St. Angela’s College, Sligo

Masters in Technology, Learning, Innovation and Change

Module 4:

Dissertation Title:

To tweet or not to tweet?A phenomenological enquiry into the disposition of higher education lecturers

towards the adoption of Twitter practices.

Student’s Name:

Helen Crump

Accredited by the National University of Ireland, Galway

June 2012

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

ContentsAbstract..........................................................................................................................1

Chapter 1: Introduction..................................................................................................1

Twitter and higher education.....................................................................................1

Relevance and significance........................................................................................2

Objectives and conceptual framework.......................................................................3

Enquiry methods........................................................................................................5

Notes on terminology.................................................................................................5

Chapter 2: Literature review..........................................................................................6

Technology, change and higher education.................................................................7

Attributes of Twitter...................................................................................................9

Application of Twitter..............................................................................................14

Implications of Twitter.............................................................................................17

Disposition to adopt Twitter – the lecturer and the context.....................................20

Lecturers’ philosophies........................................................................................22

Contextual factors................................................................................................22

Twitter as an appropriate literacy practice for higher education..............................24

Key findings of literature review.............................................................................27

Grounds for enquiry – research questions................................................................28

Chapter 3: Methodology..............................................................................................29

Research framework – interpretivist and qualitative...............................................29

i

Research strategy – descriptive phenomenology.....................................................31

Research methods.....................................................................................................33

Sample population................................................................................................33

Recruiting participants.........................................................................................34

Ethical considerations..........................................................................................34

Data collection.....................................................................................................35

Piloting.................................................................................................................36

Data analysis........................................................................................................36

Validity and reliability.........................................................................................38

Limitations of the enquiry....................................................................................39

Chapter 4: Presentation of findings..............................................................................40

Aidan - social science...............................................................................................40

Declan - religious education.....................................................................................44

Conor - film, photography and digital media...........................................................47

Erin – information technology.................................................................................50

Brendan - politics and social policy.........................................................................54

Chapter 5: Discussion of findings................................................................................58

The lecturer – proclivities, philosophies and practice..............................................59

The context - appropriateness, negotiation and validation.......................................64

Possibilities for action..........................................................................................66

Overall findings........................................................................................................67

ii

Chapter 6: Issues and implications of findings............................................................67

Disruption to practice – a new value proposition.....................................................68

Disposition as action or positioning.........................................................................69

How Twitter is entering higher education................................................................70

References....................................................................................................................71

Acronyms.....................................................................................................................84

Glossary........................................................................................................................84

Appendices...................................................................................................................88

Appendix I – Researcher’s prior assumptions.........................................................88

Appendix II – Recruitment email.............................................................................89

Appendix III – Participant consent..........................................................................90

Appendix IV – Participant information....................................................................91

Appendix V – Interview schedule (part A)..............................................................92

Appendix VI – Interview schedule (part B).............................................................94

Appendix VII _ Process of data analysis exemplar.................................................97

Appendix VIII – Student endorsement..................................................................102

iii

Abstract

This phenomenological enquiry into lecturers’ disposition towards the adoption of the

disruptive Web 2.0 technology Twitter comprises in-depth interviews with five lecturers in

Irish higher education. The enquiry views Twitter as a digital literacy practice and takes a

New Literacy Studies perspective to position Twitter as a social practice. Disposition is

considered in terms of Bourdieu’s contextual disposition.

The enquiry reveals the disruptive affects to long-standing knowledge-making

practices and analysis of data, by a phenomenological condensation of meaning method,

reveals a range of dispositions amongst the research sample lecturers towards the adoption of

Twitter. Analysis suggests that the research sample lecturers are disposed towards its

adoption if it affords congruence with the purpose of their practice and the values and beliefs

upon which this is based, as well as with their personal beliefs and values too. Nonetheless,

as a social practice, the adoption of Twitter does not go undisputed.

Keywords: Twitter, Web 2.0, disruptive technology, innovation, change, digital,

literacy, New Literacy Studies, disposition, Bourdieu, habitus

Chapter 1: Introduction

Twitter and higher education

Facilitated by the advent of Web 2.0 technologies (O’Reilly, 2005), the popular

embrace of a participatory and networked web would appear to offer exciting opportunities

for lecturers to adopt new practices and harness its potential for the purposes of higher

education. Twitter is an expression of Web 2.0 that combines microblogging with social

networking and is accessible via multiple technological platforms, most notably via mobile

1

smartphones; consequently, it is beginning to attract serious attention amongst some

educators.

Regarded as a disruptive Web 2.0 technology (Bower and Christensen, 1995; Meyer,

2010), Twitter is changing the way in which higher education is able to access content and

interact with knowledge, and as such presents unique challenges to an institution that is

commonly perceived as slow to change (Marshall, 2010); it is widely held that many

educators resist technological innovations (Baggley, 2010). To date, simply introducing new

technologies into educational establishments has proved largely insufficient in itself to

deliver any significant transformation of practice. Society though in the 21st century is

changing rapidly and becoming ever more digital. Twitter constitutes a new digital practice

with many arguing of the pressing need to incorporate such digital practices within traditional

academic practice (Grosseck and Holotescu, 2008; Young, 2008, 2009; Holotescu, 2009;

Mayernik and Pepe, 2009; Rankin, 2009; Sample, 2010 and Ebner et al., 2010).

Relevance and significance

The emergence of Twitter and its subsequent rapid adoption within many facets of

society has fascinated me greatly. This is because Twitter, with its microblogging function,

essentially constitutes a literacy practice, albeit a new digital literacy one, and with a

background in adult literacy practice, I am widely interested in the socio-cultural aspects of

literacy. Concerning Twitter, I have witnessed its increasing and widespread use together

with the high value placed upon it by some, not only as a broadcast and as a social

networking medium but also when championed as a tool for professional development. Yet,

within the context of higher education I perceive reluctance and hesitancy on the part of

many lecturers to entertain Twitter’s credentials as either a tool for professional development

or as an application for teaching and learning, and more generally, a failure to attribute any

significant merit to the practice of “tweeting” (a tweet being a microblog message sent within

2

Twitter). Considering the advance of “digital society” with trends towards networked

communities, distributed and collaborative workplace practices and where valued knowledge

is increasingly communicated in digital forms (Beetham et al., 2010), this is of significance

for shaping higher education’s relationship to such a society.

Objectives and conceptual framework

Connecting the profound socio-technological changes taking place within society and

the impact of a disruptive technology upon knowledge-making practices, the aim of this

enquiry is to ascertain the disposition of lecturers towards the adoption of new practices that

Twitter enables. The enquiry plots the emergence of Twitter and its attributes positioning it

within the conceptual framework of disruptive change confronting higher education and the

emergence of new literacy practices that this engenders. The notion of disposition is crucial

to this as it is within the bounds of this concept that lecturers’ value judgement and

inclination towards any adoption of Twitter is to be found.

As accounted for by Bourdieu (1990), disposition is a dialectical process between the

individual and the context in which they operate or practice. This means that applicable to the

adoption of Twitter, lecturers participate in an evaluation process, weighing up factors

pertinent to themselves and those emanating from their professional practice in conjunction

with wider cultural considerations and those specific to their respective institutional context.

Fitting together with this contextual view of disposition is the perspective of literacies

as social practices (Barton and Hamilton, 1998; Street, 1984, 1995); that is to say, it is by

being situated in the specific social and cultural context of higher education that Twitter

practices will derive meaning and on which they will be significantly dependent for their

acceptance and performance. Advocates of New Literacy Studies (Barton, 1994; Gee, 1996;

Street, 1984, 1995) assert that literacy is always for a purpose and as such, it must be

recognised as operating within specific social and cultural contexts. In line with the New

3

Literacy Studies this enquiry expounds that literacy practices are not merely incidental as

they embed ideologies and ways of viewing the world. Consequently, such a perspective

considers matters pertaining to literacy through the similitude of organisations, institutions or

groups. In this, an “ideological” model of literacy, emphasis is placed on the significance of

literacy practices for the people involved, which in this case are higher education lecturers. In

light of such perspective, I believe higher education needs not only to be abreast of

technological developments and the new literacy practices that they engender, but also it

needs to pay attention to what these practices mean to those involved; after all, literacy “has

always been a key site of cultural contestation and an important indicator of cultural values

and social organisation” (R.C.L.C.E., 2007, p. 7).

In this enquiry, it is important to understand that a disruptive technology (Bower and

Christensen, 1995), alternatively referred to as a “disruptive innovation” (Christensen and

Raynor, 2003), is deemed such because it helps to create a “new value proposition”

(Christensen et al., 2004, p. 2). It is important to distinguish that it is not the technology itself

that is disruptive but rather disruption is derived from its innovative application that produces

new, and often unexpected, propositions. Thus, any acceptance of Twitter within higher

education will not only disrupt traditional practices but will disrupt customary values as well.

The implications of Twitter’s adoption pertain to its ability to permeate institutional walls and

spawn access to multiple sources of knowledge, its impact on the role and function of the

lecturer, its alteration of the learning experience, as well as issues regarding quality, security

and its suitability in general for higher education. Disruptive change is acknowledged as

being difficult to reconcile for an institution where current practices have long been seen as

successful (Marshall, 2010).

4

Enquiry methods

To ascertain the scope to which Twitter practices may be deployed within higher

education, a literature review is undertaken together with assessment of the disruptive

implications that any adoption entails. Through a literacies perspective, attention is also given

to the negotiation and validation of Twitter alongside appraisal of the contextual disposition

of lecturers to adopt such practices.

Broad in scope, this enquiry seeks to yield via a qualitative phenomenological

strategy a temporal insight into lecturers’ disposition as they consider the suitability of

Twitter for their practice. Considering that a great deal of information can be gathered simply

by talking to people, five in-depth interviews with lecturers are presented as précised

vignettes to afford through rich description as holistic a view as possible of the phenomenon

of lecturers’ disposition towards the adoption of Twitter. What is more, it is conceived that a

descriptive analysis promoting an authentic depiction of the situation and the dispositions

revealed will be of benefit to a wide range of interested parties, especially policy makers,

administrators and lecturers themselves as they may be able to relate to the situation and the

data presented and thus extract meaning pertinent to their own circumstances.

Notes on terminology

Within this enquiry, the term lecturer is used interchangeably with that of tutor,

teacher or educator and is used to denote the role of a professional within higher education.

The term higher education itself is used to denote the diverse institutions that nowadays

constitute what traditionally would have been considered the university or the academy, and

as such, these terms are also used interchangeably.

Similarly, it is important to note that within this enquiry the term practice is used in

both a general and a specific sense. Its general sense derives from Bourdieu’s (1977) notion

of how things are done or happen in specific cultural contexts. Here, denoting lecturers in

5

higher education with any recognisable behaviours or interactions being accounted for by

culturally given dispositions and interests that incorporate both agency (people choosing what

they do) and social structure (the expectations that ‘cause’ people to do certain things). The

more specific sense refers to the concept of “literacy practices” (Street, 1995), which takes

account of the behaviour and the social and cultural conceptualisations that give meaning to

the use of Twitter (a literacy practice due to its microblogging function) underscoring the

conceptions that lecturers have of it in terms of its situated norms, values and beliefs. Hence,

this enquiry utilises the terms practice and disposition to convey the things that lecturers do

and the personal and cultural considerations that consciously or unconsciously position them

to make certain choices.

Chapter 2: Literature review

Apposite to higher education and against a background of technology and change, the

purpose of this chapter is to determine through a literature review the attributes of Twitter

technology and to establish its application within higher education before considering the

implications that any adoption might hold. This is reviewed from the perspective that Twitter

institutes disruptive change, presenting a new value proposition and engendering new

practices (implicitly literacy practices). Pertinent to lecturers, it considers matters in terms of

contextual disposition that will determine whether they choose to adopt Twitter into their

practice or not. The aim of the review is to establish Twitter’s credentials and disruptive

affects and to demonstrate the need for an enquiry that seeks to discover lecturers’ disposition

towards such disruption and any subsequent adoption; further to highlight the importance that

this has for the incorporation of Twitter, or any other social Web 2.0 practices, and the future

of teaching and learning within higher education.

6

Technology, change and higher education

Before considering the application and implications of Twitter, it is first necessary to

take account of technology and change within higher education in general.

As an institution of knowledge production (Delanty, 2001a) higher education is seen

as crucial in leveraging for society the benefits brought about by digital technologies. Hence,

many people are deliberating if Twitter can be appropriately utilised to this end.

However, despite the apparent potential of technology to transform educational

practice, over all adoption of new technologies within the sector is more speculative in nature

than established in practice (Selwyn, 2008). This is particularly noticeable in the case of Web

2.0 technologies. As Baggley (2010) notes, not all teachers strive enthusiastically to embrace

the latest technological approaches, which has helped to create the idea that traditional

education is unprepared for a new generation of technology savvy students, dubbed “digital

natives” (Prensky, 2001) that is now entering higher education. Lord Puttnam (2011)

illustrates the impasse regarding technology with his analogy of a surgeon from 1911 being

brought forward in time to an operating table in 2011 and finding today’s hospital

environment alien; whereas a teacher from 1911 on the other hand could easily deliver a

lesson in a 2011 classroom because the technology remains largely the same. Consequently,

he concludes that within education “the roots of profound change that have to be addressed

must run deep” (cited in Kennedy, 2011, p. 1). Marshall (2010) deems it pertinent to ask if

higher education really needs to change. After all, having existed for centuries the institution

of the university appears relatively stable (Waks, 2007). Marshall (2010) goes on to suggest

that its “apparent resistance to change may reflect the value to society in its current form” (p.

181). However, the 21st century presents a world in constant change therefore the paradigm

has now become about embracing change, as change is endemic within the system (Pena-

Lopez, 2011).

7

Technology is seen as a key driver that can help execute the purposes of higher

education (teaching and learning, research and wider engagement) in new and innovative

ways (Dept. of Education and Skills, 2011). Bradwell (2009) points out that:

universities are now just one source among many for ideas, knowledge and innovation, that seems to threaten their core position and role, but in this new world of learning […], there are also great opportunities. The internet, social networks, collaborative online tools that allow people to work together more easily, and open access to content are both the cause of change for universities, and a tool with which they can respond (p. 8).

However, there is a wide range of stakeholders, all of whom seek to modify higher education

to better suit their needs or resist changes that do not conform to their perception of it

(Marginson, 2004).

Routinely, change is driven by individuals or groups that seek to exploit new

capacities as they become available. When these changes make improvements in ways that

are consistent with previous activities they are seen as “sustaining” changes, however

“disruptive” changes create new ways of doing things or reshape existing ways (Christensen

et al., 2004). eLearning, which has emerged as a major paradigm for teaching and learning in

the 21st century represents an example of sustaining change; institutional learning

management systems [LMSs] or virtual learning environments [VLEs] are well suited for the

electronic distribution of academic resources essentially reinforcing the established

transmission model of learning (Acker, 2004; Reeves et al., 2004). Today, the concept of

eLearning is evolving towards Learning 2.0 (Downes, 2005; Brown and Adler, 2008; Walton

et al., 2008; Berlanga et al., 2010), or Education 2.0 (Selwyn, 2008), which denotes a

discourse pertaining to how education should integrate social Web 2.0 (O’Reilly, 2005)

technologies such as Twitter into educational and institutional practices. However, Web 2.0

can be regarded as provoking “disruptive” change within education (Garrison and Anderson,

2003) as it profoundly alters the generation and dissemination of knowledge. In the emerging

8

Learning 2.0 paradigm the focus moves away from content to place the student at the centre

of the learning experience (Anderson, 2008) and see them become active participants and

creators of knowledge (McLoughlin and Lee, 2008a).

Christensen and Raynor (2003) importantly observe that Web 2.0 technologies should

more accurately be regarded as disruptive “innovations” as disruptive innovations help to

“change the value proposition” (Christensen et al. 2004, p. 2) in relation to particular

products, services, processes or concepts; implicated here for higher education is the

generation and dissemination of knowledge. It is not usually the technology itself that is the

cause of disruption but rather its application and ensuing impact. The application of Web 2.0

technologies could radically transform practices, create wholly new practices and even

destroy existing ones. Understandably, academic discussion is fiercely contested in relation to

the role of rapidly evolving and widely accepted Web 2.0 technologies.

This enquiry accepts Christensen’s (Bower and Christensen, 1995; Christensen and

Raynor, 2003; Christensen et al, 2004) proposition relating to disruptive technology,

innovation and change and applies it to Twitter within higher education. However, before

moving on to consider the nature of any disruption, the attributes of Twitter must first be

established and its application within higher education subsequently determined.

Attributes of Twitter

Twitter signifies an important convergence of Web 2.0 and mobile technology as it is

easily accesible on both the web and mobile devices. Stevens (2008) defines Twitter as a

multi-platform Web 2.0, part microblogging tool, part social networking tool. Accordingly,

with around 200 million users generating 140 million tweets per day (Gannes, 2011), Twitter

would appear to deserve rigorous examination in order to ascertain its over all credentials for

the purposes of higher education.

9

Web 2.0

Web 2.0 is an umbrella term for internet applications such as social networking,

wikis, weblogs, microblogs, virtual societies and more. Web 2.0 technology applications are

built around the appropriation and sharing of content offering greater opportunities for

creation, collaboration and communication (Downes, 2004; O’Reilly, 2005). The term “social

media” is often used to describe these Web 2.0 tools and applications, the effects of which are

already widespread in social and economic life, as attested to by many familiar, highly

populated, websites and online communities such as Facebook, Twitter, Flickr and

Wikipedia, amongst others. The development of Web 2.0 has fashioned the web into a more

participatory medium transforming the social interactions and the modes and patterns of our

lives; it is changing human behaviour (O’Reilly, 2005).

An underlying feature of Web 2.0 is the harnessing of collective intelligence (Mason

and Rennie, 2008), stimulating new relationship structures and communication patterns that

foster new learning experiences.

Sarker et al. (2005) emphasise that “conversations serve as the vehicle through which

knowledge workers discover what they know, share it with their colleagues, and, in the

process, create new knowledge” (p. 214). Web 2.0 applications elevate the role of dialogue

and interaction, consequently requiring educators and stakeholders to regard education as a

social activity that occurs in interaction with others (Laurillard, 2005).

This enquiry adopts the term Web 2.0 to signify an open communication medium that

enables web-based communities of users to connect and collaborate.

Social networking

It is necessary to clarify that this enquiry is concerned with the uptake of practices

engendered by microblogging with Twitter. However, such practices largely exchange

information through the mechanism of social networking. This enquiry acknowledges this

10

and accepts the definition that social networks are “comprised of various independent actors

who develop relatively loose relationships between each other to pursue some common

goals” (Johannisson, 1987, p. 9).

Online social networking has been made possible by the emergence of Web 2.0 and

the affordances it offers. Boyd and Ellison (2007) present social networking facilities as

web-based services that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public profile within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system. These sites allow users to post a profile, to invite their friends, to join a variety of ‘groups’ with like interests and to make new ‘friends’ through searching for others with like interests (p. 211).

These facilities permit the interactions and relationships arising from social,

professional and/or learning purposes to be established online and extend to include people

who would not otherwise ordinarily be in contact. Thus Wellman et al. (2002) determine that

a fundamental shift is occurring, away from place-to-place community towards person-to-

person community; people are fashioning their own networks through social networking sites.

Upon joining Twitter, users start to build up their network by connecting with other

users. These connections are referred to as “followers” and customarily are made public. This

is a crucial element as it allows users to extend their own networks by linking to “followers

of followers”. Once connected, people can freely exchange messages and content.

Microblogging

Twitter was launched in March 2006. It combines online social networking and

microblogging and has become very popular in a relatively short space of time. JISC (2009)

assert that this is due to its combination of brevity, usability and social characteristics. This

enquiry accepts McFedries (2007) generic explanation that a microblog “can be seen as a

weblog that is restricted to 140 characters per post but is enhanced with social networking

facilities” (p.84). Typically, tweets (the name afforded to microblog posts within Twitter)

11

are made public to anyone using the web, however they can be restricted to certain

individuals if preferred (Costa et al., 2008; Grosseck and Holotescu, 2008).

Microblogging emerged from a trend to make digital content smaller and faster to

spread. Short posts distributed to the web through multiple platforms enable individuals to

broadcast limited information about themselves and share their activities (Java et al., 2007).

Posts are in reply to the question "What are you doing?", which in practice generally

translates to, "What interesting thought (or experience or content) do you want to share right

now?" (Makice, 2009). Significantly, hyperlinks can be inserted into posts to facilitate the

dissemination of more detailed information.

The restriction of messages to 140 characters either allows something very specific to

be communicated or acts as a mechanism through which individuals can create a “peephole”

for others to gain an insight into everyday events and discover what is inviting attention. Self-

disclosure of this nature, rather than simply being seen as a stream of mundane status

updates, can be seen as a series of posts that represent an invitation to get to know the

individual user and take part in interpreting their events (Oulasvirta, et al., 2010).

Microbloggers post interesting things on their own public channel and because it is

not necessarily expected or anticipated that someone will reply, posts become used much

more informally as a form of expression (Zhao and Rosson, 2009). As it is an open method of

communication, information can be shared with people that one would not normally

exchange email or instant messages [IM] with. This opens up ones circle of contacts to an

ever-growing community of like-minded people and may also help to establish valuable

personal relationships for future collaborations.

Yet, to some people Twitter appears to be intrusive and interruptive. What is more,

with its social networking dimension, Twitter creates a frivolous impression to people who

have never tried it. Undoubtedly, individual microblogging messages can seem trivial, but as

12

Thompson (2007) acknowledges, the value of microblogging is the cumulative effect of ideas

and resources shared between numerous people.

New users often report that the application is complex and bewildering at first, finding

that it requires a lot of effort to become proficient in sending, replying and deciphering

messages (Owens et al., 2009), not to mention the investment of time required to derive value

from the practice. Nevertheless, despite the sustained effort that is required in order to

become proficient in the productive aspects of microblogging, Ebner and Schiefner (2008)

declare that its use for rapid communication and exchange between people with similar

interests is highly valuable.

In 2010 Ebner et al. declared “that microblogging is indeed a new form of

communication” (p.98).

Multi-platform access

Microblog posts within Twitter can be sent from a number of web interfaces, mobile

phones, short message services [SMS], or even instant messaging tools [IM]. It is because

there is such a variety of applications that can be accessed from a plethora of handy devices

that makes Twitter so pervasive and effective (JISC, 2009).

With the increasing use of smartphones and other mobile devices, it is envisaged that

learners will soon demand course materials or discussion forums to be delivered on such

devices providing access from anywhere at any time, thus giving rise to mobile learning

(mLearning). When conceptualised in terms of devices and technologies, Ebner and Schiefner

(2008) point to microblogging as a practical example of mobile learning. It is reported that

around 16% of Twitter users join via mobile devices (Whitney, 2010).

In light of the above review, it would seem that Twitter comprises a potent

combination of functions that are easily accessible across a wide range of platforms, therefore

13

consideration now turns to the range of applications to which Twitter might feasibly be

applied within higher education.

Application of Twitter

The application of Twitter within higher education for both online and face-to-face

scenarios is beginning to receive meaningful attention from a range of educators (Grosseck

and Holotescu, 2008; Young, 2008, 2009; Holotescu, 2009; Mayernik and Pepe, 2009 and

Sample, 2010), that is to say as an instructional tool to support process-oriented learning,

assist student-faculty connection, promote in-class discussion, enhance student engagement

and connect students with a professional community of practice (Dunlap and Lowenthal,

2009; Rankin, 2009 and Ebner et al., 2010).

It is thought that microblogging and social networking, as part of what Gilpin (2010)

calls “the new reality media landscape” (p. 236) has the potential to change the way in which

educators work, communicate and colaborate (Procter et al., 2010), not just with students and

faculty but with associates further afield as well. It is therefore necessary to ascertain the

scope of Twitter’s application and its implications for practice.

To develop a personal learning network (PLN)

Dunlap and Lowenthal (2009) attest that through microblogging and social

networking activities facilitated by Twitter students and lecturers alike can build personal

learning networks (PLNs) and as a result participate in professional communities of practice

(Wenger, 1998). Communities of practice (CoPs) are “groups of people who share a concern

or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly”

(Wenger, 2006, p. 1). Harasim et al. (1995) recognise that social networks can be used to

support professional learning networks (PLNs) whereby groups of individuals use the web to

14

communicate and collaborate in order to build and share knowledge (within the literature “P”

in PLN is used to signify either a “personal” or “professional” learning network).

There are varying explanations within the literature regarding personal learning

networks, but no agreement as to an exact definition. Digenti (1999) defines a PLN as

"relationships between individuals where the goal is enhancement of mutual learning [which

is] based on reciprocity and a level of trust that each party is actively seeking value-added

information for the other" (p. 53). More recently however the term has become allied with the

technology-focused discourse associated with the learning theory of connectivism (Siemens,

2005).

