This article was downloaded by: [Uniwersytet Warszawski]

On: 25 October 2014, At: 02:40

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,
UK

Journal of Research on
Technology in Education
Publication details, including instructions for
authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujrt20

#TwitterforTeachers: The
Implications of Twitter as a
Self-Directed Professional
Development Tool for K–12
Teachers
a b
Ryan D. Visser , Lea Calvert Evering & David E.
a
Barrett
a
Clemson University
b
Seneca Middle School, Oconee County, South
Carolina
Published online: 13 Aug 2014.

To cite this article: Ryan D. Visser, Lea Calvert Evering & David E. Barrett (2014)
#TwitterforTeachers: The Implications of Twitter as a Self-Directed Professional
Development Tool for K–12 Teachers, Journal of Research on Technology in Education,
46:4, 396-413, DOI: 10.1080/15391523.2014.925694

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2014.925694

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,
or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views
expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the
Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with
 primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any
losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,
and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the
Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,
sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is
expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 02:40 25 October 2014
 #TwitterforTeachers: The Implications of Twitter as a Self-
Directed Professional Development Tool for K–12 Teachers
JRTE | Vol. 46, No. 4, pp. 396–413 | Ó2014 ISTE | iste.org/jrte

#TwitterforTeachers: The Implications of Twitter as a Self-

Directed Professional Development Tool for K–12 Teachers

Ryan D. Visser
Clemson University

Lea Calvert Evering

Seneca Middle School, Oconee County, South Carolina
Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 02:40 25 October 2014

David E. Barrett
Clemson University

Abstract
This mixed-methods study explores how K–12 teachers use Twitter. An
online survey was disseminated via Twitter to gauge their usage of, access
to, and perceptions of Twitter. The results indicated that teachers highly
value Twitter as a means of self-directed professional development.
Respondents who reported using Twitter multiple times a day were more
likely to use it for professional purposes than personal ones. Chief among
the reported perceived benefits were professional development and
meaningful relationships that teachers formed with other teachers who use
Twitter. Implications for practice, including the ability for teachers to seek
professional development for their specific needs, are discussed. (Keywords:
Twitter, social media, connected educators, personal learning networks
(PLNs))

S
ocial networks contain information and resources that can be used by
educators to develop their professional practice (Brown, Vissa, & Moss-
grove, 2012; Hanraets, Hulsebosch, & de Laat, 2011). Many teachers are
creating and participating in expansive social networks called personal learn-
ing networks. A personal learning network (PLN) has been defined as a “sys-
tem of interpersonal connections and resources” that can be used for informal
learning, collaboration, and exchanging knowledge and ideas (Trust, 2012, p.
133). PLNs are created predominantly within online environments such as
education-focused blogs, wikis, and podcasts, as well as through social media
sites like Edmodo, Facebook, and Twitter.
PLNs have recently emerged as a popular alternative to conventional models
of professional development (PD), which have “failed in delivering meaningful

396 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l Volume 46 Number 4

 The Implications of Twitter

experiences” to teachers (Kabilan, Adlina, & Embi, 2011, p. 95). Conventional

models of PD are typically mandated, institution-driven workshops that occur
within the school building (Kabilan, 2005; Marsick & Watkins, 1990). They tend
to be one-time events with little or no follow-up (Jaquith, Mindich, Wei, & Dar-
ling-Hammond, 2011), are costly in a time where schools have limited financial
resources (Masters, de Kramer, O’Dwyer, Dash, & Russell, 2010), cover material
and skills that are frequently “disconnected from practice” (Schlager & Fusco,
2003, p. 95) and do not necessarily contribute to the teacher’s repertoire of skills
(Joyce & Showers, 2002), and often do not focus on improving instruction
(Kabilan, Vethamani, & Fong, 2008). Perhaps most importantly, research on
conventional PD has often failed to demonstrate improvements in student
learning (see, e.g., Guskey, 2009).
Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 02:40 25 October 2014

Alternatively, informal PD, especially through PLNs, is both appealing and

valuable to educators for a variety of reasons. Typically, informal PD is class-
room based and specifically connected to the individual’s needs (Lom &
Sullenger, 2011; Richter, Kunter, Klusmann, Ludtke, & Baumert, 2011).
Because PLNs exist online, informal PD is nearly always accessible and there-
fore tends to become embedded in the teacher’s daily routine, which can lead
to transformation of practice (Beach, 2012; Bickmore, 2012; Lock, 2006).
Although members of PLNs may not necessarily know each other in the tra-
ditional sense, interpersonal relationships do arise, resulting in organic col-
laborations in which educators share knowledge, strategies, and experiences,
work together on projects, improve their competencies, and transform their
classroom practice (Cordingley, Bell, Evans, & Firth, 2005; Kabilan, Adlina, &
Embi, 2011; Putnam & Borko, 2000; Richter et al., 2011).
Due to its recent emergence, PLN literature is relatively thin, but existing
research has addressed how PLNs are used within social media sites, includ-
ing blogs (Colwell, Hutchison, & Reinking, 2012), wikis (Bauer, 2010), and
Nings and Edmodo (Trust, 2012). Conspicuously minimal in recent PLN lit-
erature, however, is Twitter.
Twitter is a “real-time information network that connects you to the latest
stories, ideas, opinions and news about what you find interesting” via tweets,
or short microblogs that do not exceed 140 characters (Twitter.com, 2013).
Within the Twitter environment, hashtags, represented by the # symbol, are
used to categorize topics and tweets so that they are easily found in a Twitter
search. In education, hashtags are also used to denote real-time chats (e.g.,
#edchat and #ntchat), which take place on Twitter at designated times.
The popularity of Twitter is impressive; the number of worldwide active
Twitter users has recently surpassed 200 million (Twitter.com, 2013). Despite
its popularity, many in the general population fail to see its relevance, main-
taining that Twitter is “a playground for imbeciles, skeevy marketers, D-list
celebrity half-wits, and pathetic attention seekers” (Lyons, 2009, p. 31). The
use of Twitter and other social media has also been questioned in more spe-
cific settings, particularly K–12 schools. For example, a serious issue within

