Twitter as a classroom tool: Exploring the use, benefits, and downfalls from the perspectives of instructors and students
Keywords:
Twitter, social networking, classroomAbstract
Recently, the educational community has become aware of Twitter and begun to use it as a pedagogical tool. Yet, using these tools within a course is not enough to ensure positive outcomes. Thus, more research is needed to understand the perceived benefits and downfalls of its integration in the classroom context. To this end, the present study examined (a) how instructors are using Twitter and (2) compares and contrasts instructors and students perceptions of the benefits and downfalls of using Twitter in the classroom. Practical applications and directions for future research are discussed.
References
Aagard, H., Bowen, K., & Olseova, L. (2010, September 1). Hotseat: Opening the backchannel in large lectures. Educause Quarterly Magazine. Retrieved May 25, 2010 from: http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolum/HotseatOpeningtheBackchannelin/213668
Baralt, M., & Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2011). Comparing learners’ state anxiety during task-based interaction in computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Language Teaching Research, 15, 201-222. doi: 10.1177/0265532210388717
Baxter, L.A., & Babbie, E. (2004). The basics of communication research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DiVerniero, R. A., & Hosek, A. M. (2011). Students’ perceptions and sense making of instructors’ online self-disclosure. Communication Quarterly, 59, 428-449. doi: 10.1080/01463373.2011.597275 A
Elavsky, M. C., Mislan, C., & Elavsky, S. (2011). When talking less is more: Exploring outcomes of Twitter usage in the large-lecture hall. Media & Technology (36), 215-233. doi: 10.1080/17439884.2010.549828
Fahri, P. (2009). The twitter explosion. American Journalism Review, 31, 26-31.
Frymier, A. B., Shulman, G. M., & Houser, M. L. (1996). The development of a learner empowerment measure. Communication Education, 45, 181-199. doi: 10.1080/03634529609379048
Granovetter, M. (1976). Network sampling: Some first steps. American Journal of Sociology, 81, 1287-1303. doi: 10.1086/226224
Johnson, S. (2009, June 15). How twitter will change the way we live (in 140 characters or? less). Time, 173, 32-37.
Junco, R., Heiberger, G., & Loken, E. (2011). The effect of twitter on college student engagement and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 119-132. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00387.x
Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories: An overview of their current status (pp. 383-434). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. doi: 10.1007/BF02904345
Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 457–76. doi:10.2307/329999
Khine, M. S., Yeap, L. L., & Lok, A. T. (2003) The quality of message ideas, thinking, and interaction in an asynchronous CMC environment. Educational Media International, 40, 115-126. doi:10.1080/0952398032000092161
Kirkpatrick, M. (2009, June 1). How one teacher uses twitter in the classroom. ReadWriteWeb. Retrieved May 20, 2011 from http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/how_one_teacher_uses_twitter_in_the_classroom.php
Lane, D. R., & Shelton, M. W. (2001). The centrality of communication education in classroom computer-mediated-communication: Toward a practical and evaluative pedagogy. Communication Education, 50, 241–255. doi:10.1080/03634520109379251
Li, L., Finley, J., Pitts, J., & Guo, R. (2010). Which is a better choice for student-faculty interaction: Synchronous or asynchronous communication? Journal of Technology Research, 2, 1-12. doi:10.1080/03634520109379251
Lindlof, T.R., & Taylor, B.C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Manzo, K. K. (2009, October 21). Twitter lessons in 140 characters or less. Education Week, 29, 1-14.
Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J. (2007). I’ll see you on “Facebook”: The effects of computer-mediated teacher self-disclosure on student motivation, affective learning, and classroom climate. Communication Education, 56, 1-17. doi: 10.1080/03634520601009710
Mazer, J.P., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J. (2009). The effects of teacher self-disclosure via Facebook on teacher credibility. Learning, Media, and Technology, 34, 175-183. doi:10.1080/17439880902923655
McComb, M. (1994). Benefits of computer-mediated communication in college courses. Communication Education, 43, 159–170. doi:10.1080/03634529409378973
Millette, D. M., & Gorham, J. (2002). Teacher behavior and student motivation. In J. L. Chesebro & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Communication for teachers (pp. 141-154). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Muddiman, A., & Frymier, A. B. (2009). What is relevant? Student perceptions of relevance strategies in college classrooms. Communication Studies, 60, 130-146. doi: 10.1080/10510970902834866
Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialects of disclosure. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Prensky, M. (2005). Listening to the natives. Educational Leadership, 63, 8-13.
Rubin, H.J., & Rubin, I.S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.
Schrodt, P., & Turman, P. D. (2005). The impact of instructional technology use, course design, and sex differences on students’ initial perceptions of instructor credibility. Communication Quarterly, 53, 177-196. doi: 10.1080/01463370500090399
Schrodt, P., & Witt, P. L. (2006). Students’ attributions of instructor credibility as a function of students’ expectations of instructional technology use and nonverbal immediacy. Communication Education, 55, 1-20. doi: 10.1080/03634520500343335
Serpe, G. (2012, March 12). Justin Bieber dead? Nah, just Twitter’s latest hoax victim. Eonline. Retrieved March 17, 2012 from: http://www.eonline.com/news/justin_bieber_dead_nah_just_twitters/300352
Sherblom, J. C. (2010). The computer-mediated communication (CMC) classroom: A challenge of medium, presence, interaction, identity, and relationship. Communication Education, 59, 497-523. doi:10.1080/03634523.2010.486440
Toppo, G. (2006, September 18). Teachers speak out of turn; Weblogs allow educators to vent, and possibly make schools better. USA Today. Retrieved April 1, 2007, from http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/USAToday/access/1129261151.html
Tutty, J. I., & Klein, J. D. (2008). Computer-mediated instruction: A comparison of online and face-to-face collaboration. Educational Technology Research & Development, 56, 101-124. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9050-9
Zeiss, E., & Isabelli-Garcia, C. (2005). The role of asynchronous computer mediated communication on enhancing cultural awareness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18, 151-169. doi:10.1080/0958822050017331 doi: 10.1080/09588220500173310
Baralt, M., & Gurzynski-Weiss, L. (2011). Comparing learners’ state anxiety during task-based interaction in computer-mediated and face-to-face communication. Language Teaching Research, 15, 201-222. doi: 10.1177/0265532210388717
Baxter, L.A., & Babbie, E. (2004). The basics of communication research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
DiVerniero, R. A., & Hosek, A. M. (2011). Students’ perceptions and sense making of instructors’ online self-disclosure. Communication Quarterly, 59, 428-449. doi: 10.1080/01463373.2011.597275 A
Elavsky, M. C., Mislan, C., & Elavsky, S. (2011). When talking less is more: Exploring outcomes of Twitter usage in the large-lecture hall. Media & Technology (36), 215-233. doi: 10.1080/17439884.2010.549828
Fahri, P. (2009). The twitter explosion. American Journalism Review, 31, 26-31.
Frymier, A. B., Shulman, G. M., & Houser, M. L. (1996). The development of a learner empowerment measure. Communication Education, 45, 181-199. doi: 10.1080/03634529609379048
Granovetter, M. (1976). Network sampling: Some first steps. American Journal of Sociology, 81, 1287-1303. doi: 10.1086/226224
Johnson, S. (2009, June 15). How twitter will change the way we live (in 140 characters or? less). Time, 173, 32-37.
