You are here:

A Tweet by Any Other Frame: Three Approaches to Studying Educator Interactions on Twitter

, , , Michigan State University, United States

AACE Award

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), Chesapeake, VA


Every day, thousands of educators use Twitter to interact with each other. Yet, the research that examines these educator interactions on Twitter is nascent, in part because it is unclear how to theoretically conceptualize the nature of interactions occurring in just 140 characters. In this paper, we explore three of the most promising theoretical frameworks for studying interactions on Twitter: affinity spaces, media circuits, and social capital. We examine what each perspective emphasizes and how these important features can be operationalized in Twitter interactions. We exemplify how these theories might be used by applying each to a descriptive analysis of the interactions that occurred in the #Edchat hashtag during a 24-hour period (N = 7,509 tweets). We found that each theory highlighted different characteristics of #Edchat and that each had its own strengths and weaknesses. We discuss the implications of this work for further understanding educator interactions on Twitter.


Staudt Willet, K.B., Koehler, M.J. & Greenhalgh, S.P. (2017). A Tweet by Any Other Frame: Three Approaches to Studying Educator Interactions on Twitter. In P. Resta & S. Smith (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 1823-1830). Austin, TX, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 20, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Carpenter, J.P., & Krutka, D.G. (2014). How and why educators use Twitter: A survey of the field. Journal of research on technology in education, 46(4), 414-434.
  2. Coleman, J.S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American journal of sociology, S95-S120.
  3. Donath, J. (2008). Signals in social supernets. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 231-251.
  4. Ellison, N.B., Steinfield, C., & Lampe, C. (2007). The benefits of Facebook “friends:” Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 12(4), 1143–1168.
  5. 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
  6. Granovetter, M.S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360-1380.
  7. Gruzd, A., Wellman, B., & Takhteyev, Y. (2011). Imagining Twitter as an imagined community. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(10), 1294-1318.
  8. Hawksey, M. (2014). TAGS: Twitter archiving Google sheet (version 6.1) [software]. Available from
  9. Haythornthwaite, C. (2005). Social networks and Internet connectivity effects. Information, Communication, & Society, 8(2), 125–147.
  10. Herring, S.C. (1999). Interactional coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 4(4).
  11. Lammers, J.C. (2013). Fangirls as teachers: Examining pedagogic discourse in an online fan site. Learning, Media and Technology, 38(4), 368–386. Http://,J.C.,Curwood,J.S., & Magnifico, A.M. (2012). Toward an affinity space methodology: Considerations for literacy research. English Teaching, 11(2), 44–58.
  12. Lange, P.G. (2008). Publicly private and privately public: Social networking on YouTube. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 361–380. Http://,S.(2012).“Ittook me about half an hour, but I did it!” Media circuits and affinity spaces around how-to videos on YouTube. European Journal of Communication, 27, 152–170. Http://
  13. Liu, I., Cheung, C., & Lee, M. (2016). User satisfaction with microblogging: Information dissemination versus social networking. Journal Of The Association For Information Science And Technology, 67(1), 56-70.
  14. Rosenberg, J.M., Greenhalgh, S.P., Koehler, M.J., Hamilton, E.R., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). An investigation of State Educational Twitter Hashtags (SETHs) as affinity spaces. E-Learning and Digital Media, 13(1-2), 24-44.
  15. Visser, R.D., Evering, L.C., & Barrett, D.E. (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, 396–413.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact