistake she had in the classroom

or a lesson that didn’t work really well. I consider her to be an expert who I

love to emulate and she’s also talking about her own failures and I found that

really inspiring because I thought, well, if she can talk about the mistakes

she’s made surely I can as well.”


Several educators noted that microblog posts by experts will often point them to a more

detailed article by that expert, which they follow up and read. Educator D (Activity Rank 4)

reported that by being alerted to experts’ blog posts via microblogging was of great value as

she then engages at a deeper level by reading the blog post, which is not restricted to 140

characters as is microblogging. Similarly, Educator G (Activity Rank 1) reported that when

an expert shares an idea via microblogging, he will ask a further question on the topic which

the expert might then expand upon by writing a blog post.

Finally, interview subjects reported that they found it useful to be able to read research

shared via microblogging as it was more current than that in articles and books, due to the

time delay in publishing the latter. All interview subjects reported that direct access to global

experts was a great value of microblogging.

7.2.4 Learning from peers

Question 4 reminded interview subjects that in the survey they had said that they follow

peers, and asked how and what they learned from these people. When reflecting on how and

what they learn from peers, interview subjects noted that it was valuable to be able to share

ideas and experiences with educators in other parts of the world. Educator E (Activity Rank

3) said “From peers I just like hearing the kinds of experiences they’re going through and I

find often that I can relate to those experiences too. I like hearing that other people are

going through the same kind of things that I’m going through”. Similarly, Educator B

(Activity Rank 8) valued that peers give each other moral support via microblogging and

said: “We give each other a lot of moral support because I think we’re all in stressful

situations”.

Further, Educator B said that her peers on microblogging are not her colleagues at work

and that, because they operate in contexts different from hers, they can share ideas from a

different perspective. Educator F (Activity Rank 2) also noted the value in the ideas and

resources shared by peers via microblogging and said that staying in contact with peers all

over the world and hearing about the different ways things are done in different schools was

valuable. Educator E (Activity Rank 3) believes that experts always have perfect textbook

answers whereas peers will explain that while something might be a great educational model,

there might be a different outcome in a real teaching situation. The resources shared by peers

were highly valued, although Educator B (Activity Rank 8) cautioned that some

microbloggers indiscriminately share resources that they have not validated themselves,

which happens in cases where people on-share or “retweet” a resource they have discovered

via microblogging.


All interview subjects mentioned the value in being able to ask peers, via microblogging,

for ideas or resources and have these answered immediately, as there is always someone in

the world microblogging. Educator B (Activity Rank 8) summed this up by saying that

microblogging is ideal for “just in time” answers and when she posts she will sometimes

receive a “flood of answers” and sometimes none.

7.2.5 Contributing to others’ learning

Question 5 asked, “How do you think you contribute to other people's learning?” All of the

interview subjects believe that they contribute to other people's learning in a number of ways

and were quite deliberate in their efforts to do this. The theme of “giving back” to the

network came through quite strongly and was overtly evidenced by statements such as “I try

to give back” from Educator H (Activity Rank 5), who “gives back” by teaching others how

to use microblogging, responding to calls from teachers for live data, sharing through

hashtag chats and advertising other free professional learning opportunities. Educator E

(Activity Rank 3) said that he likes “connecting the dots and putting people together” and

when he hears what other educators are discussing, he will often build a resource to support

them, for example a blog or wiki. Educator E also supports educators who are new to

microblogging by reposting their posts in order to expose them to a broader network.

All of the interview subjects share ideas and resources that they have found in addition to

on-sharing ideas and resources that other educators in their network have shared. Educator B

(Activity Rank 8), a teacher with 16-12 years teaching experience, shares best practice by

posting about what has been successful in her context and therefore might work for other

educators. Similarly, Educator D (Activity Rank 4), another experienced teacher, shares

anything that went well in her classroom, often writing a longer blog post and sharing this

link via microblogging. The person who believed she contributed the least to other people's

learning was the newly appointed teacher, Educator C (Activity Rank 7) who said: “I’m

contributing with skills that I’ve got. I haven’t got much to offer but what I have got, I try to

give something back to people who are inspiring me”. However, even though she did not

share many of her own ideas, Educator C regularly on-shared resources that had been shared

with her through her network.

Another form of contributing to other people's learning was by sharing ideas espoused by

speakers at conferences or workshops. In this practice, known as “back channeling”, those

who are in attendance at a conference post statements made by speakers using a pre-

determined hashtag that identifies the conference. All except Educator C (Activity Rank 7)

made mention of participating in this practice with Educator B (Activity Rank 8) adding that

it also had a benefit to her, for in summarising ideas for others she was internalising the


learning for herself and also producing an instant summary of ideas and resources for later

reference.

7.2.6 Disadvantages of microblogging

Question 6 asked, “What (if any) are the disadvantages for you of participating in

microblogging as a form of professional learning?” In response to this question, all interview

subjects said that the amount of information exchanged within their network could be

problematic, however, several of them had techniques for dealing with this. Educator I

(Activity Rank 9) said that he was often “overwhelmed by the sheer amount of information”

and the way in which he managed this was to allocate 20 minutes per day to read and

respond to microblog posts. The method used by Educator D (Activity Rank 4) to manage

the vast amount of information was to save the resource links to another platform (Diigo)

and assign tags so that resources relating to a specific topic could be found again by

searching. She related a recent instance where she was searching for information to use in a

workshop and believed that 90% of the relevant resources had come to her via

microblogging and that these were retrieved from the tagged lists that she had previously

saved to Diigo. A similar technique is used by Educator E (Activity Rank 3), however, he

uses a filtering technique to minimise the information he reads before tagging, which is to

“notice things that other people are paying attention to” and to skim read them, saving and

tagging those in which he is interested. Conversely, Educator A (Activity Rank 6) admitted

that “I’ll bookmark them, I will subscribe to a blog, but I haven’t developed an efficient way

to manage that”.

A disadvantage associated with managing a large amount of information, and one

highlighted by several interview subjects, was the amount of time they spent microblogging.

Educator C (Activity Rank 7) and Educator E (Activity Rank 3), both microblogging for less

than three years, used the word “addictive” and said that they felt they had to constantly

check their microblog streams in case they missed valuable information. Educator G

(Activity Rank 1), who is one of the more experienced microbloggers, also felt that he spent

too much time microblogging when he “should be doing other things” and described the

adrenaline rush of hearing the “bing” indicating that another microblog post had been made

in his network.

Finally, in regard to information, Educator B (Activity Rank 8) remarked upon the

reliability of information. She specifically referred to the practice of people “retweeting

indiscriminately” and described this as when someone reposts someone else’s post without

having checked the resource referred to in the original post. To avoid microbloggers who


engage in this practice, Educator B explained how she “gets a feel” for people through their

posts and follows only those who post reliable information.

Several interview subjects said that due to microblog posts being limited to 140

characters, there was a lack of depth in the conversations. Educator I gave the example that

trying to describe the feeling of bullying in a microblog post was inadequate and that certain

conversations need more than 140 characters to be fully explored. Similarly, Educator F

(Activity Rank 2) felt that conversations are not “as deep” as they are in face-to-face

situations. Furthermore, Educator G (Activity Rank 1) described microblogging as a

somewhat solitary form of professional learning:

“There are lots of times when I find resources on Twitter that I would love to

have a conversation about with somebody locally and those people locally

may or may not be available. So a lot of my professional learning is very

solitary in that regard - I’m connected with my peers online and can have

conversations that way but I don’t have other people locally that are in that

same space at the same time where I want to maybe take this further.”

Vulnerability was mentioned by interview subjects as a disadvantage of microblogging,

with vulnerability taking various forms. Firstly, Educator H (Activity Rank 5) said “It hasn’t

affected me personally, but you’re vulnerable to being misinterpreted or saying the wrong

thing”. This was echoed by Educator F (Activity Rank 2) who stated that:

“I do think sometimes it is too easy to rattle something off and then wish that

you could take it back… I always hate it when I misspell something and I feel

like that haunts me even though I think that’s forgiven a little bit more… I

think I have to be even more conscious than I am in person with people

because I don’t know who’s watching and following along.”

Because of this, Educator F stated that she is “hyper aware” when writing microblog posts

and always has in mind that her posts may be read by people she does not know. A second

form of vulnerability was outlined by Educator B (Activity Rank 8) who stressed the

importance of digital safety when microblogging as you are vulnerable to spam attacks and

being followed by inappropriate people, for example those who want to flood your account

with advertising messages. Educator B also noted that by sharing freely via microblogging,

posters are vulnerable to having their work taken by others and used for commercial

advantage, without reference to them as the original author.

The final disadvantage was tabled by Educator B (Activity Rank 8) and Educator H

(Activity Rank 5) who both raised the issue of recognition of microblogging as a legitimate


form of professional learning. Educator H related that microblogging is a “significant” part

of her informal professional learning and, despite evidencing this by documenting her

learning reflectively in her blog, it was difficult “trying to convince others that it is indeed

professional learning”. This problem was highlighted by Illich (1971) when he presented the

concept of learning webs (see section 3.4.2) and noted that they would not be conventionally

perceived as educational resources.

7.2.7 Additional comments

Finally, all interview subjects were asked if they had any additional comments, and many

noted the impact of microblogging. Firstly, Educator B (Activity Rank 8) described how

microblogging connects you to global educators as being “powerful.” Similarly, Educator H

(Activity Rank 5) related that she has spent time with world experts because of her

willingness to share via microblogging, and that this was a “powerful opportunity” that

would not have been available to her had she not been involved in this learning network.

Educator D (Activity Rank 4) said that unlike other social networking sites she uses,

microblogging is strictly for professional use and that “I honestly can’t believe how many

opportunities and how many things have come to me from Twitter”.

Educator D also revealed that she initially did not understand Twitter: “I could not figure

out Twitter for the longest time - I don’t think it’s real easy to figure out initially. So I spent

maybe six months just hanging out on there and trying to figure out what it was all about”.

Educator G (Activity Rank 1) had a similar experience when he started using Twitter:

“It took me four tries to really get Twitter. The first three attempts were sort

of, you know, dip my toe in and be confused and not really understand what it

was all about. And I think what really did it for me was I finally said, all right

I’m not going to worry so much about sending out messages, I’m just going to

spend a few weeks where I make a regular commitment every day that I just

go in and read. And that was really good for me because I made the

commitment to say I’m going to really try and figure out how this thing really

works.”

Finally, Educator G noted the value of educators sharing their personal side via

microblogging and getting to know them over time:

“Because people are also willing to share the personal side of themselves,

not just the professional side, and that you get to know people over time, I

have likened Twitter to the conversation that you have over the back fence

with your neighbour. Every small interaction with your neighbour isn’t a big


deal, but over time it adds up to some pretty good connections….and Twitter

is just like that except the back fence is to the world at large.”

7.3 Overview of findings from the interviews As would be expected, positive responses were prevalent from this group of interview

subjects as they were purposively selected because they are educators who use

microblogging regularly and indicated in the online survey that microblogging was

“extremely” important in their PLN. But despite this, the experiences and reactions were not

uniform and considerable diversity was noted in the responses from the interview subjects.

Each person displayed different levels of activity, as noted by the ranking they were given

(see Table 7.3), and there were nuances in the behaviours in which they engaged.


8Chapter 8: Discussion

This chapter discusses the findings from the study and centres on data collected through a

content analysis of microblog posts (n=600), an online survey (n=121) and one-on-one

interviews (n=9). The findings will be re-examined in relation to the aim of the study, which

was to examine the use of microblogging for self-directed professional learning amongst

educators and investigate the value that those educators place on microblogging as a

professional learning tool. This discussion is presented in relation to the aim of the study and

the research questions as stated in Section 1.3, that is:





The findings demonstrate that this group of educators believe microblogging to be a

valuable professional learning tool and they undertake various activities in order to support

their own learning and the learning of others in their network. The discussion of these

findings is presented in six sections: Section 8.1 provides an overview of the participants in

the context of the study; Section 8.2 revisits the theory that informed the study; Section 8.3

discusses the types of interactions that occur in microblogging as found from the content

analysis of microblog posts; Section 8.4 presents a new framework extrapolated from the

Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework; Section 8.5 discusses why educators participate in

microblogging; Section 8.6 discusses the value that educators perceive in the use of

microblogging for professional learning; Section 8.7 presents ways in which microblogging

can support professional learning; Section 8.8 discusses the disadvantages of microblogging

and how they might be overcome; and Section 8.9 provides an overview of the discussion.

8.1 Participant profile It is important to place the discussion of findings in the context of the population from which

the data were collected, that is, all participants were educators who microblog regularly. The

participants reside in a number of different countries with most coming from Australia,

USA, Canada and Europe and, as noted in Section 4.3.4, all participants used the English

language in their microblog posts. They ranged in age and experience; some being new

teachers who had only recently begun to microblog, and others being recognised as experts


in the field of education and experienced microbloggers (see Table 7.1). As the participants

in this study represented a cross section of ages, nationalities and experience in education

and microblogging, this diversity offered a rich source of data and also indicated that there

were similarities in the use of microblogging for professional learning across the various

demographics.

It is of note to observe that while this study drew on a broad cross-section of educators,

the age group most represented was 50-59 years (n=41, 33.9%) (see Table 7.1). This is in

contrast to the results from other, more general studies on the use of social media (see

Section 3.2.4), for example, a survey (n=1802) which reported that those under 50, and

especially those 18-29, are the most likely to use Twitter (Duggan & Brenner, 2012, p. 4). It

also differs from findings (n=2462) (Purcell, et al., 2013) that the percentage of teachers who

use social networking sites is largest amongst teachers aged 22-34 years (30%) compared to

those aged 35-54 years (27%) and those older than 55 (19%).

It is also of note to observe that a number of survey respondents (n=43, 36.2%) reported

that they have used microblogging for more than four years, that is, usage for 4-6 years

(n=36, 30.3%) plus usage for more than 6 years (n=7, 5.9%) (see Figure 6.2). This would

seem to indicate that microblogging is fulfilling a professional learning need for them. This

notion was supported by comments from the survey and the one-on-one interviews, for

example, Educator G who has been microblogging 4-6 years said that he had learned more

from his Twitter network than he had from all of the academic journals and conferences he’d

consumed and that the interactions and dialogues he has with people in his network cause

him to think in different directions (see Section 7.2).

As was noted in Section 4.3.4, the participants in this study were purposively selected

because they were regular users of microblogging and they are not representative of the

broader population of educators. Because these educators are involved in, and actively use,

microblogging, they have a positive response to its use and could be considered innovators

and early adopters (E. M. Rogers, 1995) (see Section 3.2.4). Furthermore, it is acknowledged

that a positive attitude to a technology is a precondition for its successful adoption

(Honeycutt & Herring, 2009) (see Section 4.6.3). As outlined in Section 4.3.4, this study

explored a specific technology (microblogging) being used by a specific group of people

(educators) for a specific purpose (professional learning) and consequently, is not

generalisable to all educators, to all microbloggers, to other professions, or to all forms of

professional learning.


8.2 Theoretical underpinnings As outlined in Section 3.1, the underlying pedagogical assumptions of this study were that

knowledge is socially constructed and, hence, the study was informed by the theory of social

constructivism. As noted, the theory of social constructivism posits that learner construction

of knowledge is the product of social interaction, interpretation and understanding

(Vygotsky, 1962) and that the learning experience needs to be situated in a real-world

context (J.S. Brown, et al., 1989; Lave & Wenger, 1991; Resnick, 1991).

Responses from the online survey and from interview subjects indicated that social

interaction, interpretation and understanding are the basis of learner construction of

knowledge through microblogging. Several comments from participants in the online survey,

which was anonymous, support that microblogging is a social constructivist learning

environment:

Comment 1: I vent, I share, I learn, I share, I listen, I share, I get information

from others, I share, I develop friendships, I share. (See Section 3.5.6)

Comment 2: I post lessons, reworked classroom policies, etc, and ask for

feedback. What did I miss, what pitfalls am I missing, etc. (See Section 6.5.4)

Comment 3: I use twitter to give and receive information, ask for help or

answer some one else's question, or to follow up interesting detours. It's

useful for reflection, support, peer support, advice, direction, problem

solving. (See Section 6.5.10)

Comments from interview subjects which indicated their involvement in a social

constructivist learning environment include:

Educator G (Activity Rank 1): Sometimes I’ll drop in on a conversation – I’ll

see a conversation playing out elsewhere and I’ll drop in. That’s another

place for learning and dialogue and watching. They’re not pushing out

resources but they’re dialoguing about something and I learn from that. (See

Section 7.2.2)

Educator I (Activity Rank 9): I find an idea or a concept on Twitter, or what

not, that I find so powerful that I’ll go and verbally share it with my

colleagues… I guess for me I feel like if it’s a really good idea then I’ll want

to go and tell someone in person. (See Section 7.2.2)


It may appear that while microblogging offers learning based on social interaction,

interpretation and understanding, it does not offer a learning experience that is situated in a

real-world context. As noted in Section 2.2.2, most microblogging messages taken

individually are trivial, but the value of microblogging is the cumulative effect of ideas

shared between numerous people (Thompson, 2007). The often random exchanges of

information and resources through microblog posts would seem not to be situated. However,

J.S. Brown, et al. (1989) argued that knowledge is situated by being a product of the activity,

context and culture in which it is developed, and that:

People who use tools actively build an increasingly rich implicit

understanding of the world in which they use the tools and of the tools

themselves. The understanding, both of the world and of the tool, continually

changes as a result of their interaction. (p. 33)

It could be argued, therefore, that microblogging is the tool, and that it is situated in a real-

world context whereby educators are using microblogging in their everyday activities.

8.3 What types of interactions occur in microblogging? In order to discover the types of interactions that occur (Research Question 1), microblog

posts from a group of educators were analysed using the Community of Inquiry (CoI)

framework (Garrison, et al., 2000) (see Section 3.1.2) and the interactions observed in the

sample microblog posts were cross-referenced with those reported in the literature (Alderton,

et al., 2011; Educause, 2007; Grosseck & Holotescu, 2008; Holotescu & Grosseck, 2009;

Java, et al., 2007; Parry, 2008) to compile a list of microblogging behaviours that were

further explored in the online survey (see Section 6.4) and in one-on-one interviews (see

Section 7.2.1). It is apparent that there are a set of activities and behaviours (n=12) that are

often exhibited (see Section 6.4) and which are common to educators who microblog. These

can be categorised into those that support educators’ own learning and those that support the

learning of others (see Table 8.1). Only one of the behaviours, that is, “read activity updates

of others in your network” did not fit either of these categories as this would appear to be a

social rather than a learning activity.


Table 8.1

Categories of microblogging activities and behaviours

Category Activity/behaviour

Support own learning Follow a link posted by someone in your network

Save a resource posted by someone in your network

Act on something you have read in a microblog post


Go back to a saved resource posted by someone in network

Use hashtags (#)

Search for content



Support learning of others Share a resource e.g., website, book, video

On-share a resource posted by someone in your network


Use hashtags (#)


Three of the behaviours have been listed in both categories, that is, engage in a

conversation with someone in network; use hashtags (#); and share information from a

conference/workshop using a hashtag (#). From the one-on-one interviews it was ascertained

that these three behaviours can be in support of the learning of others, but equally, educators

used them to aid their own learning. For example, as reported in Section 7.2.1:

• In relation to engaging in a conversation with someone in their network, several

educators reported that this activity was an important contributor to their learning.

Educator E compiles the ideas exchanged and shares it back with the group, thus

contributing to others’ learning in addition to his own learning.


• In relation to using hashtags (#), Educator H described how the use of hashtags aids

her learning as well as that of others involved in the use of a particular hashtag.

• In relation to sharing information from a conference/workshop using a hashtag (#),

Educator B reported that contributing to conference back channels not only aids the

learning of others, but also helps maintain her engagement and is useful for

internalising ideas for herself.

The content analysis of microblog posts indicated that while interactions could be

matched to the majority of elements and categories of the Community of Inquiry (CoI)

framework, it was found that the indicators for several of the categories varied and some

indicators and categories were not evident at all (refer Chapter 5). These variations are

expanded and discussed in Section 8.3.1, with a new framework extrapolated from the CoI

framework, that is, the Network of Exchange (NoE) presented and discussed in Section 8.4.

8.3.1 Variations to the CoI framework

While the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework provided a useful coding template for the

content analysis, it was found that the indicators for some of the categories varied from the

examples given by Garrison, et al. (2000) (see Table 3.1). Table 8.2 shows the indicators in

the original CoI framework alongside the variations found in the microblog posts analysed

for this study. The categories of integration and resolution were not evident in this data.


Table 8.2

Community of Inquiry coding template (Garrison, et al., 2000, p. 89) with the addition of

microblog indicators

Elements Categories Indicators (CoI) Microblog Indicators

Cognitive Presence

Triggering Event Sense of puzzlement Posing a question

Exploration Information exchange Information exchange

Integration Connecting ideas N/A

Resolution Apply new ideas N/A

Social Presence

Emotional Expression

Emoticons Emoticons and exaggerated punctuation

Open Communication

Risk-free expression Risk-free expression



Teaching Presence







Direct Instruction Focusing discussion Providing an answer to a call for help

The genesis of the CoI framework can be found in the work of John Dewey and is

consistent with constructivist approaches to learning in higher education (Garrison &

Arbaugh, 2007). It is not surprising that the CoI framework did not exactly “fit” the content

analysis of this data, that is, microblog posts by educators, as the framework was originally

designed to guide the research and practice of online learning. The CoI framework was

designed to investigate formal, structured learning in an online environment in which the

interactions have clearly defined parameters and are focused in a specific direction through

teaching presence. Garrison, et al. (2000) described teaching presence as comprising two

functions: firstly, the design of the educational experience, which includes the selection,

organisation and presentation of course content, and the design and development of learning

activities and assessment, and secondly, the facilitation of the course.

Microblogging, in contrast, consists of informal, unstructured learning in an online

environment in which there is no designated teacher, and nobody enters the network with the

specific intention of being a teacher. However, individuals do enter the network with the

intention of learning and of sharing, and therefore, anyone in the network may become a


teacher at any point in time. The act of freely sharing resources and ideas could be

interpreted as “teaching” even though this activity is not directed at any person in particular,

but rather to the network as a whole. In other instances individuals knowingly become

teachers by providing answers to calls for help from within their network.

While acknowledging that the CoI framework had provided a useful tool and approach to

studying online learning, Garrison and Arbaugh (2007) encouraged future research of the

framework; particularly the need for enhanced methodological and analytical rigour in future

studies; the need for conceptual refinement of the relationships and interactions between and

among the elements; and the need for testing the framework in disciplines other than

education. This researcher believes that the CoI framework could also be further developed

and adapted for online environments that have emerged since the inception of the framework

in 2000 and proposes an adapted framework and coding template for the microblogging

environment, namely the Network of Exchange (NoE) framework.

8.4 Network of Exchange (NoE) framework As outlined in Sections 5.7 and 8.3.1, the coding template, which consists of categories and

indicators for each element of the CoI framework, required that some of the indicators were

adjusted to match the activities observed in microblog posts. Additionally, the content

analysis of the microblog posts collected for this study revealed another “presence”, for

which the term “learning presence” was adopted to describe instances where participants

were asking for specific help in order to understand something. Accordingly, this researcher

proposes a new framework, namely the Network of Exchange (NoE) framework presented in

Figure 8.2 and a revised coding template presented in Table 8.2, both of which accommodate

the different learning environment created by microblogging. This framework is based on

the activities and interactions observed in the microblog posts of educators selected for this

study and does not suggest that these elements are pre-requisites for professional learning or

attempt to generalise across microblogging in general. The CoI framework previously

presented in Figure 3.2 is reproduced in Figure 8.1 for ease of comparison and discussion.


Figure 8.1: Elements of an Educational Experience: Community of Inquiry (Garrison, et al., 2000)

Core to the CoI framework is an educational experience in which teachers and students

are key participants and in which teachers provide structure and process (see Figure 8.1).

The model assumes that learning occurs through the interaction of three core elements:

cognitive presence, social presence and teaching presence (Garrison, et al., 2000).

Conversely, core to the Network of Exchange (NoE) framework is a professional learning

experience in which any member of the network could be a teacher or a student at any point

in time and in which there is little or no structure and process provided. As outlined in

Section 8.3.1, microblogging consists of informal, unstructured learning in which there is no

designated teacher. The NoE framework assumes that learning occurs within the network

through the interaction of four core elements: cognitive presence, learning presence, teaching

presence and social presence (see Figure 8.2).


Figure 8.2: Network of Exchange (NoE) framework

8.4.1 Professional learning in the NoE

At the centre of the NoE framework is professional learning, defined by this study (see

Section 3.4) as a long-term process characterised by self-evaluation, reflective practice and

continuing personal and professional development (Neil & Morgan, 2003) that is a social

process in which interactions with the environment play an important role (Divjak, 2004)

and which occurs as a result of a social framework that fosters learning (J. S. Brown &

Duguid, 2002). The type of professional learning investigated in this study and which lies at

the centre of the NoE framework is collective learning of the type where people undertake

learning together without any intended collective outcomes and which results in the learning

processes being collective but the learning outcomes being individual (Simons & Ruijters,

2001). Professional learning, in the NoE framework, occurs from the intersection of actions,

learning environment and elements, that is, presences, as described below.

Actions:

The most exhibited microblogging activities of the participants in this study (see Section 6.4)

have been synthesised into four actions in the NoE framework, namely:


i) Sharing: exhibited by the sharing or on-sharing of resources, for example,

websites, books, videos.

ii) Finding answers: includes searching for content, following a link posted by

someone in the network, acting on something read in a microblog post, asking

for a resource on a specific topic, and going back to a saved resource posted by

someone in the network.

iii) Exchanging ideas: includes sharing information from a conference or

workshop using the hashtag (#) convention and using hashtags (#) in a

synchronous meetup.

iv) Discussions: exhibited by engaging in a conversation with someone in the

network. These conversations are sometimes taken to another platform for

deeper discussion (see Section 7.2.1).

Professional learning can occur through microblogging when any of these actions are

evident. The data indicated that educators participate in all of these activities at some time.

This would suggest that their professional learning takes the form of both giving, that is,

through sharing, and taking (see Section 7.2.2) and is reciprocal. This notion of reciprocity

was noted as being when people give and ask freely for information they need (Rheingold,

2012), and is an aspect of microblogging that is valued by educators (see Section 6.5.10). It

also supports the findings of Couros (2006) that network participants engaged in both

consumption and publication, whereby knowledge was shared and exchanged, not simply

taken (see Section 6.5.10).

It is to be noted that the actions pertaining to “finding answers” are activities that are

taken in relation to a microblog post and thus cannot be ascertained simply from a content

analysis of blog posts. These six activities, that is, searching for content; following a link

posted by someone in the network; acting on something read in a microblog post; asking for

a resource on a specific topic; and going back to a saved resource posted by someone in the

network sit at the intersection of cognitive presence and learning presence. They only

became evident in this study through the online survey and one-on-one interviews.

Learning environment:

As noted in Section 8.3.1, microblogging consists of informal, unstructured learning in an

online environment in which there is no designated teacher. Accordingly, at the core of the

NoE framework is a learning environment based on “openness” namely:


i) Open content: there is no set content, network members share content or ask

for advice and support on content as they need.

ii) Open instruction: there is no designated teacher, anyone in the network may

become a teacher at any point in time. Conversely, anyone in the network is a

learner at any point in time.

iii) Open climate: risk-free expression is encouraged and supported in

microblogging.

iv) Open discourse: any member of the network may comment on any microblog

post at any time.

It would appear that openness is a feature of microblogging that makes it a valuable

professional learning tool because it supports immediacy of finding advice and support from

anyone in the network. Immediacy or “just in time” support was noted as being valuable by

survey respondents (see Section 6.5.1) and all interview subjects (see Section 7.2.4). Such

openness also provides a social framework that fosters learning (J. S. Brown & Duguid,

2002). Consequently, a question arises as to whether microblogging could be of value in

supporting formal, structured learning programs, as opposed to the informal, unstructured

learning evident in microblogging. This is discussed in Section 9.4.

Elements:

As noted in Section 5.6.5, a fourth element, namely learning presence, was uncovered in the

content analysis of microblog posts. Accordingly, the NoE framework is based on four

elements, or presences, namely:

i) Cognitive presence: refers to the extent to which learners are able to construct and

confirm meaning through sustained reflection and discourse (Garrison, et al.,

2001). In microblogging, this will frequently involve behaviours that extend

beyond microblogging, for example following a link shared by someone in the

network.

ii) Learning presence: refers to the practice of intentionally seeking learning support

from the network. This may be in the form of asking for advice or resources on a

particular topic, or it may be exposing an idea to the network in order to get

feedback from which the individual syntheses ideas to extend their learning.

iii) Teaching presence: refers to the facilitation and direction of cognitive and social

processes for the purpose of realising personally meaningful and educationally

worthwhile learning outcomes. It is to be noted that this differs from the definition


of teaching presence in the CoI framework (T. Anderson, et al., 2001) as it omits

the design component. Learning experiences in the NoE are not designed due to the

open nature of microblogging as a learning environment.

iv) Social presence: refers to the ability of participants to identify with the

community, communicate purposefully in a trusting environment, and develop

inter-personal relationships by way of projecting their individual personalities

(Akyol, et al., 2009). This is a very strong feature of microblogging described as

valuable by participants in this research (see Section 7.2.7) and in the literature (see

Section 2.2.2) as “ambient intimacy”, that is the ability to keep in touch with

people in a way that time and space normally make impossible (Reichelt, 2007).

