You are here:

What Factors Matter for Engaging Others in an Educational Conversation on Twitter?

, , Michigan State University, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Washington, D.C., United States ISBN 978-1-939797-32-2 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA


Educator-driven professional learning communities are increasingly developing and thriving on social media platforms such as Twitter. Even though these communities are large and popular, very little is understood about how their users interact with one another. This paper explores factors that explain why some tweets generate interaction (replies, retweets, likes, etc.), while others do not. Results show that several user-level factors predicted greater interaction, including more followers and a longer history on Twitter. At the tweet level, individual tweets received interaction on average when that tweet, for example, mentioned more users, and included fewer URLs. Furthermore, there were differences in interaction predicted by the topic of individual tweets, the time of day, and day of the week. The results of this study show that interactions with tweets using an educational hashtag like #miched is the result of many interwoven factors with implications for research and teacher education and professional development.


Koehler, M. & Rosenberg, J. (2018). What Factors Matter for Engaging Others in an Educational Conversation on Twitter?. In E. Langran & J. Borup (Eds.), Proceedings of Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 2285-2291). Washington, D.C., United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved December 10, 2018 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Cha, M., Haddadi, H., Benevenuto, F., & Gummadi, P.K. (2010). Measuring user influence in Twitter: The million follower fallacy. Icwsm, 10(10-17), 30.
  2. Gelman, A., Hill, J., & Yajima, M. (2012). Why we (usually) don't have to worry about multiple comparisons. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 5(2), 189-211.
  3. Marwick, A.E., & Boyd, D. (2011). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience. New media& Society, 13(1), 114-133.
  4. Pennebaker, J.W., Boyd, R.L., Jordan, K., & Blackburn, K. (2015). The development and psychometric properties of LIWC2015. Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin. R Core Team (2017). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Retrieved from 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.
  5. Rosenberg, J., Akcaoglu, M., Willet, K.B.S., Greenhalgh, S., & Koehler, M. (2017, March). A tale of two Twitters: Synchronous and asynchronous use of the same hashtag. In the Proceedings of the Society for Information Technology& Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 283-286). Chesapeake, VA: Association for the
  6. Veletsianos, G., & Shaw, A. (2017). Scholars in an increasingly open and digital world: imagined audiences and their impact on scholars’ online participation. Learning, Media and Technology, 1-14.

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