The advent of Twitter is relatively new so accordingly it has only recently been

employed for developing PLNs. Nonetheless, it has been described as the perfect social

networking application for developing PLNs as it brings a steady flow of relevant content

(Lopp, 2008), one that is often suitably vetted by ones peers. It also allows individuals to

monitor on an international scale any new developments in their subject area (Rigby, 2008).

By modelling Twitter practices lecturers can introduce students to professional

communities of practice, assisting them to connect with practitioners, experts and colleagues

thus helping to enculturate them into a community. Through their legitimate peripherality

within the community, and plausibly anticipating a reply, students may solicit information

and opinions from practising professionals. Students can also build their own networks and

discover ideas and resources of benefit to their coursework.

To facilitate self-directed and informal learning

As reviewed, Twitter can facilitate the development of PLNs; Kester et al. (2006)

note that PLNs are particularly attractive to self-directed learners as the learners themselves

are at liberty to choose their learning package and its subsequent timing, pace and place.

McLoughlin and Lee (2008b) also acknowledge that microblogging and social network

15

applications are conducive to knowledge creation and community participation, allowing

learners to access peers, experts and the wider community in ways that enable reflective, self-

directed learning. Comm (2009) attests that through such activity he gained advice and

suggestions from experts that he could not have reached by any other means.

Costa et al. (2008) and Ebner et al. (2010) declare that microblogging is undeniably

becoming a tool for use in informal learning and networking. Aspden and

Thorpe (2009) explain that informal learning involves “activities that take place in students’

self-directed and independent learning time, where the learning is taking place to support a

formal program of study, but outside the formally planned and tutor-directed activities” (para.

2). Ebner et al. (2010) say that informal learning is seen as an important component within

process-oriented learning and crucially that “microblogging supports [process-oriented]

learning by a constant information flow between students and between students and teachers”

(p. 99).

Direct in- class application

Twitter has been trialled as an instructional tool within a direct classroom setting

(Rankin, 2009). The aim of which is to make learning more interactive and affect an increase

in student participation in classroom discussion. Students post in-class comments to a class

Twitter account effectively utilising it as back-channel; back-channel refers to the feedback

an audience shares without interrupting the speaker, the harnessing of which has been

identified by Brown (2005) as a powerful instructional mechanism.

To support learning

Interactions that happen before and after class or when students and faculty bump into

each other between classes have potential instructional value (Kuh, 1995); the synchronous

nature of Twitter replicates real-time conversation and as such can serve to strengthen

interpersonal relationships between and among students and faculty. Twitter also facilitates

16

time-sensitive communication between students and faculty, and vice versa (Dunlap and

Lowenthal, 2009). Students can request clarification on content and assignments or notify

faculty of personal emergencies, thereby supporting both learning and the learner at the point

of need.

Implications of Twitter

The adoption of Twitter practices such as those identified above constitute a change

away from the traditional practices of higher education with implications not only for the role

and function of the lecturer, but for engagement with knowledge and higher education’s

relationship with it. Hence, consideration is now afforded to the implications of any adoption

into practice of Twitter, before moving on to consider lecturers’ disposition towards such

adoption.

Epistemology and knowledge

The advance of Twitter, and other Web 2.0, applications appears to challenge our

concept of knowledge as they facilitate a culture of participatory knowledge creation (Brown

and Adler, 2008) and raise questions of how we learn, what kinds of knowledge we access,

and how we evaluate knowledge sources. To embrace this culture of participatory learning

with its epistemological stance of learning as knowledge creation, Cook and Brown (1999)

believe that our notion of knowledge and knowing will change from an epistemology of

possession to that of an epistemology of practice. The focus will become one of ‘‘learning to

be through enculturation into a practice” (Brown and Adler, 2008, p. 30).

What is more, Siemens (2005) in "A Learning Theory for the Digital Age” posits the

concept of connectivism. Manifest in online personal learning networks (PLNs),

connectivism sees learning as the process of creating connections and developing a network.

The network metaphor facilitates the notion of "know-where", that is an understanding of

17

where to find knowledge when it is needed which, is an appendage to the commonly held

understanding of “know-how" and "know-what" found in many traditional learning theories.

Connectivist theory recognises that the world has changed and become more networked. Kop

and Hill (2008) accept that connectivist theory plays “an important role in the development

and emergence of new pedagogies, where control is shifting from the tutor to an increasingly

more autonomous learner" (para. 47).

Teaching and learning

Here it is worth noting that customarily within education technologies have been

regarded as “tools” (Papert 1980) however, with the advent of online social spaces and

technology’s ability to blur the boundary of the classroom and alter the context of learning

(Parry, 2008; Ebner et al., 2010), Goodfellow (Goodfellow and Lea, 2007) suggests that more

accurately technologies should be viewed as “sites of practice” (p. 50), in acknowledgement

that application and meaning making is shaped by social relations emanating from the wider

social and institutional setting. Further, he cautions that identities within these sites must be

taken account of, as they are likely to be contested.

Twitter can be seen as part of the wider Web 2.0 phenomenon that encourages a shift

in emphasis from that of teaching to that of learning. In the traditional metaphor of learning,

as typified by the lecture hall note-taking scenario, learners are positioned as consumers of

“pre-packaged content and inert information” (Lee et al., 2007, p. 126), however with the

adoption of Web 2.0 technologies such as Twitter they become “student-producers engaged

in knowledge creation processes” (Lee et al., 2007, p. 126). This prompts a change of identity

for those in the learning environment; the learner’s identity becomes that of a knowledge

builder whilst the identity of the lecturer becomes akin to that of a critical friend or co-learner

(Lim et al., 2010). Embracing Twitter practices means that within this new paradigm learners

must accept their empowerment to construct learning and lecturers must become comfortable

18

with fluidity and uncertainty. This corresponds with Professor Rankin’s (2009) sentiments

when she says, “it’s going to be messy” (4.50).

Role of lecturer

Against this background, the role of the lecturer would seem to become more social,

transformed from that of a knowledge distributor more towards that of a facilitator of self-

directed learning or an orchestrator of process-oriented learning; often referred to as the

transition from the “sage on the stage to guide on the side” (King, 1993, p. 30) Some

reformers posit that the traditional lecture is an out-moded method of teaching not fit for

education of 21st century (Clark, 2010). Be that as it may, it is appreciable that any uptake of

Twitter is not simply a matter of using new tools; it is a matter of using them in a particular

spirit (Selwyn, 2008), and this has profound implications for future practice within teaching

and learning.

Quality, ethics and privacy

The abundance of information today and ease of access means that learners can now

avail of multiple knowledge sources (Masie, 2008); hence, there is a shift away from single-

source knowledge such as that embodied in a learned “teacher”. By tradition, teachers are the

authoritative sources of knowledge or are brokers for the authoritative sources of knowledge,

accordingly concerns are raised over the reliability and expertise of microbloggers on Twitter

and the level of quality and/or banality. Characteristically, the information produced is

disorderly and often frenzied, raising questions of aimless browsing, free association and

serendipity (Gritton, 2012), leading many to speculate about the quality and degree of

learning overall.

Higher education is largely a hierarchically arranged system that values the quality

assurance of content (Weller and Dalziel, 2007). It achieves this quality assurance chiefly

through a top-down process of review and formal assessment, in effect acting as a filter to

19

participation in the process. This is in marked contrast to Web 2.0 practices, which essentially

remove all barriers to participation and then, via the attribution of metrics pertaining to

frequency or popularity (i.e. links, followers and retweets) filter the quality and

appropriateness of content, effectively “filtering on the way out” (Weinberger, 2007).

Metrication is a customary feature of Web 2.0 technology and as such, means traditional peer

review mechanisms that serve to maintain or enhance quality within higher education may

become adulterated. Moreover, such activities create new social practices with the

measurement of popularity conferring social distinction on individuals who gain prominence,

thus creating what Goldhaber (cited in Goodfellow and Lea, 2007, p. 61) refers to as an

“attention economy”. Weller and Dalziel (2007) posit that Web 2.0 approaches are inherently

democratic, built around bottom-up principles.

Embracing Twitter practices presents a number of ethical dilemmas to the higher

education community. Saunders et al. (2009) say that the academic community is “hesitant to

use the open web as an incubator for ideas and would rather rely on a tight circle of

individuals” (p. 5).