8.4.2 NoE coding template

Building upon the CoI, a coding template was constructed for the NoE. Certain key words or

phrases were found to be indicators of cognitive presence, learning presence, social presence

and teaching presence. A coding template for the four elements in the NoE is presented in

Table 8.3 and a discussion of each of the elements is presented in the following sections,

followed by a summary in Section 8.4.7.


Table 8.3

Network of Exchange coding template

Elements Categories Indicators (examples only)

Cognitive Presence Triggering Event Posing a question


Social Presence Emotional Expression Emoticons and exaggerated

punctuation


Group Cohesion Use of multiple @ symbols

to link people

Teaching Presence Instructional Management Defining & initiating

discussion topics


Direct Instruction Providing an answer to a call

for help

Learning Presence Clarification Asking for an answer

Synthesising Exposing an idea in order to

get feedback

8.4.3 Cognitive Presence

In the CoI framework, the element of cognitive presence consists of four categories:

triggering event, exploration, integration and resolution (Garrison, et al., 2000). The group of

educators in this study exhibited behaviours consistent with the categories of “triggering

event“ and “exploration“, but none within the categories of “integration“ and “resolution”

(see Section 5.3). Accordingly, the Network of Exchange (NoE) framework contains only

two categories in the element of cognitive presence, that is, triggering event and exploration

(see Table 8.4).


Table 8.4

NoE cognitive presence categories and indicators

Element Categories Indicators (examples only)

Cognitive Presence Triggering Event Posing a question


The element of cognitive presence was evident in the majority of posts (n=413, 68.9%) of

the total sample analysed and the category of exploration contained the majority of posts in

the cognitive presence element (n=412, 99.8%). Exploration was evident through

“information exchange” which took the form of (a) sharing resources, or (b) sharing ideas

(see Section 5.3.2). As noted in Section 3.1.2, cognitive presence is a vital element in critical

thinking, and is defined as the extent to which learners are able to construct and confirm

meaning through sustained reflection and discourse (Garrison, et al., 2000). However, as

outlined in Section 3.3.1, microblogging is a form of computer mediated communication

(CMC) and, as such, “topics are not sustained, digressions abound, discussions become

unfocused, and addressers are not in a position to tailor their messages to the needs of their

addressees” (Georgakopoulu, 2011, p. 98). Additionally, with the limit of 140 characters per

microblog post, it could be argued that sustained reflection and discourse does not occur and

therefore, nor does critical thinking. However, the data from all three phases of this study

suggest that a microblog post can be the starting point for reflection and discourse. For

example (see Section 5.3.2), this post:

RT @SirKenRobinson: Here's my intro to London TEDX, the Learning

Revolution, just posted. Some thoughts, principles for debate

http://t.co/1XB5SM42

invites debate by suggesting people review a video and reflect upon the thoughts and

principles presented in that video. While this post:

Post your thoughts. An LMS will benefit your school. http://t.co/JgHPfxm0

#Ukedchat #cpchat

invites others to take the discussion into another online space, which, in this case, is a blog.

Furthermore, it could be argued that aggregating microblog posts on a particular topic

into an online newsletter, as in this post:


The lyn_hay Daily is out! http://t.co/a6Xif3oY? Top stories today via

@paullyoung

is a technique for making those posts available for sustained reflection and discourse in the

future. As outlined in Section 5.3.2, this is a technique whereby a number of other people’s

posts are shared in an online document, which takes the form of a newsletter.

8.4.4 Social Presence

In the CoI framework, the element of social presence consists of three categories:

emotional expressions, open communication and group cohesion (Garrison, et al., 2000). The

group of educators in this study exhibited behaviours consistent with all three categories (see

Section 5.4). As noted in Section 5.2, there were 150 posts (25.0%) of the total sample

analysed (n=600) that demonstrated social presence. The category of exploration contained

the majority of posts in the social presence element (n=132, 88.0%) and was demonstrated

through the use of emoticons and exaggerated punctuation. The Network of Exchange (NoE)

coding template contains all three categories in the element of social presence (see Table

8.5).

Table 8.5

NoE social presence categories and indicators


Social Presence Emotional Expression Emoticons and exaggerated

punctuation


Group Cohesion Use of multiple @ symbols

to link people

Social presence refers to the ability of participants to identify with the community,

communicate purposefully in a trusting environment, and develop inter-personal

relationships by way of projecting their individual personalities (Akyol, et al., 2009). This

aspect of microblogging was considered to be valuable by educators in this study. Although

most microblogging amongst educators consists of professional exchanges, social exchanges

appear to be important in building trust and rapport within the network. This was

encapsulated in comments from two interview subjects, that is, Educator G, (Activity Rank

1) who noted the value of educators sharing their “personal side” via microblogging and


getting to know them over time. He likened this to the conversation you have over the back

fence where the back fence is the world at large (see Section 7.2.7). The social aspect of

microblogging was also commented upon by Educator B (Activity Rank 8): “I do social on

Twitter because, for me, those social interactions are what oil the professional wheels.”

Additionally, several comments indicating the importance of social presence were made by

participants (anonymous) in the online survey, namely:

Comment 1: We often share small insights and ideas, and share our "where

my class is now" and "what I'm doing now" messages, which often result in

discussions about the topic. THIS IS SIMILAR to what I would expect in a

highly functioning work environment; discussion around the water cooler or

over coffee in the teacher's lounge.

Comment 2: The biggest advantage of participating in microblogging is

building the personal connections with educators from around the world.

Emoticons and exaggerated punctuation, an indicator of emotional expression, are used

freely in microblog posts. One of the reasons for this could be that this is a technique for

conveying meaning within the confines of the 140-character limit imposed by

microblogging. Closer examination and deconstruction of one of the examples given in

Section 5.4.1 reveals the extent of the emotional expression and the extended meaning

within the message. The post as written was:

@vpsingh so glad you liked it! Thanks for sharing it :) @dachisgroup

The use of the @ symbol at the beginning of the message indicates that the poster is

directing this post at a particular individual, namely @vpsingh. The use of the exclamation

mark after “so glad you liked it” indicates that the poster is not just glad, but very glad, to

know that @vpsingh found the post useful. The use of the emoticon after “Thanks for

sharing it” indicates that the poster is extremely pleased that @vpsingh saw fit to share the

original post with their own network. Furthermore, the poster has included a third person,

namely @dachisgroup in the post so that they will notice that @vpsingh liked the post and

also shared it with a wider network. It could be assumed that @dachisgroup is an important

person or organisation in the professional life of the poster and hence the desire to highlight

this activity.

As noted in Section 5.4.2, open communication in the form of risk-free expression was

evident across many posts, regardless of the element to which they belonged. As described in

Section 8.4.2, “openness” is core to the NoE and enables educators to feel free to express


themselves however and whenever they choose. It is notable that microblog posts are

publicly visible and can be found through search engines such as Google, that is, they are not

private to the network. This raises the question as to whether individuals write with the

public audience in mind (boyd & Ellison, 2007) (see Section 3.2.2).

Finally, the use of multiple @ symbols to link people was displayed in a number of

microblog posts (n=15, 10.0%) (see Section 5.4.3). This is a convention of microblogging

(see Section 2.2.4) used to either link people through a post, or to openly ask others to

collaborate, thus fostering group cohesion. It is another important and valued aspect of

microblogging as it allows educators to expand their network to trusted others, where a

trusted environment is an essential component of social presence.

8.4.5 Teaching Presence

As noted in Section 8.4.1, teaching presence in the NoE framework does not include a design

component for the reason that the learning environment in microblogging is open, that is, it

consists of open content, open instruction, an open climate and open discourse. Hence, the

definition of teaching presence is adapted from that given by T. Anderson, et al. (2001) for

the CoI framework, and refers to the facilitation and direction of cognitive and social

processes for the purpose of realising personally meaningful and educationally worthwhile

learning outcomes. The NoE coding template consists of three categories, namely

instructional management, building understanding and direct instruction (see Table 8.6).

Table 8.6

NoE teaching presence categories and indicators


Teaching Presence Instructional Management Defining & initiating

discussion topics


Direct Instruction Providing an answer to a call

for help

As noted in Section 5.2, there was very little teaching presence evident in the data in this

study; only 14 posts (2.4%) in the total sample analysed demonstrated teaching presence,

that is, belonged to one of three categories: instructional management, building

understanding or direct instruction (Garrison, et al., 2000). However, as demonstrated in


Section 5.2, there were challenges with the coding process in that there were numerous posts

that could have been assigned to more than one category and sometimes more than one

presence. This was most notable with teaching presence due to the open learning

environment and the fact that, in microblogging, there is no designated teacher, and nobody

enters the network with the specific intention of being a teacher. However, anyone in the

network may become a teacher at any point in time (see Section 8.3.1). For example, the

simple act of sharing a resource could be interpreted as teaching presence as in the following

post (see Section 5.3.2), which was coded as information exchange in the category of

exploration belonging to the element of cognitive presence:


Therefore, the NoE coding template (see Table 8.5) contains indicators for direct teaching

presence, leaving the interpretation of the more subtle nuances of teaching to other forms of

analysis.

8.4.6 Learning presence

In the microblog posts analysed, there were instances (n=9, 1.5%) (see Table 5.5) where

participants were asking for specific help and the term “learning presence” has been adopted

by this study to describe these instances. As noted in Section 5.6, this call for help was

evident in two forms: (a) asking for help in order to understand something; and (b) asking for

help to find specific teaching resources. This activity was labelled “clarification” in the

overview of coding presented in Table 5.5. Survey respondents and interview subjects

concurred that asking for specific help was an important aspect of their microblogging

participation and described how microblogging was ideal for “just in time” answers and how

they post a call for help to their network to which they may receive “a flood” of responses or

none (Educator B) (see Section 7.2.1). Alternatively, they described how they often

responded to calls for help from others in their network, referred to previously as

reciprocation, or reciprocity (see Section 6.5.10).

However, another aspect of learning presence became evident from the data collected and

analysed in Phase 2 and Phase 3 of the study. Survey respondents (Phase 2) and interview

subjects (Phase 3) described how they often put ideas to their network in order to obtain

feedback from peers and experts, which then shaped their own thinking and teaching

practice. For example, this comment from a survey respondent (see Section 6.5.4) “I post

lessons, reworked classroom policies, etc, and ask for feedback. What did I miss, what

pitfalls am I missing, etc.” Additionally, in the one-on-one interviews, Educator A related

how putting ideas out to the network challenges or reinforces what he does and causes him to


rethink his practices (see Section 7.2.1). This type of activity has been categorised as

“synthesising”. Thus there are two categories in learning presence, namely “clarification”

which is indicated by asking for an answer, and “synthesising” which is indicated by

exposing an idea in order to get feedback (see Table 8.7).

Table 8.7

NoE learning presence categories and indicators


Learning Presence Clarification Asking for an answer

Synthesising Exposing an idea in order to

get feedback

8.5 Why do educators participate in microblogging? It would appear that educators who participate regularly in microblogging (research

Question 2) do so because such participation contributes to their professional learning. This

was evident from the online survey, where 92% (n=104) of all respondents (n=113) indicated

that they consider participation in microblogging to be a meaningful form of professional

learning and was a theme that arose regularly in the one-on-one interviews. Several themes

(n=11) emerged when survey respondents were asked to provide a short account of how they

used microblogging for their professional learning and the advantages of participating in

microblogging (see Section 6.5). Key among these themes were access to information,

resources, advice and support, which came from connections and exchanges with a diverse

and global network. Survey respondents indicated that their microblogging networks largely

consist of colleagues, experts and peers (see Figure 6.3), which is consistent with the

findings of Alderton, et al. (2011) that the educators in their study chose to follow other

educators or content experts related to their field of teaching over 82% of the time (see

Section 3.2.3). This finding also supports the literature on professional learning in the

corporate sector, which contends that there has been a shift away from single-source

knowledge and learners are turning to a wider set of resources to provide them with a more

global and multi-point perspective on new information and skills (Masie, 2008).

Furthermore, all interview subjects valued exchanges with a diverse and global network

(see Section 7.2.1), with these exchanges being particularly important for the educators who

were geographically remote. This would indicate that there is particular value in


participating in microblogging if one is professionally isolated. This supports findings that

microblogging allows individuals to build connections with educators beyond those in their

immediate vicinity, with these connections being purposefully made in order to find and

share resources and to provide and receive support (Alderton, et al., 2011).

8.6 What is the perceived value of participation in microblogging? This group of purposively chosen educators highly value their participation in microblogging

because it supports their professional learning. The online survey yielded certain themes

(n=11) that respondents articulated as advantages of participating in microblogging and all of

these related to their professional learning (see Section 6.5). Access was a recurring theme in

the value of microblogging, that is, access to timely information, to valuable resources, to

advice and support, and to experts. This access was enhanced by the diversity within the

network, that is, the global connections that extended beyond an individual’s local area. The

value of this diverse access was supported by interview subjects (see Section 7.2.2) who

spoke about how useful it was to have access to “just in time” information from a broad

network of people which included both peers and experts. Educators spoke about being

“hungry for feedback from other teachers” since becoming involved in microblogging

(Educator E) and that sometimes an idea found via microblogging was “so powerful he

wants to share it with colleagues” (Educator I).

These findings support the literature (see Section 3.2.3) on learning in networks and the

observations of van Aalst (2003) that there are four advantages of networks for learning,

namely, that networks:

i) open access to a variety of sources of information;

ii) offer a broader range of learning opportunities than in hierarchical

organisations;

iii) promise a more flexible but also more stable base for co-ordinated and

interactive learning; and

iv) help to create and access tacit knowledge.

Furthermore, the value that participants in this study placed on microblogging support the

common characteristics of networks in education identified by Hopkins (2003), that is, “the

reduction of isolation; collaborative professional development; joint solutions to shared

problems; the exchange of practice and expertise; the facilitation of knowledge sharing and

school improvement; and opportunities to incorporate external facilitation” (p. 154) (see

Section 3.2.3).


Another key theme that emerged in relation to the value of microblogging was that of

reciprocity (see Section 6.5.10). Educators who responded to the survey and those who were

interviewed commented that they believed giving to the network was an important part of

their involvement. This took two forms, that is, freely sharing and on-sharing resources, and

connecting people in order to expand their network or, as Educator E expressed it,

“connecting the dots and putting people together” (see Section 7.2.2). This is consistent with

the findings of Lalonde (2011) that educators who participate in microblogging have clear

expectations of reciprocity from the members of their PLN, and equally from themselves.