Volume 46 Number 4 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l 397

 Visser, Evering, & Barrett

social media is cyberbullying, defined as the “willful and repeated harm

inflicted through the use of computers, cell phones, or other electronic devi-
ces” (Hinduja & Patchin, 2009, p. 5). According to one report, 32% of teen-
agers who use the Internet have experienced some form of online harassment
(Lenhart, 2010). This report is of particular concern within K–12 education,
where schools are obligated by the Children’s Internet Protection Act
(enacted in 2000) to protect minors from harm, including harm incurred
within social media sites.
Social media sites can also have negative impact on teachers as well as stu-
dents. The question of what is public and what is private has become difficult
to answer. Take, for example, the case of a teacher who posted to her Face-
book page pictures of herself with alcohol in her hands (CBS News, 2011).
Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 02:40 25 October 2014

Despite the facts that this teacher taught in a public school, was over 21 years
of age, and had her Facebook page set to private, she was still asked to resign
her position. In addition to public and private boundaries, there also exist
concerns that social network sites may blur the lines between the personal
and professional relationships between students and teachers (Barrett, Casey,
Visser, & Headley, 2012; Preston, 2011).
These and other concerns stemming from social media misuse, along
with the laws that require schools to protect students, have steered many
school districts toward the implementation of acceptable use policies and
Internet filtering systems. These strategies often restrict access to social
media sites during school hours for students and educators alike, and rec-
ommend against or prohibit teacher–student interaction within these sites
(Council of the Ontario College of Teachers, 2011; Dunn & Derthick, 2013;
Flaherty, 2013).
Despite concerns that Twitter can be frivolous, superficial, or danger-
ous, another perspective exists—one that considers Twitter to be a tool
for meaningful communication, sharing, and collaboration. This perspec-
tive is especially held within the field of education, where one can find
enormous amounts of Twitter-related literature. Hosts of education web-
sites, blogs, and practitioner journals present articles, testimonials, and
tutorials about how and why teachers should integrate Twitter into their
professional practice. Although the amount of anecdotal and practitioner-
based literature is significant, scholarly literature on Twitter, especially
within K–12 education, is still relatively scarce. Calls for research have
been made, however, in hopes that educators can better understand Twit-
ter’s place within the profession and “how participants understand their
experiences and place within the Twitter community and beyond”
(Greenhow & Gleason, 2012, p. 473).
In this exploratory study, we attempt to address the need for further
research by seeking to understand how teachers are using Twitter and the
perceived benefits for doing so. Specifically, the research questions that we
asked are as follows:

398 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l Volume 46 Number 4

 The Implications of Twitter

(1) What are the Twitter and technology-based characteristics of teachers in

this study?
(2) Are teachers using Twitter to enrich their professional practice? If so,
how, and are there particular variables that may have an influence
on the frequency with which teachers use Twitter for professional
purposes?
(3) Are teachers using Twitter for purposes of student interaction? If so, how,
and are there particular variables that may have an influence on the fre-
quency with which teachers use Twitter to interact with students?
(4) What do teachers perceive to be the benefits of using Twitter?

Method
Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 02:40 25 October 2014

A triangulation mixed methods study (Creswell & Plano Clark, 2007) was
used to converge both quantitative and qualitative data collected in the study.
Sampling of respondents was conducted using chain-referral sampling meth-
odology (see Participants section). Closed-ended, quantitative survey items
were used to identify the various characteristics of teachers using Twitter,
along with how they report using it. Concurrently, qualitative, open-ended
survey questions were included to allow participants to further describe what
they perceive to be the benefits of using Twitter. The qualitative results were
analyzed and then interpreted in conjunction with the quantitative results in
order to deepen and enrich our understanding of how Twitter might provide
professional benefits to those teachers who use it.

Instrument
The researchers created an online survey that originally consisted of 40 items,
with 31 items being demographic-based or closed-ended in nature (e.g.,
Choose the statement that best describes the frequency with which you use
Twitter for professional purposes), and nine items that were open ended (e.g.,
Describe some of the best things that you’ve experienced from being on
Twitter). Prior to the survey’s launch, it was piloted with 10 educators who
provided constructive feedback. On the basis of that, the survey was reduced
to 32 items: 25 closed-ended and 7 open-ended items.

Participants
Our target population was the constituency of educators on Twitter; however,
due to the relatively low percentage of educators who are actually on Twitter,
the ability to gain face-to-face access to this population is limited. Further, the
researchers were unable to depend upon local schools and districts having
enough teachers who use Twitter to provide access to a representative sample
of Twitter users. In fact, the first author met with 64 teachers to discuss the
study and found that only two used Twitter. For this reason, we decided to
use chain-referral (also called snowball) sampling (Biernacki & Waldorf,
1981). The chain-referral sampling method is particularly appropriate when

Volume 46 Number 4 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l 399

 Visser, Evering, & Barrett

the target population has “low visibility”: that is, the population is defined by
behaviors that are primarily personal in nature so that location of a sample
using probability sampling would be problematic (Biernacki & Waldorf, 1981,
p. 144).
In this study, we used Twitter itself for the study’s promotion and recruit-
ment. The researchers, whose combined Twitter followers totaled only 250,
initially tweeted a request for educators to participate in the survey. Several
influential educators, some of whose followers exceeded 25,000, helped our
recruitment by retweeting (or reposting) our original tweet to their followers.
This sampling method resulted in a sample of 542 respondents. It should be
noted that under certain conditions, chain-referral sampling can be suscepti-
ble to a “verifiability” problem, in that the researcher may have difficulty
Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 02:40 25 October 2014

ascertaining whether the participants in a study share the defining character-

istics of the target population (Glaser, 1978). However, in this study, verifi-
ability was not an issue since the researchers received immediate confirmation
(via Twitter) that the respondents were Twitter users.
Five hundred and forty-two participants responded to the tweets that
included a link to the survey. These respondents can be described as educa-
tors who, at the time of the study, were using Twitter. Females represented
69% of the sample, with males accounting for the remaining 31%. Partici-
pants’ ages were categorized as follows: 15% were between 21 and 30; 37%
were between 31 and 40; 29% were between 41 and 50; and 19% were over 50.
The majority of participants identified themselves as Caucasian (91%), fol-
lowed by African American (2%), Hispanic (2%), Asian (2%), and mixed or
other (3%). The United States was the primary country of residence, repre-
senting 82% of the sample, followed by the United Kingdom (6%), Canada
(5%), Australia (4%), New Zealand (1%), and 17 other countries that repre-
sented 2% of the sample. Most participants identified themselves as teachers
either in elementary (17%), middle (14%), or high (29%) schools, although
there were representatives from other areas of education, such as library/
media specialists (8%), technology facilitators/coaches (9%), administration
(6%), and higher education (6%).

Analyses
The primary goal of this study was to explore how K–12 teachers use Twitter,
and as a result, the researchers extracted and used the data from only the par-
ticipants identifying themselves as a teacher in either an elementary, middle,
or high school. The total number of these teachers was 324. The data from
this subsample are what will be presented from this point forward.
Quantitative analysis. Descriptive analyses were conducted to identify the
characteristics of the sample with regard to experience with technology and
patterns of Twitter usage. Cross-tabulations were then conducted to examine
relationships between participant demographic and experiential characteris-
tics and their patterns of Twitter usage. In these analyses, two measures of

400 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l Volume 46 Number 4

 The Implications of Twitter

Twitter usage were directly relevant to the research questions and were, there-
fore, of particular interest. The first was frequency of use for professional rea-
sons. Original data on this variable were recoded into two categories: at least
daily use for professional purposes, and less than daily use for professional
purposes. The second key variable was frequency of use for personal reasons.
Original data were again recoded into two categories: at least daily use for
personal reasons, and less than daily use for personal reasons. Cross-tabula-
tions were conducted and accompanied by chi-square analyses to test for the
significance of the relationships between these variables and selected teacher
and workplace characteristics.
Qualitative analysis. The researchers analyzed the open-ended survey
question, Describe some of the best things that you’ve learned/experienced as a
Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 02:40 25 October 2014

result of being involved in Twitter, using a general inductive analysis approach

that allows for interpretations to be derived from raw data (Corbin & Strauss,
1990; Glaser & Strauss, 1967). During this process, participants’ meaningful
comments were selected, analyzed for prevailing themes, coded, and
categorized.
First, a reduction in data was performed in which the researchers read
through each of the written responses to the open-ended question three times.
The primary purpose of this reduction was simply to help gain a “holistic
sense” (Shank, 2006) of the data. The data were neither coded nor sorted; the
text was simply read through in order to better understand the nature of the
data, as a whole.
Second, the researchers conducted a more rigorous and focused reading of
the data and identified meaning units by extracting 234 significant statements
or phrases from 237 responses to the open-ended question. Inspecting these
meaning units, the researchers grouped repetitive ideas into themes. For
example, the statement, “I’ve joined communities of practice . . . all because of
twitter [sic]” was representative of 14 others, which were grouped together in
order to create a subtheme labeled “communities of practice.” Several more
subthemes were then derived from the meaning units, including “personal
relationships” (which contained 10 statements related to interpersonal bene-
fits of Twitter) and “classroom-based collaborations” (which included 18
statements noting how classrooms and students benefited as a result of teach-
ers using Twitter).
The researchers then compared and examined the subthemes until rela-
tionships emerged. These relationships were then used to categorize the subor-
dinate themes into superordinate, or major themes (Merriam, 1997). As an
example, the subthemes “fostering community,” “communities of practice,”
“networking,” and “professional collaborations” were categorized into a
superordinate theme that was labeled participatory culture. The remaining
three superordinate themes were professional development, interpersonal
relationships, and classroom practice. Themes and subthemes are presented in
Table 1.

Volume 46 Number 4 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l 401

 Visser, Evering, & Barrett

Table 1. Summary of Superordinate Themes and Subthemes (With Number of Meaning Units)

Superordinate Themes Subthemes

Participatory culture Fostering community (11)

Communities of practice (15)
Networking (17)
Professional collaboration (13)

Professional development General professional development (46)

Conference supplements (18)
Blogging matters (11)
Professional benefits (15)

Interpersonal relationships Virtual colleagues (10)

Personal relationships (10)
Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 02:40 25 October 2014

F2F meetings (20)

Classroom practice Specific technology tools (23)

Classroom-based collaborations (18)
Enriched student experiences (7)

After identifying these four superordinate themes, the researchers com-

pared the major themes and subthemes in each to the original data in an
effort to verify that the fundamental nature of the survey question had been
properly ascertained (Mertler & Charles, 2011). The researchers found no
meaningful responses that were contrary to the major themes, suggesting that
there were no inconsistencies between the raw data and the major themes for-
mulated during the analysis.

Results
The authors’ research questions were addressed in accordance with the
results gleaned from the quantitative data analysis, the qualitative data
analysis, and, in mixed-methods fashion, the combining thereof. The
quantitative findings utilized demographic and descriptive data and
analyses, while the qualitative findings stemmed from the analysis of
responses to the aforementioned, open-ended prompt. This analysis
revealed four superordinate clusters with embedded meaning units, as can
be seen in Table 1.

Research Question 1: What Are the Twitter and Technology-Based

Characteristics of Teachers in This Study?
Participants answered several items related to the particular ways in which
they use Twitter, as well as an item about their technology proficiency.
Twitter account. Teachers seem to have joined Twitter more recently than
not, as they reported being on Twitter for the following durations: less than a
year (29%), 1–2 years (31%), 2–3 years (22%), 3–4 years (10%), and
4–5 years (7%). When asked to describe the privacy status of their Twitter

402 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l Volume 46 Number 4

 The Implications of Twitter

Table 2. Workplace Restrictions of Twitter

Categories of Restrictions Percentage of Respondents

No restrictions 55%
Restrictions exist, and I do not use it 13%
Restrictions exist, but I use it anyway 20%
Unsure if there are restrictions or not 12%

account, 90% claimed that their accounts were set to public, thus allowing
them to connect more easily with others. This claim is supported and exem-
plified by the “communities of practice” and “networking” subthemes
found in the qualitative analysis, which, respectively contain statements
Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 02:40 25 October 2014

such as [I am] “connected to teachers around the globe who share my

passion for education” and “I have an incredible PLN (professional learn-
ing network) who share endless ideas, resources, and great pedagogical
discussions.”
Twitter usage. The reported frequencies with which participants used
Twitter to tweet out their own messages (versus retweeting somebody else’s
message) are as follows: never (2%), rarely (9%), occasionally (34%), and fre-
quently (55%). Respondents reported frequently tweeting their own messages,
which suggests that they are actively participating in the Twitterverse. Quali-
tative findings situated within the superordinate participatory culture theme
(e.g., “fostering community,” “professional collaborations”) reinforce this
notion through statements such as “I can easily share what I know” and “I am
able to get feedback on ideas that I am working on and my PLN usually
makes them much better than my initial plans.”
When using Twitter, participants reported doing so mostly with mobile
phones (40%) and laptops or desktops (36%), followed by tablets or iPods
(24%). Participants described workplace-imposed restrictions to Twitter, and
results can be seen in Table 2.
As can be seen from the data in Table 2, most teachers are able to use
Twitter at schools because the site is not restricted. However, 33% of the
respondents reported some type of school- or district-imposed restrictions on
Twitter (e.g., a policy that explicitly bans teachers from using it, or a network
firewall that restricts access to it). Of those respondents who reported restric-
tions, the majority (60%) claimed that they still use it, most often with their
mobile phones, which bypass school networks and thus cannot be controlled
by network or school administrators.
General technology proficiency. The respondents’ self-rated level of general
technology proficiency was as follows: 26% rated themselves as average or
below, 47% as above average, and 27% as well above average. The level of tech-
nology proficiency was found to have a significant relationship with the fre-
quency of the professional use of Twitter (results of this analysis are presented
in the next section).

Volume 46 Number 4 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l 403

 Visser, Evering, & Barrett

Research Question 2: Are Teachers Using Twitter to Enhance Their

Professional Practice? If So, How, and Are There Particular Variables That May
Have an Influence on the Frequency With Which Teachers Use Twitter for
Professional Purposes?
Although respondents reported both professional and personal use of Twitter,
professional use of Twitter is markedly more frequent than personal use (see
Figure 1). The professional usage category with the highest percentage of
respondents was “Multiple times a day” at 41%. This is in contrast to the
highest percentage category of personal use, which was “Less than once a
month” at 29%.
Our qualitative findings provide insight into the ways with which teachers
use Twitter for professional reasons, particularly the professional development
Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 02:40 25 October 2014

and classroom practice themes. Each illustrates how respondents use Twitter
to personalize their professional development by self-selecting resources and
opportunities via tweets and Twitter chats, as exemplified by the statement, “I
don’t wait for PD to come via my school district, I can seek it out via Twitter.”
Two of the subthemes within the superordinate professional develop-
ment theme include “conference supplements” and “blogging matters,”
and each demonstrates specific ways that respondents acquire PD. The
former shows that traditional barriers to conference attendance (e.g., time
and monetary constraints) can be overcome via virtual attendance
through Twitter. Two examples are as follows: “Being able to follow a
national conference via twitter was amazing. It was almost like being
there”; and “I like to take notes at conferences using Twitter. . . . Doing it
this way can start conversations with people not at the conference.” The
“blogging matters” subtheme highlights one of the most common ways

Figure 1. The frequencies of personal and professional use of Twitter.