Moreover, within social networks, identity is a key component and to create a profile

individuals have to share publicly some information about themselves. Self-disclosure of

personal information within posts presents juxtaposition between work life and private life.

Disposition to adopt Twitter – the lecturer and the context

Hitherto it can be appreciated that any adoption of Twitter, or similar technology, is

not simply a matter of using new tools, or operating in new sites of practice. It is as Selwyn

(2008) counsels, a matter of using them in a particular spirit as there are profound

implications for teaching and learning and for higher education’s relation to knowledge-

making practices in a digital and networked society. Therefore, in order to appreciate how

20

lecturers make their choices and determine any possibilities for adoption, literature review

now turns to the matter of disposition.

Katz (1988) explains that dispositions are “very different […] from skills and

knowledge; they can be thought of as habits of mind, tendencies to respond to situations in

certain ways" (p. 30), and continues that disposition can be defined not only as an attributed

characteristic of an individual, but one that encapsulates the trend of ones actions in particular

contexts (Katz, 1993). Bourdieu (1990) accounts for this dual aspect of disposition in his

widely cited concept of “habitus”. The habitus appears in one sense as each individual's

characteristic set of dispositions for action but also as the meeting point between the

individual and society, disposition as a consequence is a contextual and dialectical process.

Further, Bourdieu (1990) contends that essentially the habitus is not one of logic but rather

one of practical reason or social knowledge accumulated through everyday experience. One’s

habitus is not merely a mental state as it incorporates the tacit embodiment of social know-

how and belief that subconsciously comes through in everything that one does and as such,

this will be manifest in the way that lecturers are disposed towards adopting Twitter into their

practice.

Vanatta and Fordham (2004) investigated the concept of disposition to predict

technology use amongst teachers. Their study included factors of teachers’ self-efficacy,

educational philosophy, openness to change, amount of technology training, years of teaching

and willingness to participate in continuing professional development (CPD). Although this

enquiry is mindful of the role that these factors play, it is nonetheless Bourdieu’s

interpretation emphasising the contextual, dialectical and not all together conscious aspects of

disposition that supports this enquiry.

Therefore, relative to the adoption of Twitter, lecturers accordingly engage in a

bilateral evaluation and endorsement process, weighing up their own values and personal

21

proclivities towards Twitter together with wider cultural considerations and the particular

culture found in their institution. So in light of this, and in order to understand how lecturers

are disposed to the new practices that Twitter presents, or the new value proposition that it

presents, it is necessary to determine something of the principles that guide lecturers in their

practice as well as something of the cultural meanings pertaining to higher education.

Lecturers’ philosophies

Becker and Anderson’s (1998) survey into teaching, learning and computer use

investigated whether a lecturer’s underlying educational philosophies (i.e. teacher-centred or

student-centred and constructivist or traditionalist) indicates the way in which they will use

technology. In analysis, Becker (2000) states that “where teachers’ […] philosophies support

a student-centred constructivist pedagogy that incorporates collaborative projects defined

partly by student interest – computers are clearly becoming a valuable well-functioning

instructional tool” (p. 2). This contrasts with the idea that teachers who believe in a more

traditional transmission orientated approach mostly find applications of technology

incompatible with their instructional goals (Cuban, 1986; Cuban 2000, cited in Becker,

2000). Constructivist-oriented pedagogy favours project-based or inquiry-based methods

whilst traditional transmission pedagogy derives from a conventional theory of learning in

which understanding is gained through direct instruction upon a topic or content, which is

incidentally, largely in line with culturally normative beliefs about learning.

Moreover, the perceived usefulness of a technology is a vital factor in determining its

adoption, together with its perceived ease of use (Davis, 1989).

Contextual factors

Taking up the point regarding culture and learning, it is important to appreciate that

by tradition, which can be regarded as having classical roots, higher education constitutes a

set of social practices that serve as a medium for the cultural classification and the

22

legitimisation of knowledge (Delanty, 2001a; 2001b). Consequently, what constitutes

legitimate practices in the matter of knowledge construction is an important point to address

in relation to the adoption of Twitter practices into higher education. Cultural beliefs

regarding knowledge and learning are deep-rooted. However, our conception of knowledge is

changing. Gibbons et al. (1994) contend that a new model of knowledge characterised by the

application of problem specific knowledge by a variety of knowledge producers (Mode 2) is

replacing the traditional disciplinary-based knowledge of the academy (Mode 1). This not

only has repercussions for the meaning and value of discipline-based knowledge specifically

but also has wider consequences for an institution that operates at the intersection of

knowledge and culture in a society that is changing rapidly. The historical university was

designed to provide knowledge and afford professional elites to the state together with the

preservation and reproduction of national cultural traditions (Delanty, 2001a). However, the

diminishing power of the state and the arrival of globalisation and technological innovations

in communication has brought the role and identity of the university into sharp focus

(Delanty 2001a; 2001b). Higher education today has to take account of global and market

forces, new technologies and competing demands.

Conceivably, therefore, from an institution’s perspective embracing Twitter practices

presents a complex challenge to the culture and value system. Although agreement over the

precise definition of the term culture is not exclusive, Peterson and Spencer (1991) present

the concept as the “deeply embedded patterns of organisational behaviour and the shared

values, assumptions, beliefs or ideologies that members have about their organisation or its

work” (p. 142). Culture plays an important role in shaping people and the structures they

create, or attempt to transform. Accordingly, a culture may envisage reactions to innovations

and proposed changes to things that are important to the people working within that culture.

23

Although each institution will have its own unique culture, variously comprised of the

six cultures identified in Bergquist and Pawal’s (2008) study of the academy, it is in relation

to the lately emergent “virtual culture”, concerning technology and new ways of working and

new ways of thinking about the world and one’s relationship to it that is of significance here;

not dis-similar to Goodfellow’s contention (Goodfellow and Lea, 2007) that technologies

should be considered as sites of practice. Bergquist and Pawal say that in this new culture the

roles of faculty become transformed, as it must

be able to bring students to an understanding of how to gain on-going access to specific streams of learning […] both as coaches and co-learners with their students […] The virtual classroom has democratised the learning field. Any sense of power that faculty members have in this culture resides in their ability to link with their various knowledge bits, orient their students toward learning outcomes, and learn themselves (p. 163).

Situated amongst contested notions, disposition can be regarded as contextual and

something that must be socially negotiated. Thus, it is possible to see what Sterne (2003)

means when he says that technologies are “crystallisations of socially organised action” (p.

367). Moreover, although technologies may contribute in shaping practice, practice is always

shaped by the sedimented history within it.

Additionally, Selfe (1999) advocates that in order to foster awareness of our

increasingly technologised world and the forces that are shaping higher education today, a

critical technology literacies mentality is necessary for both individuals and institutions.

Twitter as an appropriate literacy practice for higher education

With its 140 characters Twitter technology engenders “literacy practices” that are

digital. Here digital refers not just to digital devices but also to the “sociotechnical

arrangements” that are comprised, amongst other things, of different actors and institutions.

As Goodfellow and Jones (2011) allow, this “defines technology as rooted in social, political,

economic and psycho-social dimensions of peoples’ transactions with and through devices,

24

and allows us to talk in terms of the reciprocal shaping of publics, practices, identities and

technical affordances rather than the one-way “impact” of technology on people (p. 1). In

addition, the concept of literacy practices signifies an “ideological” approach to literacy

extending the traditional, “autonomous” view to highlight that literacy “is not simply a

technical and neutral skill; […as] it is always embedded in socially constructed

epistemological principles. It is about knowledge: the ways in which people address reading

and writing are themselves rooted in conceptions of knowledge, identity, and being” (Street,

2003, p. 78). To progress the view of literacy as social practice within an academic context,

Lea and Street (2006) contend that implicit within academic literacy practices are

relationships of power, authority, identity and meaning making, which emphasise the nature

of what counts as knowledge in any given institutional context. Further, they consider

academic literacy practices not just in terms of their disciplinary or subject-based traits, but

consider how other institutions (e.g. government, business etc.) are implicated in these

literacy practices.