Finally, the “power” of microblogging and the “power” of the learning that educators

experienced through their network came through strongly in survey responses and comments

by interview subjects. The perceived value of participation in microblogging is encapsulated

by a comment by a survey respondent (see Section 6.5.1):

“Have learnt more in the 4+ years that I have been on Twitter than I had in

the previous 20 years of attending workshops etc”

It would appear, that the value of microblogging for professional learning is, as suggested by

Downes (2010), that a learning network “offers a portal to the world, through which learners

can explore and create, according to their own interests and directions, interacting at all

times with their friends and community” (see Section 3.4.2).

8.7 How can microblogging support professional learning? Ala-Mutka (2009) noted that although people do not often explicitly mention learning as a

reason for participating in online collaborative activities, research shows they do actually

learn in these environments (see Section 3.2.3). In contrast to this view, the educators in this

study clearly stated that learning was an important reason for their participation in

microblogging. The majority of survey respondents indicated that their PLN was extremely

important in their overall professional learning (n=66, 58.9%) and that microblogging was

extremely important (n=49, 43.4%) or very important (n=38, 33.6%) in their PLN (see

Section 6.5). All interview subjects considered that their learning was extensive and evident

in their practice (see Section 7.2.2), however the ways in which microblogging contributes to

professional learning varies between educators.

As outlined in Section 7.2 there was a contrast between a newly qualified teacher

(Educator C) who has been using microblogging for less than a year and an experienced

teacher of 16-20 years who has been using microblogging for 4-6 years (Educator G).

Educator C stated that she only sometimes asks for help and advice, does not contribute

often and described herself as more of a follower than a leader. Conversely, Educator G


shares numerous resources, learning from the resulting reactions and dialogues from people

who often share new resources in response. It could be concluded that an individual’s

experience as both an educator and a microblogger impact upon microblogging behaviour

and, as an individual becomes more experienced as an educator and a microblogger, they

will expand their network and participate in more exchanges.

8.7.1 PLNs and microblogging

Given that 58.9% (n=66) of survey respondents indicated that their PLN was “extremely

important” in their overall professional learning and only 1.8% (n=2) said that it was “not

very” important, it could be concluded that this group of educators have constructed a PLN

and use it actively. Furthermore, as 77% (n=87) of survey respondents indicated that

microblogging was either “very” important (n=38, 33.6%) or “extremely” important (n=49,

43.4%) in their PLN, it could be concluded that this group of educators find microblogging

valuable in supporting learning through their PLN. The content analysis of microblog posts

indicated that educators often share resources (see Section 5.3.2); which was corroborated by

survey respondents (see Section 6.4) and expanded upon by interview subjects who spoke of

the value of the information exchanges they have with other educators via microblogging

(see Section 7.2.1). These findings support the literature (see Section 3.4.3) which states that

participants in a PLN interact in order to share knowledge and to build new understandings

(Johnston, et al., 2006) and that the importance of a PLN is that it provides pointers to

sources of information, answers questions, coaches and reinforces learning (Tobin, 1998).

8.7.2 Affordances of microblogging in action

As outlined in Section 2.2.3, technologies provide many specific affordances for learning in

networks and communities (Ala-Mutka, 2009). All three affordances noted by Kirschner, et

al. (2004) are exhibited by microblogging, that is:

i) technological affordances, which refers to usability, that is, whether the system

“allows for the accomplishment of a set of tasks in an efficient and effective

way that satisfies the user” (p. 50);

ii) social affordances, which are the properties of an online environment that “act

as social-contextual facilitators relevant for the learner’s social interaction” (p.

51), that is, there can be social interaction; and

iii) learning (or educational) affordances, which are the characteristics of an

artefact “that determine if and how a particular learning behavior could possibly

be enacted within a given context” (p. 51).


Technological affordances are evident in the fact that microblogging is immediate (see

Section 3.2.2) and allows only 140 characters in which to express an idea (see Section 2.2.2).

The value of “immediacy” was expressed in the one-on-one interviews by Educator B who

said that microblogging was ideal for “just in time” answers (see Section 7.2.1), and

encapsulated by several comments from survey respondents (see Section 6.5.1 and Section

6.5.6):

“I can get help any time I need it through microblogging.”

“It [microblogging] is specific and immediately relevant.”

“Microblogging is a quick way to keep me updated, connected,

communicating and engaging with others...”

The 140 character limit ensures brevity, which makes a post easy to write and easy to

read. As noted in the examples of sharing resources in Section 5.3.2, little or no information

is provided other than a descriptive title and a link to the nominated resource. For example

the post:


uses only 40 characters to share a valuable resource with colleagues. It would have taken

only moments for the poster to write and even less time for interested educators to read and

act upon.

Social affordances are extremely strong in microblogging and this was supported by

findings from all three data collections. As noted in Section 5.2, there were 150 posts

(25.0%) in the total sample analysed that demonstrated social presence. Online survey

respondents commented on the value of interaction and engagement with others, for example

“The discussions are engaging; I rarely find the same level of engagement at work” (see

Section 6.5.6). Furthermore, interview subjects frequently noted the value of engaging with

others via microblogging (see Section 7.2.1).

Learning affordances were not immediately evident in the content analysis of microblog

posts, however, as argued in Section 8.3.3, a microblog post can be the starting point for

reflection and discourse. Furthermore, interview subjects reported that their learning from

microblogging was extensive and evident in their practice (see Section 7.2.2). As stated in

section 8.5, it would appear that educators who participate regularly in microblogging do so

because such participation contributes to their professional learning. It could be argued that


microblogging is effective as a professional learning tool because it exhibits all three

affordances outlined by Kirschner, et al. (2004).

8.7.3 Harnessing collective intelligence

The notion of collective intelligence as a form of universally distributed intelligence (Lévy,

1997a) was addressed in Section 3.1.1. The exchanges of resources, information and ideas

that were observed in this study are examples of harnessing collective intelligence which R.

Mason and Rennie (2008) described as an underlying feature of Web 2.0 tools, and hence of

microblogging. The educators in this study frequently displayed behaviours consistent with

harnessing collective intelligence by pooling memory and experience and exchanging

knowledge as everyday practice (Lévy, 1997b). One of the interview subjects, Educator F,

explicitly noted this form of learning and referred to it as “crowdsourcing” – a term often

used synonymously with collective intelligence. This finding supports that of Lalonde (2011)

who found that Twitter provided the teachers in his study a way to access the collective

knowledge of their PLN through sharing links, posting questions and facilitating

collaborative projects among their PLN.

However, it would appear that harnessing collective intelligence has advantages and

disadvantages for professional learning. The great advantage is the access to a pool of

colleagues and experts from whom you can collect resources and ideas. Survey respondents

(see Section 6.5) and interview subjects (see Section 7.2) state that this collecting of

resources and ideas results in learning which is evident in their teaching practice (see Section

7.2.2). Conversely, these large amounts of information can become problematic to manage

and become a disadvantage of microblogging if an individual does not have an effective

process for managing such information. Thus, harnessing collective intelligence becomes

little more than an exercise in compiling vast amounts of information which will never be

used. This, and other disadvantages of microblogging are addressed in Section 8.8.

8.8 Overcoming the disadvantages of microblogging Although microblogging was perceived by educators who use it as being a valuable form of

professional learning, it is not without its challenges. Several disadvantages of

microblogging have been listed from the literature, that is, privacy, homophily and social

boundaries (see Section 3.2.3). Other disadvantages were elicited from the interview

subjects, that is, managing information; managing time; reliability of information; depth in

conversations; solitary learning; vulnerability; and acknowledgement of learning (see

Section 7.2.6).


Privacy and social boundaries: None of the survey respondents or interview subjects noted

privacy or social boundaries as an issue in their microblogging. As outlined in Section 3.2.4,

this group of educators would be considered innovators and early adopters who have adapted

an innovation, that is, microblogging, to a specific need (E. M. Rogers, 1995). It could be

concluded from their enthusiastic adoption of microblogging that they are comfortable with

issues of privacy and have managed to achieve the right balance around social boundaries

and their professional image. As noted several times in this document, the educators in this

study were not representative of all educators and therefore, the issues of privacy and social

boundaries would need to be carefully addressed if introducing other educators to

microblogging.

Homophily: Homophily, that is, the tendency of only connecting with similar or like-minded

people and thus reinforcing established views, was noted by Veletsianos and Kimmons

(2013) as a concern that influenced how and when educators would adopt online social

networking for personal or professional purposes (see Section 3.2.3). While this may be a

concern for potential adopters of microblogging, this study found that, in practice,

homophily is not evident. On the contrary, survey respondents (see Section 6.5.2) and

interview subjects (see Section 7.2.1), noted the value of exchanges with a diverse and

global network which extended their thinking and practice.

Managing information: The content analysis of microblog posts found that information

exchange in the form of sharing resources and ideas constituted the majority of posts (n=413,

68.9%) in the total sample analysed (n=600). All interview subjects (n=9) said that the

amount of information exchanged within their network could be problematic (see Section

7.2.6). From the one-on-one interviews, it was obvious that in order to exploit microblogging

to its full potential for professional learning, an effective process for managing information

is necessary. Several processes were outlined by interview subjects and involved

categorising and tagging information in other platforms for easy retrieval at a later date.

Those educators who did not have a process for saving and retrieving information stated that

they could be overwhelmed by the sheer amount of information (see Section 7.2.6). It can be

concluded that an important component of introducing microblogging as a professional

learning tool would be to expose new users to a number of ways in which to manage the

information they will receive.

Managing time: As outlined in Section 7.2.6, the amount of time spent microblogging was

noted by interview subjects as a problem. Two educators (Educators C and E) said that

microblogging was “addictive” and that they felt they had to constantly check for new

microblog posts for fear of missing valuable information. As this was not a problem for all


microbloggers, it can be concluded that, as with the management of information, some

educators have processes for managing their time spent microblogging. For example,

Educator I offered the way in which he managed his time was to allocate 20 minutes per day

to read and respond to microblog posts.

Reliability of information: Apart from the volume of information being exchanged in

microblogging, the reliability of information came into question from one educator in the

one-on-one interviews. Educator B referred to the practice of people retweeting without

having checked the resource referred to in the original post, which may have been an

unreliable resource. As this problem was not reported by other participants in the study, it

could be concluded that individuals have a process of minimising this issue similar to that

reported by Educator B, that is, being selective about who one follows.

Depth in conversations: There are conflicting views in both the literature and the data from

this study on the depth of conversations and engagement with others in microblogging. In

the literature on computer mediated communication (CMC), in which microblogging has its

roots, CMC is described as an environment in which topics are not sustained and discussions

become unfocused (Georgakopoulu, 2011). Alternatively Makice (2009) relates his personal

experience in which his connection with other people in his academic program was enhanced

when he started microblogging.

Several interview subjects said that due to microblog posts being limited to 140

characters, there was a lack of depth in the conversations. Some interview subjects described

how they take conversations that begin in microblogging into another online forum, for

example blogs or wikis, for further discussion. In contrast, one interview subject (Educator

B) said that a tweet could start a long discussion which remains on Twitter. It could be

concluded that the amount of engagement and the depth of conversations in microblogging is

dependent on the individual and how much they want to engage with others.

Solitary learning: Microblogging was described as a solitary form of professional learning

by one interview subject (Educator G) (see Section 7.2.6). In contrast, Tam (2000) pointed

out that while a person sitting in front of a computer might be seen as undertaking individual

learning, they can be connected to diversified and socially rich learning contexts (see Section

3.1). As survey respondents and interview subjects frequently mentioned the value of

connecting to other educators via microblogging, it could be concluded that a feeling of

isolation is representative of a particular individual rather than of microblogging in general.

Vulnerability: Vulnerability in microblogging took three forms: (a) to being misinterpreted;

(b) to having your account “hacked”; and (c) to having your work appropriated by others and


used for commercial advantage. Experienced microbloggers have processes for overcoming

the first two of these problems. In order to avoid being misinterpreted, they think carefully

before they write a post. This was described by boyd and Ellison (2007) as writing with the

public audience in mind (see Section 3.2.2). The second of these problems, that is, keeping

your account safe from hacking, is managed by changing passwords regularly and being

vigilant about digital safety.

The third issue, that is, microbloggers being vulnerable to having their work taken by

others and used for commercial advantage did not have a solution amongst the educators in

this study. A feature of microblogging is that, like other social networking sites, content can

be saved, summarised, addressed, copied, quoted, and built into new projects (Alexander,

2006) (see Section 3.2.2). Since the power of microblogging is based on individuals freely

sharing, this vulnerability will continue to be an issue.

Acknowledgement of learning: Given that this study has shown that a group of educators

find microblogging a valuable form of professional learning (see Section 6.5) and that this

learning is evidenced in their practice (see Section 7.2.2), the fact that such learning is not

acknowledged by employers is an issue. It is to be hoped that, as PLNs become more

ubiquitous in the education sector, and as microblogging becomes more widespread as a tool

in PLNs, employers will find ways to recognise this valuable form of professional learning.

8.9 Overview of the discussion This chapter has presented a new framework, namely the Network of Exchange (NoE)

framework, which accommodates the different learning environment created by

microblogging. At the centre of the NoE framework is professional learning which occurs

from the intersection of actions, learning environment and elements, that is, presences. The

NoE framework has been presented for discussion and further research (see Section 9.5)

which should seek to validate and refine the framework in order to develop an analytical tool

that can be applied to new online learning environments such as microblogging.

The discussion in this chapter has centred around the finding that educators participate in

microblogging because it supports their professional learning and is a valuable tool in their

PLN. The affordances of microblogging make it suitable for professional learning because it

is technologically easy to use, supports social discourse and enables learning since a

microblog post can be the starting point for reflection and discourse.


9Chapter 9: Conclusion

The aim of this study was to examine the use of microblogging for self-directed professional

learning amongst educators and to investigate the value that educators place on

microblogging as a professional learning tool (see Section 1.3). To achieve this aim, a

review of the literature was undertaken in the three major areas of concern for the study, that

is, (a) online social networking, (b) communication, and (c) professional learning, and also

within the three contributing sub-themes that impacted on the study, that is, (i) computer

mediated communication (CMC), (ii) learning networks, and (iii) professional learning

networks (PLNs) (see Figure 3.2). The literature revealed that although microblogging is

relatively new, it has been noted as a possible tool for professional learning (Grosseck, 2009)

and was described as the perfect social networking application to monitor new developments

in a subject area on an international scale (Rigby, 2008).

In examining how and why individuals engage in microblogging and the value they place

on microblogging as a professional learning tool, the study focused on the following research

questions:





These questions were addressed through an exploratory case study which comprised three

phases of data collection and analysis.