404 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l Volume 46 Number 4

 The Implications of Twitter

professional development is created and shared via Twitter: education

blogs. Readers of blogs reported increased exposure to them (e.g., “From
twitter I started reading blogs”), and bloggers themselves reported
increased readership (e.g., “My blog receives a wider readership than it
otherwise would without having Twitter to help publicize it”).
Professional use of Twitter also has an impact on classroom practice, a
theme in which the data reveal the positive, residual effects on the students of
teachers who engage in Twitter use. For example, “classroom-based collabo-
rations” and “enriched student experiences” are two of the subthemes catego-
rized within this superordinate theme and are exemplified by two
respondents who stated, respectively, “We have connected with other classes
and shared photos and mutual assignments and activities” and “Doing #scis-
Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 02:40 25 October 2014

tuchat with my students and scientists across the world has been amazing. It’s
been the best to have them get to connect and ask questions and debate with
‘real live scientists’ as we learn about something.”
Because respondents reported different frequencies with which they use
Twitter for professional purposes, the researchers examined several personal
and professional variables to see if they might be related to the frequency of
professional use. These variables were gender, school workplace, workplace
restrictions, and technology proficiency. Cross-tabulations were conducted,
accompanied by chi-square analyses, to test for the significance of the rela-
tionships between variables. Two variables were found to have significant
relationships with professional use of Twitter: workplace restrictions (present,
absent) and technology proficiency (average or below average, above average,
advanced).
As can be seen by the frequencies cross tabulated in Table 3, there is a sig-
nificant relationship between the workplace restrictions of Twitter and the
professional use of Twitter, x2 (1, N D 284) D 6.08, p D .014. Educators who
work in schools that restrict Twitter more frequently use it for professional
purposes than their peers who work in schools where Twitter is not restricted.

Table 3. Relationship Between Frequency of Professional Use and (1) Workplace Restrictions, and (2) Technol-
ogy Proficiency

Frequency of Professional Use

Significant Variables Less Than Daily Daily p

Workplace restrictions (n D 284) .014*

Restrictions 21 87
No restrictions 58 118
Technology proficiency (n D 324) .001*
Average or below 35 48
Above average 44 109
Well above average 15 73

Note. The n for the “workplace restrictions” item was reduced after the researchers omitted cases that contained I don’t
know if there are Twitter restrictions at my school responses.
*p < .05.

Volume 46 Number 4 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l 405

 Visser, Evering, & Barrett

Additionally, a significant relationship was found between technology pro-

ficiency and the professional use of Twitter, x2 (2, N D 324) D 13.10, p D .001
(see Table 3). To investigate this finding further, we conducted two one-
degree-of-freedom follow-up contrasts and found that teachers who claimed
their level of technology proficiency to be above average reported more fre-
quent professional use than those rating themselves as average or below,x2
(1, N D 324) D 9.38, p D .002. However, there was no difference found
between the two higher proficiency groups (above average and well above
average).

Research Question 3: Are Teachers Using Twitter for Purposes of Student

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 02:40 25 October 2014

Interaction? If So, How, and Are There Particular Variables That May Have an
Influence on the Frequency With Which Teachers Use Twitter to Interact With
Students?
Our findings demonstrate that teachers do not frequently interact with stu-
dents. Participants who reported using Twitter to interact with students rep-
resented only 20% (n D 65) of the sample; the remaining 80% reported no
interaction. The highest reported use of Twitter for student interaction was
from high school teachers at 71%, followed by middle school teachers at 20%
and then elementary teachers at 9% (see Table 4). In fact, using the same
cross-tabulation procedures described in the previous section, the researchers
analyzed relationships and found a significant relationship between student
interaction and school workplace (Elem, MS, HS), x2 (2, N D 323) D 18.50,
p < .001. Results are shown in Table 4.
To investigate further the relationship between school workplace and stu-
dent interaction, the researchers again conducted two one-degree-of-freedom
follow-up contrasts and found a significant difference between elementary
teachers and teachers in middle and high schools, with elementary school
teachers reporting interacting with students on Twitter significantly less often
than middle and high school teachers, x2 (1, N D 323) D 13.32, p < .001.
Additionally, the researchers found significant differences between middle
school and high school teachers, with middle school teachers interacting with
students on Twitter significantly less than teachers in high school settings,
x2 (1, N D 235) D 4.42, p < .035.
The cross-tabulation and chi-square analyses yielded another significant
relationship, that between workplace restrictions of Twitter and student inter-
action, x2 (1, N D 284) D 4.61, p D .032 (see Table 4). Teachers who work in
schools that do not restrict Twitter interact with students (on Twitter) signifi-
cantly more than their counterparts who work in schools where Twitter is
restricted.
The quantitative finding of infrequent teacher–student interaction via
Twitter was also supported by our qualitative findings, which revealed only
one statement pertaining to student interaction: “[It is a] positive way to

406 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l Volume 46 Number 4

 The Implications of Twitter

Table 4. Relationship Between Student Interaction and (1) School Workplace, and (2) Workplace Restrictions

Student Interaction

Significant Variables No Yes p

School workplace (n D 323) .000*

Elementary 82 6
Middle 65 13
High 111 46
Workplace restrictions (n D 284) .032*
Restrictions 91 17
No restrictions 129 47

Note. The n for the “workplace restrictions” item was reduced after the researchers omitted cases that contained I don’t
know (whether there are Twitter restrictions) responses.
*p < .05.
Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 02:40 25 October 2014

connect with my students and hopefully their parents.” Put simply, teachers
reported using Twitter for their students rather than with their students.

Research Question 4: What Do Teachers Perceive to Be the Benefits of Using

Twitter?
The four superordinate themes discovered through the qualitative analysis are
what the researchers believe to be the primary benefits that teachers receive
when using Twitter. First, the various types of professional development
received via Twitter have direct benefits on teachers’ professional knowledge
and stature. As a result of Twitter, respondents reported learning about the
latest research, pedagogical strategies, and best practices; discovered Web-
based resources, lesson plans, and innovative ideas about literacy instruction;
and even reaped professional benefits, as exemplified by the statements “I was
encouraged to seek a Target grant through a tweet. I pursued the link and was
awarded the grant” and “I’ve been invited to do presentations and be inter-
viewed on podcasts as a result of my Twitter participation.”
Participants indicated that this PD was transformative in nature, resulting
in improved classroom practice, a second benefit and theme found through
the qualitative analysis. As an example, one respondent stated, “I have learned
about a variety of web tools I have used with my students, among them
Animoto, Wordle, Livebinder, Libguides, and podcasting.”
Equally important to the benefits of PD and classroom practice is the man-
ner in which they are acquired—through meaningful, interpersonal relation-
ships within a participatory culture. The latter was named as such because it
contained many of the same attributes as that which Jenkins, Clinton, Puru-
shotma, Robinson, and Weigel (2006) labeled a “participatory culture.” This
type of culture can be described as informal memberships within an online
community in which individuals can contribute and produce information,
express themselves, learn from and collaborate with others, engage in civic
endeavors, and meaningfully share or contribute their creations and knowl-
edge (Jenkins et al., 2006). This theme and benefit of using Twitter

Volume 46 Number 4 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l 407

 Visser, Evering, & Barrett

demonstrated ways that participants became a member of the Twitter com-

munity, how it allowed them to easily connect with others who shared their
beliefs, and how these connections made them feel less professionally isolated
as a result. Respondents suggested that they felt welcomed into the Twitter-
verse because it had relatively low barriers for participation, had high levels of
support, and encouraged interaction within communities of practice that
were specific to individual interests and needs. Example statements include
“the frequency of communication is a lot greater on Twitter than elsewhere,
and the bar for joining the conversation is lower” and “there are so many
wonderful educators participating in the #sschat who are trying to do/are
doing the things that I want to do. I am learning from their successes and
failures.”
Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 02:40 25 October 2014

The interactions with these so-called “wonderful educators” represent the

last theme and benefit of using Twitter, interpersonal relationships. This
theme illustrates the sociocultural aspects of Twitter and its potential to build
meaningful, virtual and face-to-face interpersonal relationships in online con-
texts and describes conditions necessary for them to occur. These relation-
ships often included cross-curricular connections with others with whom
they might not typically interact (e.g. “I’ve ‘met’ some great teachers in K–12
that I would have never otherwise met since I am in higher ed”). The word
“met” often appeared in quotes when the respondents used it; this seems to
indicate that although they may have never seen the other in person, they feel
they have introduced themselves virtually to this person and fulfilled the
social norms of “meeting” someone.
Often, these virtual, collegial relationships evolved into personal ones. For
example, one respondent wrote that her Twitter relationships have “grown
into some of the strongest relationships I have today.” These strong virtual
connections seem to encourage, if not necessitate in some cases, a face-to-face
(F2F), “real life” meeting, particularly at conferences; as one person noted, “I
was able to meet some ‘tweeps’ @NCTE last fall. The connections was [sic] as
real in person as it was in cyberspace. It strengthened our friendships & made
us that more willing to collaborate and share ideas.”

Discussion
Key Findings
The present study examined patterns of use of Twitter among practicing
teachers. The major quantitative findings were that most Twitter users
(more than 75%) have only used Twitter for 3 years or less, that more
than half of reported users see themselves as active participants (fre-
quently tweeting out their own messages), that Twitter use often occurs
in the school setting, and that professional use of Twitter is more com-
mon than personal use. It is significant also that most teachers in the
sample saw themselves as technologically proficient relative to the general

408 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l Volume 46 Number 4

 The Implications of Twitter

population. We found also that most teachers in our study did not use
Twitter for interactions with students; further, both the grade level at
which teachers worked and the presence or absence of workplace restric-
tions influenced the extent to which Twitter was used to interact with
students.
A major qualitative finding in this study contributing to the slight but
growing literature (Davis, 2011; Gerstein, 2011) is that teachers use Twitter
primarily for professional development and improved classroom practice.
Equally important findings are that the culture of this Twitter-based commu-
nity of teachers is welcoming and fosters collaboration and participation, and
that meaningful interpersonal relationships arise as a result of the friendly,
participatory culture of the community. The ability to participate in and con-
Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 02:40 25 October 2014

tribute to the collective intelligence of the education-based Twitter commu-

nity seems to yield professional benefits as well as personal ones. The ability
to affect both sensibilities is what perhaps makes Twitter so appealing to those
who use it.

Limitations of the Study

Some aspects of the present research limit the scope of our findings. This
survey was originally disseminated via tweets from the authors’ Twitter
accounts, and our tweets were then retweeted many times by many peo-
ple, including some influential educators. Due to the inability to track
how many people received or read these tweets, the researchers were
unable to obtain the precise numbers necessary to calculate and provide
an exact response rate. Another limitation is that our data rely on self-
reports, which may raise concerns about item validity, particularly per-
taining to the question of technology proficiency. For example, as stated
previously, most of the respondents in our study claimed to be above
average in terms of technology proficiency and we do not have corrobo-
rative evidence for their assertions. Still, these responses are consistent
with our own assumption that most educators who use Twitter tend to
be relatively proficient in their use of technology.

Implications for Practice

Teachers can use Twitter to seek and receive informal PD in a way that best
suits their individual needs. In the present study, most teachers used Twitter
daily, perhaps because Twitter can be accessed at the teacher’s convenience
and on multiple devices. For many teachers, using Twitter for PD becomes
embedded in their daily routine, which can improve teaching practice and
their own understanding of the relevant content or pedagogy (Bickmore,
2012). Additionally, because Twitter-based PD is self-directed and self-
selected, it is specifically connected to the individual’s needs.
Twitter also provides opportunities for teachers to be active participants in
specific communities of practice, thus affording more opportunities to

Volume 46 Number 4 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l 409

 Visser, Evering, & Barrett

connect and collaborate with teachers in similar situations. In fact, the poten-
tial of using social media tools, such as Twitter, for PD has been recognized
and promoted by the National Associations for Elementary and Secondary
School Principals. Recently, each organization has taken official positions that
encourage educators to use social media tools for PD (National Association of
Secondary School Principals [NASSP], 2012; Social Media as a Professional
Tool, 2011). As administrative approval of informal PD via social media
becomes more prevalent, teachers “will be more inclined to invest time in net-
worked learning activities” (Hanraets, Hulsebosch, & de Laat, 2011, p. 97).