Concerning literacy practices themselves, these comprise of occasions where either

reading or writing is an integral part of communication with attention also being given to the

conceptions people have of those occasions and the norms, values, beliefs in which those

practices are situated. Within higher education, the different meanings that Twitter as a

literacy practice invokes has been highlighted recently in the blog posts of some academics

(Goodfellow, 2009, 2011; Conole, 2012). Goodfellow (2011) recounts “the great LiDU

Twitter debate” whereby the incorporation of a live Twitter stream at a seminar caused the

differing beliefs of participants towards such practices to become manifest. He elucidates that

if twittering is seen as a literacy practice for this seminar, it is clear that operational and cultural dimensions are aligned for some participants but not for others. For one participant, […] there is no reason not to tweet at an academic seminar. For another […] it feels as if people are engaged in private phone conversations with others not present (para. 10).

25

Lea (2011) explains that literacy practices invoke different meanings for the different

people involved; literacy practices embed ideologies and ways of viewing the world and as

such can indicate competing and often colliding approaches to practice. With reference to

Gee (1996), Street (2005) makes clear, “literacy, in this sense, is always contested both in its

meanings and in its practices, hence particular versions of it are always “ideological”; that is,

they are always rooted in a particular a world-view and a desire for that view of literacy to

dominate and to marginalise others” (p. 418).

Furthermore, what literacy practices are considered appropriate and count as valid or

legitimate reflect different situated perspectives. The social practice view of literacy is

inextricably bound up with the values and practices of a given situation. Therefore, within

higher education, an institution whose primary function is to produce and validate

knowledge, textual production and the practices that support it are of paramount importance

(Goodfellow and Lea, 2007). Academic literacy practices are traditionally based on formal

writing and are deeply embedded within the institution. As Albright et al. (2005) and

Warschauer (2007) point out, both students and lecturers have largely been acculturated and

socialised to value the types of literacy practices that they believe will contribute to academic

success and to resist those they believe will not. Hence, the adoption of Twitter may not be

seen as wholly appropriate by some in higher education.

However, there are increasing numbers of students coming into higher education both

confident and competent in using Web 2.0 and social networking technologies in their

personal lives, with at least some of them looking for the opportunity to use some of these

applications in their education and study. This appears to be in contrast to their “marked lack

of enthusiasm” for the virtual learning environment [VLS] provided by their institution

(Conole et al., 2006, p. 95). Yet there are some lecturers, heeding Prensky’s (2001) call to

action in relation to these so called “digital natives”, who are inclined to believe that students’

26

enthusiasm for Web 2.0 technologies such as Twitter could be harnessed and the practices

that they enable be used for educational benefit (Mason and Rennie, 2008). However, for

others there is a pejorative undertone associated with the notion of “digital natives”, which

implies that immersion with digital technologies impairs students’ ability to engage in serious

academic study (Lea and Jones, 2011).

Baggley (2010) recognises that not all teachers strive to embrace technology, and

equally nor do all students. Tan and McWilliam (2008) have explored the tensions and

opportunities for students of being “digital” and/or “diligent”, with diligent equating to

adherence of traditional educational literacy practices. This amounts to much the same

pressure that lecturers face when called to embrace 21st century digital literacy practices and

utilise innovative learning opportunities to capitalise on emerging network technologies,

whilst at the same time being compelled by various stakeholders to maintain high levels of

traditional literacy in order to secure high academic achievement and qualifications. After all

literacy is an important indicator of “cultural capital” and a significant gauge of cultural

values. For that reason, it is fundamentally a site of cultural contestation (R.C.L.C.E., 2007).

Key findings of literature review

Review of the literature indicates that, with its microblogging capacity, Twitter

constitutes a digital literacy practice. Being rooted in conceptions of knowledge, identity and

being, literacy practices embed ideologies and values that are inseparable from the context in

which they are situated. Within higher education, the adoption of Twitter represents

disruptive innovation as it permits the development of new practices; participatory new

practices that profoundly alter the generation and dissemination of knowledge transforming

the role of the lecturer from that of an authoritative source of knowledge to one more of co-

learner and influencer. Therefore, adoption of Twitter by lecturers is not simply a question of

using new technology but more a question of their disposition towards the way in which it

27

may be deployed and, within the context of their practice in higher education, how

appropriate this is considered to be. The concept of disposition signifies, not only the

attributed characteristics of an individual but also indicates the trend of ones actions in

particular contexts. Recognition of this dual aspect of disposition is found in Bourdieu’s

(1990) concept of “habitus”; in one sense, it is the individual's characteristic set of

dispositions for action and in another, it suggests the encounter between the individual and

society, with all society’s attendant culture and values. Consequently, disposition is a

contextual and dialectical process.

Grounds for enquiry – research questions

Although constitutive of disruptive change, it appears that there is meaningful scope

for Twitter practices with higher education. In order to ascertain if these practices are likely

to be adopted, this enquiry places lecturers as its central focus. The literacies framing is

accordingly an investigative way to assess Twitter’s perceived disruptive impact on practices

and to see what it tells us about individual and institutional practice and what the implications

might be for teaching and learning in a digital and networked society. In addition, disposition

is regarded as contextual negotiation between the lecturer and wider society, the outcome of

which will be manifest in the way in which they implement, or discount, Twitter for the

purpose of their practice. It is upon this conundrum that the enquiry hopes to throw light.

Therefore the primary question of this enquiry is:

What is the disposition of higher education lecturers towards the adoption of Twitter

practices?

In order to develop a holistic answer though, a series of conception questions that seek to

reveal lecturers’ disposition towards the disruptive affects, or anticipated affects, that any

adoption of Twitter presents to practice is deemed necessary:

What is the disposition towards Twitter in general?

28

How would the adoption of Twitter affect the role of the lecturer?

How would the adoption of Twitter affect teaching and learning?

How would the adoption of Twitter affect engagement with knowledge?

Are lecturers disposed to adopt Twitter for some aspects of their practice more than

others?

How appropriate is Twitter in the context of higher education?

Chapter 3: Methodology

This chapter introduces the methodology of Husserlian descriptive phenomenology

that underpins this enquiry together with discussion of its justification. It also outlines the

methods that the enquiry employs to richly describe lecturers’ disposition towards the

adoption of Twitter practices. It is envisaged that such a methodology will help to illuminate

what lies at the heart of lecturers’ disposition, and it is with this goal in mind that the enquiry

is designed.

Accordingly, the chapter sets out the sample population and recruitment strategy,

outlines the data collection and analysis methods and explains the strategies incorporated into

the enquiry to afford a high degree of trustworthiness and rigor. Ethical considerations and

limitations of the enquiry are also outlined.

Research framework – interpretivist and qualitative

A paradigm provides a conceptual framework for seeing and making sense of the

social world. Kuhn (1970) explains that "it stands for the entire constellation of beliefs,

values and techniques […] shared by the members of a community” (p. 175). Therefore,

within the research process the paradigmatic stance that a researcher adopts will be reflected

in the overall design of the research. It is important to articulate this paradigm as it

29

contributes to determining the research strategy and allows the researcher to identify their

role in the process.

Considering that the aim of this enquiry is to uncover something of lecturers’

disposition, the locus of an interpretivist paradigm is accordingly adopted placing lecturers

themselves at the centre of the action being investigated. An interpretivist outlook does not

see the world as an objective reality but believes individuals construct the world, and each

one perceives their own reality (Garfinkel, 1967; Becker, 1970).

Qualitative research methodologies support the view that there is no single reality.

Creswell (1994) provides the following qualitative outlook: “the researcher enters the

informant’s world and through on going interaction, seeks informants' perspectives and

meanings” (p. 161). Qualitative methodologies give voice to those involved and makes

enquires into issues that lie beneath the surface.

Moreover, as Denzin and Lincoln (1994) note, qualitative research stresses the

socially constructed nature of reality. Hence, a qualitative methodology is judged to be

appropriate here because essentially at the heart of this enquiry is an amalgam of socially

constructed affairs. Maxwell (2005) provides further congruence with the aims of this

enquiry when he asserts that a qualitative approach is effective for answering questions

deliberating: (a) the meanings attributed by participants to situations, events, behaviours and

activities: (b) the influence of context on participants’ views, actions and behaviours and (c)

the process by which these actions, behaviours, situations and outcomes emerge.

Research questions are an integral and driving feature of qualitative research as they

provide an alternative to hypotheses. A cautious approach to theory or hypothesis is

advocated because qualitative approaches indicate in effect that the research is of an open and

emergent nature Maxwell (2005).

30

Creswell (1998) upholds that enquiry is a prominent aspect of effective qualitative

research, which according to Denzin and Lincoln (1994) can follow a number of traditions,

one of which being descriptive phenomenology.