A content analysis of a sample of blog posts (n=600) was undertaken (Phase 1) in order

to answer the first question, and discover the types of interactions that occur in

microblogging. The analysis tool used, namely the Community of Inquiry framework, proved

to have some shortcomings when used in this contemporary setting, and consequently a new

framework, namely the Network of Exchange (NoE), was constructed (see Section 8.4).

Findings from the content analysis were further explored in Phase 2 with an online survey

(n=121) which addressed the second and third research questions, that is, why educators

participate in microblogging and the value they place on that participation. Finally, in Phase

3, one-on-one interviews were held with a purposively selected group of educators (n=9) in


order to further investigate the findings from the online survey and to address the fourth

research question, that is, how microblogging can support professional learning.

This chapter re-examines the findings in relation to the aims of the study and presents an

overview of the conclusions and implications of the study. Section 9.1 presents a summary

of the research findings within the context of the study; Section 9.2 underlines the

contribution of the study; Section 9.3 describes the research challenges that were faced;

Section 9.4 discusses implications for practice; Section 9.4 discusses implications for theory;

Section 9.6 presents emerging questions and recommendations for further study; and Section

9.7 concludes the chapter with final words from the researcher.

9.1 Summary of research context and findings It has been stated throughout this thesis that this study explored a specific technology

(microblogging) being used by a specific group of people (educators) for a specific purpose

(professional learning) and therefore the results of this research must be interpreted with the

understanding that they do not reflect a more general view. However, while these results

may not be generalisable, they give an insight into the way in which microblogging may be

used to support professional learning and the possibilities for other educators to build and

participate in their own professional learning network (PLN) which includes microblogging

as one of the tools (see Section 9.4)

From the literature, this study defined professional learning (see Section 3.4) as a long-

term process characterised by self-evaluation, reflective practice and continuing personal and

professional development (Neil & Morgan, 2003) that is a social process in which

interactions with the environment play an important role (Divjak, 2004) and which occurs as

a result of a social framework that fosters learning (J. S. Brown & Duguid, 2002). The type

of professional learning investigated in this study was collective learning of the type where

people undertake learning together without any intended collective outcomes and which

results in the learning processes being collective but the learning outcomes being individual

(Simons & Ruijters, 2001). The study distinguished between networks and communities (see

Section 3.2.1) and noted that it was concerned with networks rather than communities, that

is, with peer exchange of information through online social networking (specifically

microblogging), and adopted the definition put forth by Johannisson (1987) that social

networks are “comprised of various independent actors who develop relatively loose

relationships between each other to pursue some common goals” (p. 9).

As described in Chapter 4, the study used a qualitative methodology, namely an

exploratory case study (Stake, 1995) in which the research issues evolved over time, but


were organised around pre-defined research questions. This approach allowed the researcher

to explore answers to “what,” “how,” and “why” by focusing on microblogging activities

without exercising any control over the microblogging behaviour of participants in the study.

The research employed three separate data sources to ensure that the phenomenon was

explored through a variety of lenses, allowing for multiple facets of the phenomenon to be

revealed and understood (Baxter & Jack, 2008).

A review of the literature revealed the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework as a

suitable instrument for the content analysis of microblog posts (n=600) in Phase 1 of the data

analysis. While the content analysis provided a clearer picture of the types of interactions

that occur in microblogging and created a basis on which to further explore why individuals

participate in microblogging, a point of departure was found when the CoI framework was

used in the more contemporary learning setting of microblogging. Through the use of the

CoI framework, the study uncovered a fourth “presence” which was named “learning

presence” and presented a new framework, the Network of Exchange, which built upon the

CoI framework (see Section 8.4). Data collected from Phase 2, that is, an online survey, and

Phase 3, that is, one-on-one interviews, built upon the findings from the content analysis of

blog posts to give a fuller picture of how and why educators use microblogging.

In answer to the first of the research questions, that is, the types of interactions that occur

in microblogging, the study found that the majority of posts fell into the elements of

cognitive presence and social presence, with very few being regarded as examples of

teaching presence. It was concluded that this was because microblogging consists of

informal, unstructured learning in an online environment in which there is no designated

teacher, as opposed to the more formal, structured online learning environment which the

CoI was designed to measure. The data revealed that there are a set of activities and

behaviours (n=12) that are often exhibited (see Section 6.4) and which are common to

educators who microblog. These were categorised into those that support educators’ own

learning and those that support the learning of others (see Figure 7.1). In regard to

supporting the learning of others, it was revealed that reciprocity, that is, when people give

and ask freely for information (Rheingold, 2012) and knowledge is shared and exchanged,

not simply taken (Couros, 2006), was a valued aspect of microblogging networks (see

Section 6.5.10). This is consistent with the findings of Lalonde (2011) that educators who

participate in microblogging give freely and have clear expectations of reciprocity from the

members of their PLN (see Section 8.6).

In answer to the second of the research questions, that is, why educators participate in

microblogging, the study found that learning was the key motivator for participation. A


number of activities that were common to microbloggers in this study were uncovered (see

Section 6.4) and were synthesised into four actions, namely, sharing, finding answers,

exchanging ideas, and discussions. These are the actions that support learning in

microblogging and form the core of the NoE framework (see Section 8.4.1). The answer to

the third of the research questions, that is, the perceived value of participation in

microblogging, was similar to that of the second question about why educators participate in

microblogging. Professional learning was the value that educators perceived in

microblogging, but importantly, access to information, resources, advice and support from a

diverse global network was highly valued and enriched the learning experiences of educators

who participate in microblogging (see Section 8.6). Such access is enabled by the open

learning environment within a microblogging network, that is, open content, open

instruction, open climate and open discourse. These characteristics of the learning

environment are significant in enabling the professional learning that occurs through

microblogging and are key to the NoE framework (see Section 8.4.1).

Finally, in answer to the fourth of the research questions, that is, how microblogging can

support professional learning, the study found that the inclusion of microblogging in a PLN

gives educators access to resources and information exchanges with other educators that they

would not otherwise have. The ability to engage in dialogue with peers and experts outside

their geographic area allowed these educators to seek advice and support from others with a

wide range of experience and knowledge, and thus extend their thinking. This is consistent

with the findings of Couros (2006) (see Section 3.4.3 ), that participants were “connected to

a greater social network that informed their practice, and their beliefs and perceptions

regarding education” (p. 176). Additionally, the affordances of microblogging (see Sections

2.2.3 and Section 8.7.2), and Twitter in particular (see Section 2.2.4), support learning in a

variety of ways. Firstly, the 140-character limit on posts results in information being shared

in an efficient manner. Secondly, the use of hashtags (#) allows educators to easily share,

and subsequently find, resources and information on particular topics. Finally, the

convention of retweeting exposes ideas and individuals to a wider group of educators and

thus enables them to expand their own PLN. Access to a wider network increases the

opportunity to harness the collective intelligence for individual learning (see Section 8.7.3).

To conclude, this study has shown that microblogging is a valuable profesional learning

tool and for those educators who use microblogging as part of their professional learning

network (PLN) the findings are consistent with those noted by Trust (2012), that is:

Teachers engage in PLNs to grow professionally, learn from others, and

contribute to a community. Teachers are motivated to engage in PLNs


because they can solicit help and support, demonstrate their knowledge by

helping others, and converse with individuals about new information and

feedback. (p. 37)

9.2 Contribution of the study It was noted by Costa, et al. (2008) that microblogging is being increasingly used for

informal learning and networking, yet only as recently as 2011 has research emerged into the

use of social networking as a tool to support learning (Alderton, et al., 2011; Lalonde, 2011)

(see Section 1.5). Much of the research into online social networks has been concerned with

the “social” aspect, for example how people make friends, how many friends they have and

the reliance on social networks for social support (Golder, et al., 2007). Alderton, et al.

advised that additional studies looking at how online learning communities could be used as

professional development venues were needed. The contribution of this study is that it adds

to the body of knowledge on learning networks and their use to support professional learning

by providing detailed information about how and why educators use microblogging to

support their professional learning. It specifically notes the types of activities that educators

engage in and find of value to their learning, and makes recommendations on how these

could be extended to the broader community of educators (see Section 9.4).

In particular, this study has built upon and adapted an existing framework, that is, the

Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework, for use in a more contemporary learning setting.

The resulting framework, the Network of Exchange (NoE) (see Section 8.4), provides a

means to study microblogging in particular, and contemporary learning networks in general.

The NoE also meets the challenge encouraged by Garrison, Anderson and Archer (2010) to

extend the CoI framework for exploration of lifelong learning attitudes and participation.

Accordingly, this researcher encourages others to explore and extend the NoE framework in

order to improve it for use in investigating a variety learning networks (see Section 9.6).

9.3 Research challenges The first challenge for this study was finding relevant literature and research studies on

microblogging and professional learning networks (PLNs). As a relatively new technology

which appeared in 2006 (see section 2.2.1), in-depth studies on the use of microblogging for

learning are only now starting to appear, for example Alderton, et al. (2011), Lalonde

(2011), Veletsianos and Navarrete (2012) and Veletsianos and Kimmons (2013) (see Section

1.5). Similarly, the origin of the term PLN is difficult to ascertain (Downes, 2009) and it is

challenging to find a definition for the concept of PLN (Couros, 2008b) (see Section 3.4.3).

Although a number of definitions for PLNs were found, this researcher believes that the


original description given by Tobin (1998), that is, that a PLN is “a group of people who can

guide your learning, point you to learning opportunities, answer your questions, and give you

the benefit of their own knowledge and experience” (web page), remains highly relevant,

even though it was constructed before the advent of online social networking and

microblogging.

The second challenge for the study was finding and using a content analysis tool that

could be used in this contemporary learning setting, that is, to analyse microblog posts.

While the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework (Garrison, et al., 2000) provided a useful

coding template for the content analysis, it was found that there were some variances in the

microblogging environment. Additionally, as reported by Garrison, et al. (2006) the coding

process is complicated by being structured as a hierarchy of presences, categories, and

indicators, and, as with others new to the process, this researcher found that it was difficult

to use the more granular indicators and that new indicators had to be developed for this

environment. This difficulty was compounded by the fact that numerous posts could have

been assigned to more than one category and sometimes more than one presence. However,

this resulted in the construction of a new framework, namely the Network of Exchange

(NoE) which has been presented for discussion and further development (see Section 8.4).

The final challenge for this study was the reliance on self-reported survey and interview

data from early adopters of microblogging. While this resulted in rich data, it is

acknowledged that early adopters tend to highlight the advantages of innovation (Inglis,

Ling, & Joosten, 2002) and may not perceive the limitations that might arise if

microblogging were to be adopted within mainstream practices (White, 2003). Accordingly,

no claims have been made beyond the context in which the individuals participating in the

study use microblogging.

9.4 Implications for practice Educators can no longer rely on their original professional training and are required to

maintain dynamically changing network connections (Hakkarainen, et al., 2004). They can

only successfully help others to learn if they are continual learners themselves, working to

improve their practice, skills, and instructional strategies (Trust, 2012). Therefore, as advised

by Ala-Mutka (2009) there is a need to investigate whether online social interactions

between people, and the new opportunities provided by technology, could be harnessed to

support lifelong learning in order to help individuals adapt to changes in job requirements.

Educators have been shown to be experimenting with microblogging and it could play a role

in informal learning in the workplace (Giustini & Wright, 2009). This study has shown that

one group of educators finds microblogging a valuable professional learning tool and that


they are enthusiastic about its use in their professional learning network (PLN). The time-

efficacy of writing and reading microblog posts of 140 characters, with one respondent

spending just 20 minutes per day engaged in microblogging, makes this an ideal medium for

professional learning. Therefore, the question arises as to how microblogging could be

introduced to other educators as a tool to support their professional learning.

E. M. Rogers (1995) argued that potential adopters of a technology need the ability to

experiment with an innovation before they may see its application. In the case of

microblogging, educators are also adopting a new learning environment, one that is open in

terms of content, instruction, climate and discourse (see Section 8.4.1). Couros highlighted

that in relation to openness, it is not just a set of new tools that need experimentation, but

also a set of values and beliefs around knowledge and collaboration. Professional learning

through microblogging is premised on reciprocity (see Section 6.5.10) and harnessing

collective intelligence (see Section 8.7.3). Lévy (1997b) warned that while new

communication technologies are conducive to the pooling and exchange of experience and

knowledge, which is the ideal of collective intelligence, this does not happen automatically.

Additionally, although microblogging provides opportunities for learning, not all

individuals are equipped with the skills or knowledge to benefit from these learning

opportunities (Ala-Mutka, et al., 2009). In order to participate in microblogging there is

certain knowledge and understanding of conventions required that, while obvious to

experienced users, may not be known to new or intending users. This was highlighted by one

of the interview subjects (Educator G, Activity Rank 1) who related that it was only after the

fourth attempt that he understood how microblogging operated and how to develop his own

network to support his professional learning (see Section 7.2.7). Firstly, an educator needs to

be aware of microblogging and the value it can offer as a professional learning tool, which,

although changing, is not guaranteed:

… many [educators] are not yet convinced about the value of social

networking as a useful educational tool or even as an effective

communications tool. This may indicate that their experience with social

networking is limited. However, they are curious about its potential - a sign

that there may be some shifts in attitudes, policies and practices in the future.

(NSBA, 2007, p. 7)

Furthermore, the common perception of microblogging is one of unremitting triviality

about what you are making or eating for dinner (McFedries, 2007). Once an educator

overcomes this perception and decides to join microblogging, they need to know how to

open an account and start building their network. This is not easy if they are trying to


accomplish the task alone as, with the limit of 140 characters per post and a seemingly

limitless network of users posting by the second, microblogging can be a difficult tool for

new members to navigate and operate effectively (Demski, 2010). Additionally, if a new

member is unaware of the conventions of using hashtags (#) and retweeting, they will not

gain visibility in the wider microblogging community and building their network will be a

slow and arduous task. Effective professional learning through microblogging involves

participating in the network by sharing resources and information, and engaging in dialogue

with other educators. If new members do not know how to go about finding relevant

educators with whom to link, their dialogue will fall short of expectations and they will not

find microblogging an effective professional learning tool.

This study has shown that microblogging can be a valuable tool for professional learning,

therefore, it is desirable that effective ways are employed for introducing microblogging to

educators in general. J.S. Brown, et al. (1989) cautioned against adopting tools without

adopting their culture and advised that a new user must enter a community and its culture

with care. This researcher advises that educators are introduced to microblogging by an

experienced user, who constructs a learning scenario in which they can participate. New

users need to be immersed in the sharing of ideas and discussion from the outset. An

example of a successful introduction of microblogging as a learning tool to a group of

educators was reported by Demski (2010). In this scenario, a principal instigated discussion

on a pre-defined topic by having each of his teachers sign up for a Twitter account. The

teachers were then introduced to the use of hashtags, and one was allocated for the 40-

minute discussion. It was found that the discussion that occurred was more open than

traditional face-to-face discussions and it served to demonstrate the strength and utility of

microblogging as a learning tool. Therefore, it is recommended that an effective method for

introducing a group of educators to microblogging as a professional learning tool is to

initiate discussion around a topic that has meaning for the group and have them participate as

a closed group. Once educators experience a meaningful dialogue and gain confidence in the

use of microblogging they can expand their professional learning network (PLN) beyond the

original group.

But what of the individual educator who wishes to participate in microblogging without

the involvement of colleagues? It is recommended that they, also, are supported into

microblogging and introduced to networks of educators. A common practice of experienced

microbloggers is to expose new users to the network, in general, or to specific educators that

they think the new user would find valuable. This is done either by retweeting a post made

by the new user, thus exposing them to the network of the experienced microblogger, or by

introducing educators to one another directly, for example (see Section 5.4.3):


@ekouremenos You should connect with @Grade1

The inherent message in this short post is “@Grade1 and @ekouremenos, I’m introducing

you to each other because I think you have something in common. I suggest you link up and

share resources and ideas.”

Once an educator begins using microblogging to support their professional learning, there

are still pitfalls to be considered. Drexler (2010) warned that the learning potential exists in a

PLN in what the learner does with the compilation of content and how it is synthesised (see

Section 3.1). The educators in this study reported that the amount of information exchanged

within their network could be problematic, and they did not all have effective techniques for

dealing with it (see Section 7.2.6). It appears, from the descriptions of interview subjects,

that the most effective way of dealing with these large amounts of information is to save it to

another application and tag it so that it can easily be searched at a later date. This technique

should be introduced to educators when they begin microblogging to ensure that they are

effectively managing the information they receive from their expanding network.

Another implication for practice comes from the issue of recognition of microblogging as

a legitimate form of professional learning. Several educators related that microblogging was

a significant part of their informal professional learning, and despite evidencing this by

documenting that learning reflectively, for example in a blog, this was not accepted by

employers as legitimate professional learning (see Section 7.2.6). Microblogging represents

a significant shift in pedagogic approach, and should be seen as a completely new form of

communication that can support informal learning beyond classrooms (Ebner, et al., 2010). It

is important that institutions understand that knowledge is distributed through different

communities (and networks) and, central to such an understanding is placing control of

learning in the hands of learners themselves and providing learners with the skills and

competences to manage their own learning (Attwell, 2006b). However, it may be some time

before microblogging is accepted universally as a legitimate professional learning tool.

9.5 Implications for theory This study examined the use of microblogging for self-directed professional learning

amongst educators and investigated the value that educators place on microblogging as a

professional learning tool. In order to investigate the types of activities that were undertaken

in microblogging, the study used the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework (Garrison, et

al., 2000). As outlined in Section 8.3.1, the content analysis of blog posts revealed that the

categories and indicators in the CoI framework were not an exact match for this environment

and the researcher proposed an adapted framework, the Network of Exchange (NoE) (see


Section 8.4). Future studies should seek to validate and refine this framework in order to

develop an analytical tool that can be applied to new online learning environments such as

microblogging. Does the framework accurately capture professional learning as occurring

from the intersection of actions, learning environments and elements, that is, presences? Has

the new element, that is, learning presence, been accurately uncovered and defined? Do the

categories accurately represent the elements and do the indicators reliably reflect the

categories?

Furthermore, while content analysis of microblog posts proved useful for this study, it

was found that there is a need for a deeper examination in order to uncover the richness

embodied in microblog posts. Although I believe that this richness has been encapsulated in

the NoE framework, it is not adequately reflected in the NoE coding template, particularly in

the element of learning presence. For instance, examples in the category of synthesising, that

is, exposing an idea in order to get feedback, would be evident in a content analysis of

microblog posts using the NoE coding template, but this would not reveal that a particular

post may have resulted in an extended discussion in another forum and whether learning did

occur and was evidenced for the originator of the post and others involved in the extended

discussion. Can the coding template be adjusted for this purpose, or, as I suspect, is there

another layer of analysis that needs to be established and included?

9.6 Emerging questions and recommendations for further study While caution needs to be exercised in generalising the findings of this study, the outcomes

may be used to guide further research in this area. The study uncovered various uses of

microblogging to support professional learning and established the value of microblogging

within PLNs. However, it also raises a number of questions which researchers may wish to

explore in future studies.

1. The data revealed that the more experienced microbloggers behaved differently from

educators who were new to microblogging (see Section 7.2). The question arises as

to whether this is a sequential path along which all microbloggers move and if there

is any benefit in accelerating new microbloggers along this path.

2. The data also revealed the practice whereby educators who were microblogging

introduced those new to microblogging into the wider network, or, in some

instances, introduced them directly to specific network members (see Section 9.4).

The question arises as to how this supports and increases the learning opportunities

of new microbloggers and whether there are implications for introducing

microblogging as a professional learning tool in practice.


3. Reciprocity emerged as an important aspect of microblogging and the roles of

“connector”, “maven” and “salesman” (Gladwell, 2000) were introduced as part of

the discussion (see Section 6.5.10). The question arises as to how these roles

manifest in relation to microblogging and PLNs.

5. Social constructivism was the theory that informed this study (see Section 3.1, and it was

found that participants believed they were learning through microblogging and that this

learning was evident in their practice (see Section 7.2.2). This is an area that warrants

further investigation in order to ascertain a stronger link between microblogging,

learning and evolving practice. Alderton et, al. (2011) also suggested this type of study

in order to understand how learning in professional networks is transferred into practice.

6. As noted, the phenomenon explored by this study involved a specific technology

(microblogging) being used by a specific group of people (educators) for a specific

purpose (professional learning). It would be beneficial to conduct comparative research

in other professions to investigate if the use of microblogging for professional learning

was widespread in professions beyond education and, if so, how and why it was used.

7. Finally, as noted in Section 4.6.3, it is recognised that a precondition for successful

adoption of a technology tool is a positive attitude towards its potential (Honeycutt

& Herring, 2009). The participants in this study had a positive attitude towards

microblogging and, as noted, could be considered early adopters. Further research

into the attitudes of non-users and why they are not using microblogging for

professional learning would be useful.

9.7 Final words As I reflect upon the journey of this research I must ask, “Can 500 million people be

wrong?”. As at April 2013, there were 500 million Twitter users spending 170 minutes per

day making 400 million posts per day (Smith, 2013). Combined with the value and power

that the participants in this study attributed to microblogging, it would appear that Twitter is

an underused professional learning tool. However, microblogging is not about technology

alone, it is about making rich and varied connections with other professionals, sharing

resources and ideas and, in general, harnessing the collective intelligence - as described by

the participants in this study. In the words of one survey respondent (anonymous):

“I rely on Twitter to stay current with advancements in my field. I've worked

hard to develop a healthy PLN and actively try to engage the members of my

network. The more people share, the more I learn and the more I grow as a

teacher.”


References

Adams, P. (2006). Learning to know and share: New technologies and ‘literacy’. Paper presented at the Asia-Pacific Educational Research Association Annual Conference. Retrieved from http://www.hull.ac.uk/ces/staff/undergraduate-programmes/PaulAdams/HongKong06.pdf

Akyol, Z., Garrison, D. R., & Ozden, M. Y. (2009). Development of a community of inquiry in online and blended learning contexts. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 1(1), 1834-1838.

Ala-Mutka, K. (2009). Review of learning in ICT-enabled networks and communities. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Ala-Mutka, K. (2010). Learning in informal online networks and communities. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Ala-Mutka, K., Punie, Y., & Ferrari, A. (2009). Review of learning in online networks and communities: 4th European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning. In U. Cress, D. Dimitrova & M. Specht (Eds.), Learning in the Synergy of Multiple Disciplines (pp. 350-364). Berlin: Springer.

Alderton, E., Brunsell, E., & Bariexca, D. (2011). The end of isolation Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 7(3). Retrieved from http://jolt.merlot.org/vol7no3/alderton_0911.htm

Alexander, B. (2006). Web 2.0: A new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? Educause Review, 41(2), 32-44. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/erm0621.pdf

Ali-Hasan, N., & Adamic, A. (2007). Expressing social relationships on the blog through links and comments. Paper presented at the International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.107.4956&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Anderson, P. (2007). What is Web 2.0? Ideas, technologies and implications for education. JISC Technology & Standards Watch. Retrieved from http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/techwatch/tsw0701b.pdf

Anderson, T., Rourke, L., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1-17.

Annand, D. (2011). Social presence within the Community of Inquiry framework. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 12(5), 40-56

Atherton, J. S. (2005). Learning and teaching: Constructivism in learning. Retrieved April 13, 2009, from http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/constructivism.htm

Attwell, G. (2006a). Personal learning environments. Retrieved September 6, 2009, from http://www.knownet.com/writing/weblogs/Graham_Attwell/entries/6521819364

Attwell, G. (2006b). Why a Personal Learning Environment and why now? Retrieved from http://www.knownet.com/writing/weblogs/Graham_Attwell/entries/6521819364

Aviram, R., & Tami, D. (2004). The impact of ICT on education: The three opposed paradigms, the lacking discourse. Retrieved from http://www.elearningeuropa.info/extras/pdf/ict_impact.pdf

Aviv, R., Erlich, Z., & Ravid, G. (2005). Reciprocity analysis of online learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 9(4), 3-13.

Aviv, R., Erlich, Z., Ravid, G., & Geva, A. (2003). Network analysis of knowledge construction in asynchronous learning networks. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 7(3), 1-23.

Babbie, E. R. (2010). The practice of social research (12th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning.


Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3(3), 265-299.

Barab, S. A., Kling, R., & Gray, J. H. (Eds.). (2004). Designing for virtual communities in the service of learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bartlett-Bragg, A. (2007). Reflections on pedagogy: Reframing practice to foster informal learning with social software. Retrieved from http://matchsz.inf.elte.hu/TT/docs/Anne20Bartlett-Bragg.pdf

Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2007). Encyclopedia of social psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Baxter, P., & Jack, S. (2008). Qualitative case study methodology: Study design and implementation for novice researchers. The Qualitative Report, 13(4), 544-559.

Berners-Lee, T., & Cailliau, R. (1990). WorldWideWeb: Proposal for a hypertext project. Retrieved May 31, 2009, from http://www.w3.org/Proposal.html

Bielaczyc, K., & Collins, A. (1999). Learning communities in classrooms: A reconceptualization of educational practices. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional-design Theories and Models: A New Paradigm of Instructional Theory (Vol. II, pp. 268-291). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Birdsall, W. F. (2007). Web 2.0 as a social movement. Webology, 4(2). Retrieved from http://www.webology.ir/2007/v4n2/a40.html

boyd, d. (2007). None of this is real. In J. Karaganis (Ed.), Structures of participation in digital culture (pp. 132-157). New York: Social Science Research Council.

boyd, d., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230. Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html

Brown, B. L. (2010). Descriptive statistics. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Research Design (pp. 353-360). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Brown, J. S., & Adler, R. P. (2008). Minds on fire: Open education, the long tail, and learning 2.0. EDUCAUSE Review, 43(1), 16-32.

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32-42.

Brown, J. S., & Duguid, P. (2002). The social life of information. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

Buchel, B., & Raub, S. (2002). Building knowledge-creating value networks. European Management Journal, 20(6), 587–596. Retrieved from http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S026323730200110X

Cachia, R. (2008). Social computing: The case of social networking. IPTS exploratory research on social computing. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Caraballo, D., & Lo, J. (2000). The IRC prelude. Retrieved from http://www.irchelp.org/irchelp/new2irc.html

Carmichael, P., Fox, A., McCormick, R., Procter, R., & Honour, L. (2006). Teachers' networks in and out of school. Research Papers in Education, 21(2), 217-234.

Castells, M. (2000). The rise of the network society. Oxford: Blackwell. Clarke, R. (1998). A primer on Internet technology. Retrieved April 5, 2009, from

http://www.rogerclarke.com/II/IPrimer.html - Sware Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2007). Research methods in education (6th ed.).

London: Routledge Falmer. Comm, J. (2009). Twitter power: How to dominate your market one tweet at a time.

Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons. Conner, M. L. (2004). Informal learning. Ageless Learner. Retrieved from

http://agelesslearner.com/intros/informal.html Conrad, D. (2005). Building and maintaining community in cohort-based online learning.

Journal of Distance Education, 20(1), 1−20. Costa, C., Beham, G., Reinhardt, W., & Sillaot, M. (2008). Microblogging in technology

enhanced learning: A use-case inspection of PPE summer school 2008. Retrieved


from https://http://www.know-center.at/content/download/1650/8519/file/ectel_2008_sirtel_twitter_final.pdf

Couros, A. (2006). Examining the open movement: Possibilities and implications for education. PhD thesis, University of Regina, Canada.

Couros, A. (2008a). Networked possibilities Retrieved from http://couros.wikispaces.com/micds

Couros, A. (2008b). What is a PLN? Or, PLE vs. PLN? Open Thinking, from http://educationaltechnology.ca/couros/1156

Couros, A. (2010). Developing personal learning networks for open and social learning. In G. Veletsianos (Ed.), Emerging Technologies in Distance Education (pp. 109-127). Edmonton, AB: AU Press.

Cragg, C. E., Dunning, J., & Ellis, J. (2008). Teacher and student behaviors in face-to-face and online courses: Dealing with complex concepts. The Journal of Distance Education, 22(3), 115-128.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). Research design: qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods approaches. (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cross, J. (2003). Informal learning – the other 80%. Retrieved from http://internettime.com/Learning/The Other 80%.htm - _Toc40161516

Cross, J. (2006). Informal learning: Rediscovering the natural pathways that inspire innovation and performance. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Cummings, S., & van Zee, A. (2005). Communities of practice and networks: reviewing two perspectives on social learning. Knowledge Management for Development Journal, 1(1), 8-22. Retrieved from http://www.km4dev.org/journal/index.php/km4dj/article/view/9

Dalsgaard, C. (2006). Social software: E-learning beyond learning management systems. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning. Retrieved from http://www.eurodl.org/index.php?article=228

Davis, B., & Sumara, D. (2003). Why aren't they getting this? Working through the regressive myths of constructivist pedagogy. Teaching Education, 14(2), 123-140.

Dawson, J. (2010). Thick description. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Case Study Research (pp. 943-945). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

De Wever, B., Schellens, T., Valcke, M., & Van Keer, H. (2006). Content analysis schemes to analyze transcripts of online asynchronous discussion groups: A review. Computers and Education, 46, 6-28.

Demski, J. (2010). Tweets for teachers. T.H.E. Journal, 37(2), 16-18. Denzin, N. K. (2001). Thick description. In N. K. Denzin (Ed.), Interpretive Interactionism

(2nd ed., pp. 99-119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Denzin, N. K., & Lincoln, Y. S. (2003). Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials.

London: Sage. Dieu, B., & Stevens, V. (2007). Pedagogical affordances of syndication, aggregation, and

mash-up of content on the web. Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language, 11(1). Retrieved from http://tesl-ej.org/ej41/int.html

Dillman, D. A. (2007). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Ding, Y., Jacob, E. K., Caverlee, J., Fried, M., & Zhang, Z. (2009). Profiling social networks: A social tagging perspective. D-Lib Magazine, 15(3/4). Retrieved from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/march09/ding/03ding.html

Divjak, S. (2004). Focus group report: Lifelong learning in the digital age. In T. J. van Weert & M. Kendall (Eds.), Lifelong learning in the digital age: Sustainable for all in a changing world (pp. 1-50). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.

Downes, S. (2005). Semantic networks and social networks. The Learning Organization: An International Journal, 12(5), 411-417. Retrieved from http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/page.cgi?post=31624


Downes, S. (2009). Origins of the term 'Personal Learning Network'. Retrieved 27 January, 2010, from http://halfanhour.blogspot.com.au/2009/10/origins-of-term-personal-learning.html

Downes, S. (2010). Learning networks and connective knowledge. In H. Yang & S. Yuen (Eds.), Collective intelligence and e-learning 2.0: Implications of web-based communities and networking (pp. 1-26). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Drexler, W. (2010). The networked student model for construction of personal learning environments: Balancing teacher control and student autonomy. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(3), 369-385.

Duggan, M., & Brenner, J. (2012). The demographics of social media users - 2012. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

Duncan-Howell, J. (2007). Online communities of practice and their role in professional development of teachers. PhD Thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.

Ebner, M., Lienhardt, C., Rohs, M., & Meyer, I. (2010). Microblogs in Higher Education – A chance to facilitate informal and process-oriented learning? Computers & Education.

Educause. (2007). 7 things you should know about...Twitter. Retrieved from http://www.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7027.pdf

Engel, P. (1993). Daring to share: Networking among non-government organisations. Linking with farmers, networking for low-external-input and sustainable agriculture. ILEIA readings in sustainable agriculture. Retrieved from http://www.mande.co.uk/docs/networkingforlearning.pdf

Fahy, P., Crawford, G., & Ally, M. (2001). Patterns of interaction in a computer conference transcript. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 2(1). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/download/36/74

Ferrer-Roca, O., Ca´rdenas, A., Diaz-Cardama, A., & Pulido, P. (2004). Mobile phone text messaging in the management of diabetes. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare, 10, 282–286.

Fitton, L., Gruen, M. E., & Poston, L. (2009). Twitter for dummies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Fitzpatrick, N., Hayes, N., & O’Rourke, K. C. (2009). Beyond constriction and control:

Constructivism in online theory and practice. In C. R. Payne (Ed.), Information Technology and Constructivism in Higher Education: Progressive Learning Frameworks (pp. 14-26). Hershey, PA: IGI Global.

Fontana, A., & Frey, J. H. (2005). The Interview: From neutral stance to political involvement. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed., pp. 695-728). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Freeman, L. C. (2004). The development of social network analysis: A study in the sociology of science. Vancouver, Canada: Empirical.

Fritz, A. E., & Morgan, G. A. (2010). Sampling. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Research Design (pp. 1303-1306). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87-105.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2001). Critical thinking, cognitive presence, and computer conferencing in distance education. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(1), 7–23.

Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 5-9.

Garrison, D. R., & Arbaugh, J. B. (2007). Researching the community of inquiry framework: Review, issues, and future directions. The Internet and Higher Education, 10(3), 157-172.


Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. (2004). Student role adjustment in online communities of inquiry: Model and instrument validation. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 8(2), 61-74.

Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., & Fung, T. S. (2010). Exploring causal relationships among teaching, cognitive and social presence: Student perceptions of the community of inquiry framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 31-36.

Garrison, D. R., Cleveland-Innes, M., Koole, M., & Kappelman, J. (2006). Revisiting methodological issues in transcript analysis: Negotiated coding and reliability. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(1), 1-8.

Garton, L., Haythornthwaite, C., & Wellman, B. (1997). Studying online social networks. JCMC, 3(1). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol3/issue1/garton.html

Georgakopoulu, A. (2011). Computer-mediated communication. In J.-O. Ostman & J. Verschueren (Eds.), Pragmatics in Practice (pp. 93-110). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Gillham, B. (2000a). Case study research methods. London: Continuum. Gillham, B. (2000b). Developing a questionnaire. New York: Continuum. Giustini, D., & Wright, M. (2009). Twitter: An introduction to microblogging for health

librarians. Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association, 30(1), 11-17. Gladwell, M. (2000). The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference (1st ed.).

Boston: Little, Brown. Go, F., & van Weert, T. J. (2004). Regional knowledge networks for lifelong learning. In T.

J. van Weert & M. Kendall (Eds.), Lifelong learning in the digital age: Sustainable for all in a changing world (pp. 123-132). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.

Golder, S. A., Wilkinson, D. M., & Huberman, A. M. (2007). Rhythms of social interaction: Messaging within a massive online network. Paper presented at the Communities and Technologies 2007: Proceedings of the Third Communities and Technologies Conference, Michigan State University.

Grandy, G. (2010). Intrinsic case study. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Case Study Research (pp. 500-502). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Grinter, R., & Palen, L. (2002). Instant messaging in teen life Proceedings of the Computer Supported Cooperative Work Conference (pp. 21-30). New Orleans, LA: ACM.

Grosseck, G. (2009). To use or not to use web 2.0 in higher education? Paper presented at the World Conference on Educational Sciences.

Grosseck, G., & Holotescu, C. (2008). Can we use twitter for educational activities? Paper presented at the The 4th International Scientific Conference eLearning and Software for Education. Retrieved from http://adl.unap.ro/else/papers/015.-697.1.Grosseck Gabriela-Can we use.pdf

Grosseck, G., & Holotescu, C. (2011). Teacher education in 140 characters - microblogging implications for continuous education, training, learning and personal development. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 11, 160–164.

GTCE. (2005). Networks: The potential for teacher learning. In G. T. C. f. England (Eds.) Available from http://www.gtce.org.uk/documents/publicationpdfs/tplf_pnetw0905.pdf

Guba, E. G., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth generation evaluation. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Hakkarainen, K., Palonen, T., Paavola, S., & Lehtinen, E. (2004). Communities of networked expertise: Professional and educational perspectives. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science.

Harasim, L., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L., & Turoff, M. (1995). Learning networks: A field guide to teaching and learning online. Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press.

Harper, D. (2005). What's new visually? In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed., pp. 747-762). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


Harrison , R., & Thomas, M. (2009). Identity in online communities: Social networking sites and language learning. International Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society, 7(2), 109-124.

Hart, J. A., Reed, R. R., & Bar, F. (1992). The building of the internet: Implications for the future of broadband networks. Telecommunications Policy, 16(8), 666–689.

Hartley, J. (2004). Case study research. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (pp. 323 - 333). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Hastings, S. L. (2010). Triangulation. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Research Design (pp. 1538-1541). Thousand Oaks, CA.: Sage.

Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. Albany: State University of New York Press.

Haythornthwaite, C. (2005). Social networks and internet connectivity effects. Information, Communication & Society 8(2), 125–147

Henri, F., & Pudelko, B. (2003). Understanding and analysing activity and learning in virtual communities. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19, 474-487.

Heppell, S. (2008, March 18). Back and forth. The Guardian. Retrieved June 7, 2009, from http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/mar/18/link.link27

Holotescu, C., & Grosseck, G. (2009). Using microblogging for collaborative learning. Paper presented at the New Technology Platforms for Learning – Revisited, Budapest, Hungary.

Honey, M., & Henriquez, A. (1993). Telecommunications and K-12 educators: Findings from a national survey. New York: Center for Technology in Education.

Honeycutt, C., & Herring, S. C. (2009). Beyond microblogging: Conversation and collaboration via Twitter. Paper presented at the 42nd Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences.

Hopkins, D. (2003). Understanding networks for innovation in policy and practice Networks of innovation: Towards new models for managing schools and systems (pp. 153-163). Paris: OECD.

Hord, S. A., & Sommers, W. A. (2008). Leading professional learning communities: Voices from research and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Hornik, D. (2005). Social networks 3.0. Venture blog Retrieved October 12, 2008, from http://ventureblog.com/articles/2005/12/social_networks.php

Hult, A., Dahlgren, E., Hamilton, D., & Söderström, T. (2005). Teachers’ invisible presence in net-based distance education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 6(3). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/262/838

Illich, I. D. (1971). Deschooling society. London: Calder and Boyars Ltd. Inglis, A., Ling, P., & Joosten, V. (2002). Delivering digitally: Managing the transition to

the knowledge media . London: Kogan Page. Ivanova, M. (2009). From personal learning environment building to professional learning

network forming Retrieved from http://adlunap.ro/else2009/papers/1001.1.Ivanova.pdf

Java, A., Song, X., Finin, T., & Tseng, B. (2007). Why we Twitter: Understanding microblogging usage and communities. Paper presented at the Joint 9th WEBKDD and 1st SNA-KDD Workshop, University of Maryland, Baltimore County.

Jenkins, H. (2006a). Collective intelligence vs. the wisdom of crowds. Retrieved January 7, 2013, from http://henryjenkins.org/2006/11/collective_intelligence_vs_the.html

Jenkins, H. (2006b). Confronting the Challenges of Participatory Culture: Media Education for the 21St Century. Macarthur Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.newmedialiteracies.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/NMLWhitePaper.pdf

Johannisson, B. (1987). Beyond process and structure: Social exchange networks. International Studies of Management & Organization, 17(1), 3-23.

Johnson, M., & Brierley, C. (2007). Personal technologies and masks: Issues of persona and identity in professional practice and learner development. Paper presented at the


Service Oriented Approaches and Lifelong Competence Development Infrastructures: 2nd TENCompetence Open Workshop.

Johnston, W. J., Peters, L. D., & Gassenheimer, J. (2006). Questions about network dynamics: Characteristics, structures, and interactions. Journal of Business Research, 59(8), 945-954.

Jonassen, D., Davidson, M., Collins, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. B. (1995). Constructivism and computer-mediated communication in distance education. The American Journal of Distance Education, 9(2), 17-25.

Kavanaugh, A., Reese, D. D., Carroll, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (2003). Weak ties in networked communities. In M. Huysman, E. Wenger & V. Wulf (Eds.), Communities & technologies: Proceedings of the first international conference on communities and technologies (pp. 265-286). London: Kluwer Academic.

Keeble, L., & Loader, B. D. (Eds.). (2001). Community informatics: Shaping computer-mediated social relations. London: Routledge.

Kendall, M. (2004). Community based learning: Developing the interface between formal and informal learning communities. In T. J. van Weert & M. Kendall (Eds.), Lifelong learning in the digital age: Sustainable for all in a changing world (pp. 157-168). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic.

Kim, W., Jeong, O., & Lee, S. (2010). On social Web sites. Information Systems Frontiers, 35(2), 215-236.

King, N. (2004). Using interviews in qualitative research. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.), Essential guide to qualitative methods in organizational research (pp. 11 - 22). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kirschner, P., Strijbos, J. W., Kreijns, K., & Beers, P. J. (2004). Designing electronic collaborative learning environments. Educational Technology, Research and Development, 52(3), 47-66.

Koper, R. (2009). Learning network services for professional development. Dordrecht, Germany: Springer.

Koper, R., Rusman, E., & Sloep, P. (2005). Effective learning network. Lifelong Learning in Europe, IX, 18-28.

Kraut, R., Kiesler, S., Boneva, B., Cummings, J., Helgeson, V., & Crawford, A. (2002). Internet paradox revisited. Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 49 - 74

Lalonde, C. (2011). The Twitter experience: The role of Twitter in the formation and maintenance of personal learning networks. Royal Roads University, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.

Laningham, S. (2006). Podcast, developerworks interviews: Tim Berners-Lee. Retrieved from http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/podcast/dwi/cm-int082206.html

Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Leadbeater, C. (2008). We-think London: Profile. Leidner, D. E., & Jarvenpaa, S. L. (1995). The use of information technology to enhance

management school education: A theoretical view. MIS Quarterly, 19(3), 265-291. Leiner, B. M., Cerf, V. G., Clark, D. D., Kahn, R. E., Kleinrock, L., Lynch, D. C., et al.

(2000). A brief history of the internet, version 3.31. Retrieved from http://www.iicm.tugraz.at/Ressourcen/Theses/cguetl_diss/diss_html/literatur/Kapitel02/References/Leiner_et_al._2000/brief.html - JCRL62

Lengel, L. (2009). Computer-mediated communication. In W. F. Eadie (Ed.), 21st century communication: A reference handbook (pp. 543-550). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Lerman, K. (2007). Social networks and social information filtering on digg. Paper presented at the Weblogs and Social Media Conference, Boulder, Colorado. Retrieved from http://www.icwsm.org/papers/4-Lerman.pdf

Lévy, P. (1997a). Collective intelligence: Mankind's emerging world in cyberspace. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Books.

Lévy, P. (1997b). Education and training: New technologies and collective intelligence. Prospects, 27(2), 248-263.


Li, C., & Bernoff, J. (2008). Groundswell: Winning in a world transformed by social technologies. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Libert, B., & Spector, J. (2008). We are smarter than me: How to unleash the power of crowds in your business. New Jersey, NJ: Wharton School Publishing.

Licklider, J. C. R. (1960). Man-computer symbiosis. IRE transactions on human factors in electronics, HFE-1, 4-11. Retrieved from http://groups.csail.mit.edu/medg/people/psz/Licklider.html

Licklider, J. C. R., & Taylor, R. (1968). The Computer as a Communication Device. International Science and Technology, April. Retrieved from http://www.comunicazione.uniroma1.it/materiali/20.20.03_licklider-taylor.pdf

Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage. Locke, L. F., Spirduso, W. W., & Silverman, S. J. (2000). Proposals that work: A guide for

planning dissertations and gant proposal (4th ed.). Thousand Oadks, CA: Sage. Lombard, A. (2013). 15 Twitter 140 alumni you should follow. Time Magazine. Retrieved

from http://techland.time.com/2013/03/25/15-twitter-140-alumni-you-should-follow/ Lopp, M. (2008). We travel in tribes. Blog post, May 15 Retrieved June 7, 2009, from

http://www.randsinrepose.com/archives/2008/05/15/we_travel_in_tribes.html Lu, J., Lai, M., & Law, N. (2010). Knowledge building in society 2.0: Challenges and

opportunities. In M. S. Khine & I. M. Saleh (Eds.), New science of learning: Cognition, computers and collaboration in education (pp. 553-568). New York: Springer.

