You are here:

Avoiding Madness in our Methods: Considerations for Twitter Research in Teacher Education
PROCEEDING

, , , Michigan State University, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Austin, TX, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-27-8 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Waynesville, NC USA

Full Text

Abstract

Twitter is increasingly recognized as a site for both teacher education and teacher education research. Although using digital methods to study Twitter data has a number of advantages for teacher education scholars, there are also methodological and ethical considerations that they must consider when carrying out this kind of research. Drawing from our own experience carrying out Twitter research, we highlight considerations related to data collection, data analysis, and presentation of findings. These considerations may serve to guide not only other research on teachers’ use of Twitter but also other uses of digital methods in education research.

Citation

Greenhalgh, S.P., Rosenberg, J.M. & Koehler, M.J. (2017). Avoiding Madness in our Methods: Considerations for Twitter Research in Teacher Education. In P. Resta & S. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1558-1561). Austin, TX, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved December 10, 2023 from .

© 2017 Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE)

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Berry, D.M. (2011). The computational turn: Thinking about the digital humanities. Culture Machine, 12. Retrieved from http://culturemachine.net
  2. Carpenter, J.P., Tur, G., & Marín, V.I. (2016). What do U.S. And Spanish pre-service teachers think about educational and professional use of Twitter? A comparative study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 131-143. Doi:10.1016/J.tate.2016.08.011
  3. Eynon, R., Fry, J., & Schroeder, R. (2008). The ethics of Internet research. In N. Fielding, R.M. Lee, & G. Blank (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of online research methods (pp. 22-42). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Ltd.
  4. Gao, F., & Li, L. (2016). Examining a one-hour synchronous chat in a microblogging-based professional development community. British Journal of Educational Technology. Doi:10.1111/bjet.12384
  5. Greenhalgh, S.P., & Koehler, M.J. (2016). 28 days later: Twitter hashtags as “just in time” teacher professional development. TechTrends.
  6. Greenhalgh, S.P., Rosenberg, J.M., & Wolf, L.G. (2016). For all intents and purposes: Twitter as a foundational technology for teachers. E-Learning and Digital Media, 13(1-2), 81-98.
  7. Krutka, D.G. & Carpenter, J.P. (2016). Participatory learning through social media: How and why social studies educators use Twitter. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(1), 38-59.
  8. Lee, R.M., Fielding, N., & Blank, G. (2008). The Internet as a research medium: An editorial introduction to the SAGE handbook of online research methods. In N. Fielding, R.M. Lee, & G. Blank (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of online research methods (pp. 222).
  9. Markham, A. & Buchanan, E. (2012). Ethical decision-making and internet research: Recommendations from the AoIR ethics working committee (Version 2.0). Chicago, IL: Association of Internet Researchers.
  10. Marres, N. (2016). Foreword. In H. Snee, C. Hine, Y. Morey, S. Roberts, & H. Watson (Eds.), Digital methods for social science: An E.M. Anderman (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge. Interdisciplinary guide to research innovation (pp. Viii-ix). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
  11. Mishra, P., Koehler, M.J., & Greenhow, C. (2016). The work of educational psychologists in a digitally networked world. In L. Corno &
  12. Munzert, S., Rubba, C., Meißner, P., & Nyhuis, D. (2015). Automated data collection with R: A practical guide to web scraping and text mining. West Sussex: Wiley.
  13. Rosenberg, J.M., Greenhalgh, S.P., Koehler, M.J., Hamilton, E., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). An investigation of State Educational Twitter Hashtags (SETHs) as affinity spaces. E-Learning and Digital Media, 13, 24–44. .
  14. Schroeder, R., & Bailenson, J. (2008). Research uses of multi-user virtual environments. In N. Fielding, R.M. Lee, & G. Blank, The SAGE handbook of online research methods (pp. 327-343). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Ltd.
  15. Snee, H., Hine, C., Morey, Y., Roberts, S., & Watson, H. (2016). Digital methods as mainstream methodology: An introduction. In H. Snee, C. Hine, Y. Morey, S. Roberts, & H. Watson (Eds.), Digital methods for social science: An interdisiciplinary guide to research innovation (pp. 1-11). New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
  16. Svensson, P., & Goldberg, D.T. (2015). Introduction. In P. Svensson& D.T. Goldberg (Eds.), Between humanities and the digital (pp. 18). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
  17. Veletsianos, G. (2016). Three cases of hashtags used as learning and professional development environments. TechTrends.
  18. Welser, H.T., Smith, M., Fisher, D., & Gleave, E. (2008). Distilling digital traces: Computational social science approaches to studying the Internet. In N. Fielding, R.M. Lee, & G. Blank, The SAGE handbook of online research methods (pp. 116-141). Thousand

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References

Also Read