Research strategy – descriptive phenomenology

The aim of this enquiry is to ascertain lecturers’ disposition towards adoption of

Twitter practices. Since the topic is relatively nascent, a descriptive approach is deemed

appropriate as it can be used to describe or define current conditions and practices (Isaac and

Michael, 1981). The term descriptive research refers to the type of research question, design

and data analysis that will be applied to a given topic; descriptive statistics tell what is.

According to Babbie (1995) descriptive research “is probably the best method available to the

social scientist interested in collecting original data for describing a population too large to

observe directly" (p. 257). It is designed to "describe, rather than explain a set of conditions,

characteristics or attributes of people in a population based on measurement of a sample"

(Alreck and Settle, 1985, p. 408). Borg and Gall (1989) say that descriptive research can

describe a phenomenon that is often of interest to policy makers and educators.

In order to understand the disposition of lecturers towards adopting Twitter practices,

it is necessary to understand something of their practice, its context and the norms, values and

beliefs upon which this is founded. Therefore, it is important to hear lecturers’ voices and

allow them to explain directly. Lester (1999) states that phenomenological strategies are

based in a paradigm of personal knowledge and subjectivity, and emphasises the importance of personal perspective and interpretation. As such they are powerful for understanding subjective experience, gaining insights into people’s motivations and actions (p. 1).

In order to understand such personal knowledge and subjectivity, phenomenological

researchers strive for rich and complex descriptions of concrete experiences (Finlay, 2009).

However, whilst sharing a belief in the appreciation of the lived experience,

31

phenomenological tradition is divergent upon how this should be conducted, most notably

regarding the subjectivity of the researcher. As a result, Finlay (2009) believes that

“researchers should be clear about which philosophical and/or research traditions they are

following” (2009, p. 8).

Husserlian phenomenoliogical methodolgies are concerned with the essence of

consciousness and place emphasis on the description of the lived experience free of

interpretation. Descriptive phenomenology expounded by Husserl (1962) advocates that the

researcher must suspend, or bracket, their own beliefs, past experiences or knowledge in

order to avoid influencing the research (Appendix I). Bracketing is fundamental to the

strategy because it ensures trustworthy description of the phenomenon and facilitates

phenomenolgical reduction. It is through phenomenological reduction that patterns of

meaning and themes emerge. Its aim is to dislocate the phenomenon under investigation from

what the reseracher already knows about it. In practice this means that the researcher comes

to the research without any preconceived ideas (Streubert and Carpenter, 2010).

It is on this point, of the researcher’s prior knowledge, that phenomenological

tradition diverges. Hermeneutic phenomenology considers that it is impossible to free the

mind of prior knowledge and preconceptions (LeVasseur, 2003). Indeed, hermeneutic

phenomenologists appreciate prior knowledge, so long as it is acknowledged beforehand and

made explicit how it is to be used (Lopez and Willis, 2004).

As regards to this enquiry, considering the embryonic nature of the phenomenon and

the fact that the researcher (being a student/observer) has no in-depth or vested understanding

of practice from the perspective of a lecturer, or indeed pertaining to the field of higher

education in general, this enquiry is confident that it is able to conduct the phenomenological

reduction necessary in order to deliver a faithful description and consequently takes a

32

Husserlian approach. However, it must be disclosed that the researcher has recently begun to

use Twitter, investigating its application as part of their studies.

Research methods

Sample population

Purposive sampling was used to recruit participants within this enquiry. Akin to case

studies methodology, it is the deliberate selection of participants. Participants were identified

based on their typicality and/or on their ability, as perceived by the researcher, to give

particular insights into the phenomenon of the enquiry. In this instance, there was little

benefit in seeking a random sample when a significant number of lecturers within a random

sample may be largely unfamiliar with the discourse relating to Twitter within higher

education and subsequently unwilling or unable to comment on the matter.

Normally it would seem sensible to want to avoid sampling bias, in that the sample is

not a good representation of the population, or that systemic under or over representation of

some aspect is present however, purposive samples do not pretend to represent the wider

population and therefore such strategy is “deliberately and unashamedly selective and biased”

(Cohen et al., 2011, p. 157). Besides, in qualitative research such as this, the emphasis is on

the uniqueness and distinctiveness of the phenomenon, the context and the individuals

involved, that is, they only represent themselves and, nothing or nobody else. Therefore, as

(Cohen et al., 2011) notes, it is perhaps unnecessary to talk about a “sample” and how

representative this is, after all the purpose of this enquiry is to explore the dispositions of the

participants within the confines of the enquiry and not necessarily to generalise. Thus, the

research is given leave to simply represent itself. Nonetheless, if as a result, other interested

parties find that any emerging themes resonate with them, then this is a bonus, and in this

respect again is akin to case study research.

33

A consequence of the congruence between qualitative research and purposive

sampling is that there are no definitive rules regarding the size of the sample. Therefore, it is

generally guided by the principle of fitness for purpose in that it adequately answers the

research question. It might therefore “be in single figures” (Marshall, 1996, p. 523). The large

volume and richness of information generated and collected from participants accounts for

the relatively small sample sizes found in qualitative research (Morse, 2000). In this enquiry,

it is expected that data collection from five participant interviews is sufficient to generate

“thick descriptions” (Geertz, 1973) but not so small as to render the data redundant.

Recruiting participants

Five lecturers from three higher education institutions (a university, an institute of

technology and a college) were approached inviting them to take part in the research

(Appendix II). All five consented. It was thought that the five identified would generate

sufficient data to represent a range of dispositions in different institutional contexts whilst at

the same time allowing any general themes and concepts to emerge. The selection criteria

was simply that they were lecturers in an institution of higher education in the Republic of

Ireland, the exact profiles of which being determined by the researcher. Here it is important

to note that because of the researcher’s position as a student within higher education, and as a

consequence of having no great relationship to that field, the participants identified eminated

from the researcher’s personal contacts and from a narrow range of disciplines, which can

largely be categorised as the humanities or social sciences, information technology and the

digital arts (Appendix IV).

Ethical considerations

Since personal data was collected from participants, ethical issues were given due

consideration. Punch (1994) summarises the main ethical issues arising in research as “harm,

consent, privacy and confidentiality of data” (cited in Punch, 2005, p. 277). Punch also

34

emphasises that “ethical issues saturate all stages of the research process” (2005, p. 277).

This enquiry takes account of important ethical considerations throughout, mindful of

responsibilities to all participants. Informed consent, as defined by Diener and Crandall

(1978) was obtained and in keeping with the principle acknowledged participants’ right to

freely withdraw from the enquiry if desirous (Appendix III). Furthermore, considering that

assenting to participate constitutes for the participant an intrusion into their life, the right to

privacy was observed and anonymity and confidentiality of data assured.

Data collection

A great deal of qualitative material comes from talking with people, so in order to

gain as holistic a view as possible of the phenomenon under enquiry, and considering its

complexity to boot, in-depth interviews (recorded) were considered the most sagacious

instrument of data collection in this instance. In-depth interviews gather dialogical data that

helps to “explain more fully, the richness and complexity of human behaviour” (Cohen et al.,

2007, p. 141). It was hoped that through the instrument of an interview something may be

revealed not only relating to the conscious decisions that lecturers make but something of the

unconscious dimension of their decision making might be revealed as well. In order to be

equitable and facilitate collection of more meaningful data, it was judged practical during

each interview to play a video clip of the in-class Twitter experiment (Rankin, 2009).

A semi-structured form of interview (Appendix VI) was endorsed for this enquiry

because it allows the interviewer to focus on issues of particular importance to the research

question and to probe and clarify comments made by the respondents (Clarke and Dawson,

1999), but as Woods (2006) advises

if interviews are going to tap into the depths of reality of the situation and discover subjects' meanings and understandings, it is essential for the researcher to (1) develop empathy with interviewees and win their confidence (2) to be unobtrusive, in order not to impose one's own influence on the interviewee (para. 2).

35

A semi-structured interview permits that the exact questions asked to each participant

may vary depending on their particular experiences, so to make the most of the interview, a

precursory short self-report questionnaire was given to participants just before the interview

commenced (Appendix V). The aim of which was to gather general information outlining

their level of engagement and understanding concerning Twitter, and to guage their overall

disposition towards it. This informed the structure of the interview, expediently helping to

avoid assumptions, conjecture or misunderstanding.