Recommendations for Future Research

Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 02:40 25 October 2014

In this study, the authors found that professional development through a PLN
seems to be the main reason that teachers use Twitter. It is important to
understand that these teachers are choosing to pursue this type of infor-
mal PD; it is not being required by their administration. They choose to
do so because, as opposed to conventional PD events, informal PD
affords teachers the autonomy to self-select the PD that can best improve
their knowledge, practice, and sense of purpose (see, e.g., Beach, 2012).
However, administrators remain reluctant to provide recertification or
renewal credit to teachers who are engaged in informal PD (Davis, 2011).
Prior to awarding this credit, administrators will need more empirical
evidence that suggests Twitter-based PD can lead to transformation of or
improved classroom practice. The authors therefore recommend that
researchers examine whether and how classroom practice is transformed
as a result of using Twitter to obtain PD, and how these changes com-
pare to the changes (if any) in the practice of teachers who rely on more
conventional PD. Future empirical studies should include not only natu-
ralistic comparison studies of the teaching behaviors of teachers who do
and do not use Twitter but also longitudinal studies to examine the
changes in teaching behavior and effectiveness that occur concurrently
with extended Twitter use.
The authors also suggest examining more closely the kinds of teachers who
are and who are not using Twitter. Regarding the former, findings from this
study suggest that teachers who reported an above average level of technology
proficiency frequently used Twitter for professional reasons. More research is
needed to examine whether or not Twitter is used, and how it is understood,
by teachers whose self-reported technological ability is average or below.
Regarding those who are not using Twitter, the present study’s findings sug-
gest that younger teachers (under 30) are not as well represented on Twitter
as more experienced teachers. Further research on young teachers may shed
light on whether or not they use or view social media differently than other
age groups, whether they feel too overwhelmed with their workload to engage
in PLN development, or whether their teacher preparation programs are

410 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l Volume 46 Number 4

 The Implications of Twitter

adequately preparing them to develop PLNs and seek PD through social

media sites such as Twitter.
Lastly, student–teacher interaction is an additional area that deserves more
attention. In many cases, teachers are prohibited from or purposefully avoid
interacting with students on social media sites in order to maintain profes-
sional boundaries (see, e.g., Barrett et al., 2012). However, research, including
the present study, has demonstrated that some teachers do interact with stu-
dents. The authors believe that it is important to understand whether these
teachers are able to engage students effectively using social media, whether
and how professional boundaries are maintained, and the implications for
student achievement.
Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 02:40 25 October 2014

Acknowledgments
Thank you to all of the educators on Twitter who participated in this study and who continu-
ously strive to improve their craft.

Author Notes
Ryan D. Visser is a Clinical Faculty member in the Department of Teacher Education at Clemson
University. His research interests focus on multimedia learning and the impact of social media on
education. Please address correspondence regarding this article to Ryan Visser, Clemson University,
203 Tillman Hall, Clemson, SC 29634-0709, USA. E-mail: visser.ryan@gmail.com
Lea Calvert Evering is a sixth-grade English Language Arts teacher at Seneca Middle School in
Oconee County, South Carolina. Her research interests include digital and multimodal writing in
the K–8 classroom, as well as the implications of social media for professional development.
David E. Barrett is Alumni Distinguished Professor in the Department of Teacher Education at
Clemson University. His areas of specialization are adolescent development and research methods
and statistics.

References
Barrett, D. E., Casey, J., Visser, R. D., & Headley, K. N. (2012). How do teachers make judg-
ments about ethical and unethical behaviors? Toward the development of a code of conduct
for teachers. Teaching and Teacher Education, 28(6), 890–898.
Bauer, W. I. (2010). Your personal learning network: Professional development on demand.
Music Educators Journal, 97(2), 37–42.
Beach, R. (2012). Can online learning communities foster professional development? Language
Arts, 89(4), 256–262.
Bickmore, D. L. (2012). Professional learning experiences and administrator practice: Is there a
connection? Professional Development In Education, 38(1), 95–112.
Biernacki, P., & Waldorf, D. (1981). Snowball sampling: Problems and techniques of chain
referral sampling. Sociological Methods and Research, 10, 141–163.
Brown, R., Vissa, J. M., & Mossgrove, J. L. (2012). The importance of collaboration to new
teacher development: Two central features of an induction fellowship. Yearbook (National
Council of Teachers of Mathematics), 74, 103–115.
CBS News. (2011, February 6). Did the Internet kill privacy? Retrieved from http://www.
cbsnews.com/8301-3445_162-7323148.html
Chen, S., Yen, D. C., & Hwang, M. I. (2012). Factors influencing the continuance intention to
the usage of Web 2.0: An empirical study. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 933–941.

Volume 46 Number 4 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l 411

 Visser, Evering, & Barrett

Colwell, J., Hutchison, A., & Reinking, D. (2012). Using blogs to promote literary response dur-
ing professional development. Language Arts, 89(4), 232–243.
Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and
techniques. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cordingley, P., Bell, M., Evans, D., & Firth, A. (2005). The impact of collaborative CPD on class-
room teaching and learning review: What do teacher impact data tell us about collaborative
CPD? London, UK: EPPI-Centre.
Council of the Ontario College of Teachers. (2011). Professional advisory: Use of electronic com-
munication and social media. Retrieved from http://www.oct.ca
Creswell, J. W., & Plano-Clark, V. L. (2007). Designing and conducting mixed methods research.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Davis, M. R. (2011). Social media feeds freewheeling PD. Education Week, 31(9), S13–S14.
Dunn, J., & Derthick, M. (2013). Digital discipline. Education Next, 13(3), 7.
Flaherty, B. (2013). Challenges of technology, social media, and information control. School
Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 02:40 25 October 2014

Business Affairs, 79(4), 26–28.

Gerstein, J. (2011). The use of Twitter for professional growth and development. International
Journal on E-Learning, 10(3), 273–276.
Glaser, B. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity: Advances in the methodology of grounded theory. Mill
Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative
research. New York, NY: Aldine.
Greenhow, C., & Gleason, B. (2012). Twitteracy: Tweeting as a new literacy practice. Educa-
tional Forum, 76(4), 464–478.
Guskey, T. R. (2009). Closing the knowledge gap on effective professional development. Educa-
tional Horizons, 87(4), 224–233.
Hanraets, I., Hulsebosch, J., & de Laat, M. (2011). Experiences of pioneers facilitating teacher
networks for professional development. Educational Media International, 48(2), 85–99.
Hinduja, S., & Patchin, J. W. (2009). Bullying beyond the schoolyard: Preventing and responding
to cyberbullying. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Jaquith, A., Mindich, D., Wei, R. C., & Darling-Hammond, L. (2011). Teacher professional
learning in the United States: Case studies of state policies and strategies. Palo Alto, CA: Stan-
ford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. Retrieved from http://edpolicy.stanford.
edu/publications/pubs/202
Jenkins, H., Clinton, K., Purushotma, R., Robinson, A. J., & Weigel, M. (2006). Confronting the
challenges of participatory culture: Media education for the 21st century. Chicago, IL: MacAr-
thur Foundation.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (2002). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). Alex-
andria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Kabilan, M. K. (2005). Online professional development: A literature analysis. Journal of Com-
puting in Teacher Education, 21(2), 51–59.
Kabilan, M., Adlina, W., & Embi, M. (2011). Online collaboration of English language teachers
for meaningful professional development experiences. English Teaching: Practice & Critique,
10(4), 94–115.
Kabilan, M. K., Vethamani, M. E., & Fong C. S. (2008). Learning from the less meaningful INSET:
Teachers’ perspectives. In M. K. Kabilan & M. E. Vethamani (Eds.), Practices and issues in
English language teacher development (pp. 79–95). Petaling Jaya, Malaysia: Sasbadi Sdn. Bhd.
Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010, April). What is Twitter, a social network or a
news media? In Proceedings of the 19th international conference on World Wide Web (pp.
591–600). New York, NY: ACM.
Lenhart, A. (2010). Cyberbullying 2010: What the research tells us. Pew Internet & American Life
Project Report. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Presentations/2010/May/
Cyberbullying-2010.aspx

412 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l Volume 46 Number 4

 The Implications of Twitter

Lock, J. V. (2006). A new image: Online communities to facilitate teacher professional develop-
ment. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 14(4), 663–678.
Lom, E., & Sullenger, K. (2011). Informal spaces in collaborations: Exploring the edges/bound-
aries of professional development. Professional Development In Education, 37(1), 55–74.
Lyons, D. (2009). Don’t tweet on me. Newsweek, 154(13), 31.
Marsick, V.J, & Watkins, K.E. (1990). Informal and incidental learning in the workplace.
London, UK: Routledge.
Masters, J., de Kramer, R., O’Dwyer, L. M., Dash, S., & Russell, M. (2010). The effects of
online professional development on fourth grade English language arts teachers’ knowl-
edge and instructional practices. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 43(3),
355–375.
Merriam, S. (1997). Qualitative research and case study applications in education. San Francisco,
CA: Jossey-Bass.
Mertler, C., & Charles, C.M. (2011). Introduction to educational research (7th ed.). New York,
Downloaded by [Uniwersytet Warszawski] at 02:40 25 October 2014

NY: Pearson Education.

National Association of Secondary School Principals. (2012). Position statement on using mobile
and social technologies in schools. Retrieved from http://www.nassp.org/Content.aspx?
topicDUsing_Mobile_and_Social_Technologies_in_Schools
Preston, J. (2011, December 17). Rules to stop pupil and teacher from getting too social online.
The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com
Putnam, R. T., & Borko, H. (2000). What do new views of knowledge and thinking have to say
about research on teacher learning? Educational Researcher, 29(1), 4–15.
Richter, D., Kunter, M., Klusmann, U., Ludtke, O., & Baumert, J. (2011). Professional develop-
ment across the teaching career: Teachers’ uptake of formal and informal learning opportuni-
ties. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 27
(1), 116–126.
Schlager, M., & Fusco, J. (2003). Teacher professional development, technology and communi-
ties of practice: Are we putting the cart before the horse? The Information Society, 19,
203–220.
Shank, G. D. (2006). Qualitative research: A personal skills approach (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education.
Social Media as a Professional Tool. (2011). Principal, 90(5), 36–38.
Trust, T. (2012). Professional learning networks designed for teacher learning. Journal of Digital
Learning In Teacher Education, 28(4), 133–138.
Twitter.com. (2012). About Twitter. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/about
Wright, N. (2010). Twittering in teacher education: Reflecting on practicum experiences. Open
Learning, 25(3), 259–265.

Manuscript received June 3, 2013 l Initial decision September 26, 2013 l Revised manuscript accepted November 12, 2013

Volume 46 Number 4 l Journal of Research on Technology in Education l 413