Junco, R., Heiberger, G., & Loken, E. (2011). The effect of twitter on college student engagement and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 119-132. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00387.x
Keller, J. M. (1983). Motivational design of instruction. In C. M. Reigeluth (Ed.), Instructional design theories: An overview of their current status (pp. 383-434). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. doi: 10.1007/BF02904345
Kern, R. (1995). Restructuring classroom interaction with networked computers: Effects on quantity and characteristics of language production. The Modern Language Journal, 79, 457–76. doi:10.2307/329999
Khine, M. S., Yeap, L. L., & Lok, A. T. (2003) The quality of message ideas, thinking, and interaction in an asynchronous CMC environment. Educational Media International, 40, 115-126. doi:10.1080/0952398032000092161
Kirkpatrick, M. (2009, June 1). How one teacher uses twitter in the classroom. ReadWriteWeb. Retrieved May 20, 2011 from http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/how_one_teacher_uses_twitter_in_the_classroom.php
Lane, D. R., & Shelton, M. W. (2001). The centrality of communication education in classroom computer-mediated-communication: Toward a practical and evaluative pedagogy. Communication Education, 50, 241–255. doi:10.1080/03634520109379251
Li, L., Finley, J., Pitts, J., & Guo, R. (2010). Which is a better choice for student-faculty interaction: Synchronous or asynchronous communication? Journal of Technology Research, 2, 1-12. doi:10.1080/03634520109379251
Lindlof, T.R., & Taylor, B.C. (2002). Qualitative communication research methods (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Manzo, K. K. (2009, October 21). Twitter lessons in 140 characters or less. Education Week, 29, 1-14.
Mazer, J. P., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J. (2007). I’ll see you on “Facebook”: The effects of computer-mediated teacher self-disclosure on student motivation, affective learning, and classroom climate. Communication Education, 56, 1-17. doi: 10.1080/03634520601009710
Mazer, J.P., Murphy, R. E., & Simonds, C. J. (2009). The effects of teacher self-disclosure via Facebook on teacher credibility. Learning, Media, and Technology, 34, 175-183. doi:10.1080/17439880902923655
McComb, M. (1994). Benefits of computer-mediated communication in college courses. Communication Education, 43, 159–170. doi:10.1080/03634529409378973
Millette, D. M., & Gorham, J. (2002). Teacher behavior and student motivation. In J. L. Chesebro & J. C. McCroskey (Eds.), Communication for teachers (pp. 141-154). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Muddiman, A., & Frymier, A. B. (2009). What is relevant? Student perceptions of relevance strategies in college classrooms. Communication Studies, 60, 130-146. doi: 10.1080/10510970902834866
Petronio, S. (2002). Boundaries of privacy: Dialects of disclosure. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Prensky, M. (2005). Listening to the natives. Educational Leadership, 63, 8-13.
Rubin, H.J., & Rubin, I.S. (2005). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data. Thousand Oaks: CA: Sage.
Schrodt, P., & Turman, P. D. (2005). The impact of instructional technology use, course design, and sex differences on students’ initial perceptions of instructor credibility. Communication Quarterly, 53, 177-196. doi: 10.1080/01463370500090399
Schrodt, P., & Witt, P. L. (2006). Students’ attributions of instructor credibility as a function of students’ expectations of instructional technology use and nonverbal immediacy. Communication Education, 55, 1-20. doi: 10.1080/03634520500343335
Serpe, G. (2012, March 12). Justin Bieber dead? Nah, just Twitter’s latest hoax victim. Eonline. Retrieved March 17, 2012 from: http://www.eonline.com/news/justin_bieber_dead_nah_just_twitters/300352
Sherblom, J. C. (2010). The computer-mediated communication (CMC) classroom: A challenge of medium, presence, interaction, identity, and relationship. Communication Education, 59, 497-523. doi:10.1080/03634523.2010.486440
Toppo, G. (2006, September 18). Teachers speak out of turn; Weblogs allow educators to vent, and possibly make schools better. USA Today. Retrieved April 1, 2007, from http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/USAToday/access/1129261151.html
Tutty, J. I., & Klein, J. D. (2008). Computer-mediated instruction: A comparison of online and face-to-face collaboration. Educational Technology Research & Development, 56, 101-124. doi:10.1007/s11423-007-9050-9
Zeiss, E., & Isabelli-Garcia, C. (2005). The role of asynchronous computer mediated communication on enhancing cultural awareness. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18, 151-169. doi:10.1080/0958822050017331 doi: 10.1080/09588220500173310
Downloads
Additional Files
Published
2013-12-31
Issue
Section
Articles
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