Makice, K. (2007). A brief history of microblogging. BlogSchmog Retrieved April 5, 2010, from http://www.blogschmog.net/2007/11/17/a-brief-history-of-microblogging/

Makice, K. (2009). Twitter API: Up and running. Sebastopol, CA: O'Reilly Media. Maness, J. M. (2006). Library 2.0 theory: Web 2.0 and its implications for libraries.

Webology, 3(2). Retrieved from http://www.webology.ir/2006/v3n2/a25.html Masie, E. (2008). Social learning: An emerging trend. Training Zone. Retrieved from

http://www.trainingzone.co.uk/item/185770 Mason, M. (2010). Sample size and saturation in PhD studies using qualitative interviews.

Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 11(3). Retrieved from http://www.qualitative-research.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/1428/3027

Mason, R. (1992). Evaluation methodologies for computer conferencing applications. In A. R. Kaye (Ed.), Collaborative learning through computer conferencing: The Najaden papers (pp. 105-116). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Mason, R., & Rennie, F. (2008). e-Learning and social networking handbook: Resources for higher education. New York: Routledge.

Maxwell, J. A. (2009). Designing a qualitative study. In L. Bickman & D. J. Rog (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Applied Social Research Methods (2nd ed., pp. 214-253). Los Angeles: Sage.

McElvaney, J., & Berge, Z. (2009). Weaving a personal web: Using online technologies to create customized, connected, and dynamic learning environments. Canadian Journal of Learning and Technology, 35(2).

McFedries, P. (2007). All a-twitter. IEEE Spectrum, 44(10), 84. McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2008a). The 3 P's of pedagogy for the networked society:

personalization, participation, and productivity. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 20(1), 10–27. Retrieved from http://www.isetl.org/ijtlhe/articleView.cfm?id=395

McLoughlin, C., & Lee, M. J. W. (2008b). Future learning landscapes: Transforming pedagogy through social software. Innovate, 4(5). Retrieved from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=539

McMillan, J. H., & Schumacher, S. (2006). Research in education: Evidence-based inquiry. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Mejias, U. (2006). Teaching social software with social software. Innovate, 2(5). Retrieved from http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=260


Meraz, S. (2011). Twitter. In G. A. Barnett (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Social Networks (pp. 886-887). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mergel, I., & Greeves, B. (2013). Social media in the public sector field guide: Desiging and implementing strategies and policies San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Millen, D. R., & Patterson, J. F. (2002). Stimulating social engagement in a community network. Paper presented at the ACM conference on Computer supported cooperative work, New Orleans, Louisiana.

Miller, P. (2007). Web 2.0: Building the new library. Ariadne, 45. Retrieved from http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue45/miller/

Moran, M., Seaman, J., & Tinti-Kane, H. (2011). Teaching, learning, and sharing: How today’s higher education faculty use social media. Boston, MA: Pearson.

Mutton, P. (2004, 14-16 July 2004). Inferring and visualizing social networks on internet relay chat. Paper presented at the 8th International Conference on Information Visualisation, London, UK.

Naone, E. (2008). A brief history of microblogging. Technology Review. Retrieved from http://www.technologyreview.com/computing/21227/

Nardi, B., Schiano, D., & Gumbrecht, M. (2004). Blogging as a social activity, or would you let 900 million people read your diary? Paper presented at the CHI Conference. Retrieved from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.102.3591&rep=rep1&type=pdf

Nardi, B., Whittaker, S., & Bradner, E. (2000). Interaction and outeraction: Instant messaging in action. Paper presented at the Computer Supported Cooperative Work Conference, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

Neil, P., & Morgan, C. (2003). Continuing professional development for teachers: from induction to senior management. London: Kogan Page.

Nielsen, L. (2008). Personal learning network. The Innovative Educator Retrieved from http://theinnovativeeducator.blogspot.com/2008/05/developing-mentors-from-your-personal.html

NSBA. (2007). Creating & connecting: Research and guidelines on online social and educational networking: National School Boards Association.

NSF. (2001). Elementary, secondary, and informal education: Program solicitation and guidelines. Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation.

O'Hair, H. D., & Eadie, W. F. (2009). Communication as an idea and as an ideal. In W. F. Eadie (Ed.), 21st century communication: A reference handbook (pp. 3-11). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

O’Reilly, T. (2005). What is Web 2.0? Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved October 11, 2008, from http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html

OECD. (2005). The definition and selection of key competencies: Executive summary. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/47/61/35070367.pdf

Oikarinen, J. (2004). IRC History. Retrieved from http://www.ircnet.org/History/jarkko.html Packer, N., & Daley, C. (2006). Online communities and professional teacher learning:

Affordances and challenges. In E. K. Sorensen & D. O. Murchú (Eds.), Enhancing learning through technology (pp. 1-28). Hershey, PA: Information Science.

Parry, D. (2008). Twitter for academia. Blog post. Retrieved from http://academhack.outsidethetext.com/home/2008/twitter-for-academia/

Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


Pea, R. D. (1993). Practices of distributed intelIigence and designs for education. In G. Salomon (Ed.), Distributed cognitions: Psychological and educational considerations (pp. 47-87). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Pettenati, M. C., & Cigognini, M. E. (2007). Social networking theories and tools to support connectivist learning activities. Journal of Web Based Learning and Teaching Technologies, 2(3), 42-60. Retrieved from elilearning.files.wordpress.com/2007/09/ijwltt2007_pettenati_cigognini.pdf

Plickert, G., Côté, R. R., & Wellman, B. (2008). It's not who you know, it's how you know them: Who exchanges what with whom? Social Networks, 29(3), 405-429.

Prell, C. (2003). Community networking and social capital: Early investigations. JCMC, 8(3). Retrieved from http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol8/issue3/prell.html

Pritchard, A. (2010). Psychology for the classroom: Constructivism and social learning. Hoboken, NJ: Taylor & Francis.

Punie, Y., & Ala-Mutka, K. (2007). Future learning spaces: New ways of learning and new digital skills to learn. Digital Kompetanse, 2, 210–225. Retrieved from http://is.jrc.es/pages/EAP/documents/2007Learning_SpacesDigitalLiteracy_000.pdf

Purcell, K., Heaps, A., Buchanan, J., & Friedrich, L. (2013). How teachers are using technology at home and in their classrooms Washington, DC: Pew Research Center.

Putnam, R. D. (2001). Social capital: Measurement and consequences. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/25/6/1825848.pdf

Redecker, C., Ala-Mutka, K., Bacigalupo, M., Ferrari, A., & Punie, Y. (2009). Learning 2.0: The impact of web 2.0 innovations on education and training in europe. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

Reichelt, L. (2007). Ambient Intimacy. Blog post, March 1 Retrieved June 7, 2009, from http://www.disambiguity.com/ambient-intimacy/

Rennie, F., & Mason, R. (2004). The connecticon: Learning for the connected generation. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.

Resnick, L. B. (1991). Shared cognition: Thinking as social practice. In L. B. Resnick, J. M. Levine & S. D. Teasley (Eds.), Perspectives on socially shared cognition (pp. 1-20). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Rheingold, H. (2000). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Rheingold, H. (2008). Using participatory media and public voice to encourage civic engagement. In W. L. Bennett, J. D. The & C. T. MacArthur (Eds.), Civic life online: Learning how digital media can engage youth (pp. 97–118). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Rheingold, H. (Producer). (2011) Howard Rheingold interviews Pierre Lévy on collective intelligence. Blog of Collective Intelligence. retrieved from http://blogofcollectiveintelligence.com/2011/03/07/pierre_levy/

Rheingold, H. (2012). Net smart: How to thrive online. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Rice, M. L., & Wilson, E. K. (1999). How technology aids constructivism in the social

studies classroom. The Social Studies, 90(1), 28-33. Richardson, W. (2008). Building your own personal learning network. Massachusetts

Computer Using Educators, Spring. Retrieved from http://www.masscue.org/publications/oncuespring08/BuildingYourOwnPLN.pdf

Rigby, L. (2008). Twitter in higher education. Blog post, November 17 Retrieved June 7, 2009, from http://www.lexrigby.com/2008/11/17/twitter-in-higher-education/

Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. New York: Free Press. Rogers, P. C., Liddle, S. W., Chan, P., Doxey, A., & Isom, B. (2007). Web 2.0 learning

platform: Harnessing collective intelligence. Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education, 8(3), 16-33.

Rourke, L., Anderson, T., Garrison, D. R., & Archer, W. (2001). Methodological issues in the content analysis of computer conference transcripts. International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education, 12, 8-22.


Rovai, A. P., Wighting, M. J., Baker, J. D., & Grooms, L. D. (2009). Development of an instrument to measure perceived cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning in traditional and virtual classroom higher education settings. The Internet and Higher Education, 12(1), 7-13.

Santos, A. (2012). Designing and researching virtual learning communities. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 7(4). Retrieved from http://online-journals.org/i-jet/article/view/2311/2400

Saumure, K., & Given, L. M. (2008). Nonprobability sampling. In L. M. Given (Ed.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods (pp. 563-564). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Scott, D., & Morrison, M. (2006). Key ideas in educational research. London: Continuum. Shackleton-Jones, N. (2008). Informal learning and the future. Training Journal, October 1.

Retrieved from http://www.trainingjournal.com/tj/1740.html Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2009). Cognitive presence and online learner engagement: A

cluster analysis of the Community of Inquiry framework. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 21(3), 199-217.

Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2010). Learning presence: Towards a theory of self-efficacy, self-regulation, and the development of a communities of inquiry in online and blended learning environments. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1721-1731

Shea, P., & Bidjerano, T. (2012). Learning presence as a moderator in the community of inquiry model. Computers & Education, 59(2), 316–326.

Shea, P., Hayes, S., Smith, S. U., Vickers, J., Bidjerano, T., Gozza-Cohen, M., et al. (2013). Online learner self-regulation: Learning presence viewed through quantitative content- and social network analysis. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 14(3), 427-461.

Shea, P., Hayes, S., Smith, S. U., Vickers, J., Bidjerano, T., Pickett, A., et al. (2012). Learning presence: Additional research on a new conceptual element within the Community of Inquiry (CoI) framework. The Internet and Higher Education, 15(2), 89–95.

Siemens, G. (2006). Knowing knowledge: Lulu.com ISBN: 978-1-4303-0230-8. Silverman, D. (2005). Doing qualitative research: A practical handbook (2nd ed.). Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage. Simons, P. R. J., & Ruijters, M. C. P. (2001). Work related learning: elaborate, expand,

externalise. In L. Nieuwenhuis (Ed.), Dynamics and stability in VET and HRD (pp. 101-114). Enschede, The Netherlands: Twente University Press.

Simpson, J. (2002). Computer-mediated communication. English Language Teaching Journal, 56(4), 414-415.

Sliwka, A. (2003). Networking for educational innovation, a comparative analysis Schooling of tomorrow, networks of innovation: Towards new models for managing schools and systems (pp. 48-63). Paris: OECD.

Smith, C. (2013). By the numbers: 10 amazing Twitter stats. Retrieved 25 April, 2013, from http://expandedramblings.com/index.php/march-2013-by-the-numbers-a-few-amazing-twitter-stats/

Sorensen, E. K., & Murchú, D. O. (Eds.). (2006). Enhancing learning through technology. Hershey, PA: Information Science.

Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stake, R. E. (2003). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Strategies of

qualitative inquiry (pp. 134-164). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stake, R. E. (2005). Qualitative case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), The

SAGE Handbook of Qualitative Research (3rd ed., pp. 443-466). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Standing, L. G. (2004). Halo effect. In M. S. Lewis-Beck, A. E. Bryman & T. Futing Liao (Eds.), The SAGE Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods, Volume 1 (pp. 451). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.


Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Streb, C. K. (2010). Exploratory case study. In A. J. Mills, G. Durepos & E. Wiebe (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Case Study Research (pp. 373-375). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tam, M. (2000). Constructivism, instructional design, and technology: Implications for transforming distance learning. Educational Technology & Society, 3(2), 50-60.

Tellis, W. (1997). Application of a case study methodology. The Qualitative Report, 3(3). Thompson, C. (2007). How Twitter creates a social sixth sense. Blog post. Retrieved from

http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/magazine/15-07/st_thompson Tissot, P. (2000). Terminology of vocational training policy: A multilingual glossary for an

enlarged Europe, Making Learning Visible Available from europass.cedefop.europa.eu/img/dynamic/c313/cv-1_en_US_glossary_4030_6k.pdf

Tobin, D. R. (1998). Building your personal learning network. Retrieved from http://www.tobincls.com/learningnetwork.htm

Trust, T. (2012). Professional learning networks designed for teacher learning. Australian Educational Computing, 27(1), 34-38.

van Aalst, H. F. (1999). Learning in the network society. Paper presented at the Efvet 8th International Conference: Vocational Education and Training in the Information Society. Retrieved from http://video.ots.dk/EfVET/Programme/Thursday/Plenary_session/Efvet_Odense_Nov_1999.doc

van Aalst, H. F. (2003). Networks in society, organizations and education Networks of innovation: Towards new models for managing schools and systems (pp. 33-37). Paris: OECD.

Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2013). Scholars and faculty members’ lived experiences in online social networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 16, 43-50.

Veletsianos, G., & Navarrete, C. (2012). Online social networks as formal learning environments: Learner experiences and activities. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13(1), 144-166.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1962). Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Warlick, D. (2009). Grow your personal learning network: New technologies can keep you

connected and help you manage information overload. Learning & Leading with Technology, 36(6), 12-16.

Wasko, M. M., & Faraj, S. (2005). Why should I share? Examining social capital and knowledge contribution in electronic networks of practice. MIS Quarterly, 29(1), 35-57.

Wellman, B. (1997). An electronic group is virtually a social network. In S. Kiesler (Ed.), Culture of the internet (pp. 179-205). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Wellman, B. (1999). Networks in the global village. Boulder, CO: Westview. Wellman, B., Boase, J., & Chen, W. (2002). The networked nature of community: Online

and offline. IT and Society, 1(1), 151-165. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge,

MA: Cambridge University Press. Wenger, E. (2006). Communities of practice a brief introduction. Retrieved 21 October,

2008, from http://www.ewenger.com/theory/communities_of_practice_intro.htm White, C. (2003). Language learning in distance education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press. Wilson, S. (2008). Patterns of personal learning environments. Interactive Learning

Environments, 16(1), 17-34. Winter, G. (2000). A comparative discussion of the notion of 'validity' in qualitative and

quantitative research. The Qualitative Report, 4(3 & 4). Retrieved from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/QR4-3/winter.html

Yin, R. K. (2003). Applications of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:

Sage.


10Appendix 1: Online survey


11. (continued)

learning in 140 microblogging for professional...

Documents