Questionnaires are not generally regarded as the most fitting method in qualitative

research as questionnaires require individuals to respond to a prompt, thus it cannot be

claimed that respondents are acting naturally (Woods, 2006). However, as the purpose here is

to find out factual details, gain responses to definite categories and crucially not be evaluated

statistically, a short questionnaire was considered appropriate.

Piloting

Oppenheim (1992) advocates conducting a pilot study, regarding the process as

essential as it ensures greater reliability, validity and practicability of an enquiry. A pilot

study can reveal deficiencies in the design of a proposed research instrument or procedure. In

light of the researcher’s inexperience conducting research interviews, this caveat was

particularly fitting and duly observed. A pilot interview served to satisfy the researcher of

their ability to conduct interviews according to Wood’s (2006) counsel and to show that

moderation of the interview schedule was not necessary.

Data analysis

Data analysis was achieved through a meaning condensation method (Kvale, 2009),

and largely adhered to the guidelines for phenomenological analysis set out by Hycner

(1985). It is important to note that within phenomenological research there is a reluctance to

36

focus too heavily on specific methodological steps. It is thought that doing so may lead to the

reification of a process. As Keen (1975) explains,

unlike other methodologies, phenomenology cannot be reduced to a ‘cookbook’ set of instructions. It is more an approach, an attitude, an investigative posture with a certain set of goals ( p. 41).

Giorgi et al. (1971, cited in Hycner, 1985) stress that research methods must be responsive to

the phenomenon as any arbitrary imposition would deal an injustice to the integrity of the

phenomenon itself. The meaning condensation process used is as follows (Appendix VII):

1. Transcription.

2. Forward the transcription to the participants to verify accuracy.

3. Undertake phenomenological reduction (suspension of premature judgement

and theoretical constraints by researcher in order to be as true to the

phenomenon as possible).

4. Listen to each interview to gain a holistic sense.

5. Delineate units of relevant meaning and eliminate units of irrelevant meaning.

6. Number list of delineated units of relevant meaning.

7. Cluster units of relevant meaning in relation to the concept questions of the

enquiry.

8. Determine disposition within each cluster (positive/ negative or non-aligned)

and determine any themes therein.

9. Summarise each individual interview.

10. Forward the summary and the document determining disposition relevant to

the concept questions of the enquiry for the participants to verify accuracy.

Hycner states that verification by participants provides an experiential “validity check” (p.

291). All five participants validated the transcripts and four validated their summary. The

fifth participant did not respond to the later request.

37

Validity and reliability

Validity means that research methods must collect or measure what they purport to

collect or measure, and that an account accurately represents “those features of the

phenomena that it is intended to describe, explain or theorise” (Hammersley, 1987, p. 69,

cited in Winter, 2000, p. 1). It is impossible to measure abstract concepts such as disposition

directly so indirect methods must suffice, however indirect methods always contain some

degree of error and the more error, the more questionable the validity of the research.

Validity of qualitative data is best viewed as a matter of degree rather than as an

absolute condition, as due to the subjectivity of participants’ opinions, attitudes, histories and

perspectives a degree of bias is unavoidable. Maxwell (1992) argues that researchers using

qualitative approaches would be well served by replacing the positivist concept of validity,

which resonates with notions of “controllability” and/or “predictability” with that of

“authenticity”. This subsequently places the emphasis on participants’ accounts as opposed to

upon that of data or methods. It is after all, the meaning that participants give to the data and

the inferences drawn that are important, and was the reason why respondent validation was

sought.

Reliability is often regarded as an essential affiliate of validity, equating essentially

with consistency, dependability and replicability. However, this view stems largely from its

significance in matters of measurement, which does not fit with an interpretivist outlook;

subsequently the term is contested when applied to qualitative research. Reliability as

concomitant to replicability in qualitative research is problematic as qualitative approaches

are premised on the singularity of the situation, so realistically an enquiry such as this cannot

be replicated, which can be seen as a strength rather than a weakness.

Lincoln and Guba (1985) suggest that to depict accurately the experiences of

participants, “trustworthiness” of the research is required and favour using terms such as

38

“credibility”, “dependability”, “confirmability” and “transferability”. Consequently, the

enquiry has sought to establish methodological rigor at every stage of the research and to

make this visible (Appendices).

To guard against the accusation that the enquiry’s findings are simply the result of a

single method and a single investigator's partialities, triangulation of data sources is

employed to support the enquiry’s construction (Denzin, 1978). The purpose of triangulation

is to locate and reveal the understanding of the object under investigation from "different

aspects of empirical reality" (Denzin, 1978, p. 28). To this end, through its purposive sample

of participants across three different sites, the enquiry adopts Dervin’s concept of “circling

reality”, which is defined as “the necessity of obtaining a variety of perspectives in order to

get a better, more stable view of ‘reality’ based on a wide spectrum of observations from a

wide base of points in time-space” (1983, para 7). However, such a comparison may not

necessarily lead to consistency, but then sometimes it is helpful to study and to understand

when and why there are differences.

Limitations of the enquiry

Although this study cannot be said to be generalisable to the wider population, its

validity is strengthened if generalisability is understood as “comparability” and

“transferability” (Lincoln and Guba, 1985). To this end detailed and in-depth descriptions are

provided so that others can guage the typicality of the participants and the settings and thus

judge the extent to which its findings are generalisable to another situation, thereby

addressing the dual issues of comparability and transferability.

Moreover, whilst there is nothing to suggest that the participants in this enquiry are

not typical of lecturers across higher education. The selection of participants may have

introduced a bias and the negotiation of access to a population sample may have introduced

another. Fraenkel and Wallen (2000) state that "the researcher may not be correct in

39

estimating the representativeness of the sample or their expertise regarding the information

needed" (p. 114).

Chapter 4: Presentation of findings

In this chapter, the enquiry’s findings are presented. To expediently demonstrate the

range of dispositions exhibited amongst the participants and the conceptual factors upon

which they are founded, the findings are presented as précised vignettes of each interview. It

is anticipated that such presentation will allow for a lucid and faithful rendering of each

participant’s viewpoint and for common and/or individual themes to emerge strongly.

The vignettes describe how participants are inclined towards Twitter in general and

how they perceive Twitter to be applicable or not for the purposes of their practice. The focus

of presentation covers Twitter as part of a personal learning network (PLN), Twitter to

progress classroom discussion and Twitter as a mechanism for learning support. This is

advanced against any disposition (positive, negative or non-aligned) that the participant

exhibits towards the practices that Twitter affords together with any possibilities for action

they display in relation to adopting it or rejecting it into their practice. Disposition is

presented as contextual, duly located within the culture of higher education and a particular

institution.

Aidan - social science

Aidan does not use Twitter but says he sees it “second hand, through other forms of

media”; what is more, he says that he has not seen anything on it that he would care to see .

Referring to both the technological medium of Twitter and the messages therein, he declares,

“there's nothing that I've seen that has any special intrinsic value”.

About the open nature of Twitter he grants that this is positive as “public media is

essential to democratic society” However, he pronounces that Twitter’s “virtue is also its

40

problem” as it raises concerns pertaining to online safety and matters of quality. Compared to

previous forms of open uncensored communication, Twitter it seems to Aidan is somewhat

“vulgar” and people “undisciplined” in its use, “consuming” an endless feed of status updates

in what he refers to as “the zone of constant gratification”.

However, concerning social media generally, Aidan acknowledges, “the value of it is

that it actually enables us to be to be with others in multiple new ways” and he allows, “we

should trust each other to have it”, but he cautions, like most things there is “a good and a bad

side”. Aidan sees that this technology is remarkable in many ways, elucidating

of course this technology is fantastic […] and I'll tell you why it's fantastic, because the life of the mind has always been trapped in the life of the body, the human condition; and for the philosopher, what every academic is whatever they call themselves, it is really about thinking [...] you just want your mind to be connected with all your philosopher buddies all the time.

When asked about developing a personal learning network (PLN) within Twitter,

Aidan concedes, “it’s only what we've done forever; when you’re an academic you live in a

networked world”; and duly recounts making international calls via a switchboard to network

with colleagues overseas.

He continues to add that with technology such as Twitter human behaviour is

changing and for this, there is much to be concerned. Sophisticatedly designed alongside

mobile devices, it appears to Aidan that this technology is possibly “habit-forming”. He

observes, “it is being developed into an almost symbiotic thing”. “This stuff traps human

beings” he emphatically declares, and contends, “it's not accidental when you’re putting

multi-million dollars into design and you’ve got the best designers in the world making your

technology”. Moreover, via mobile devices, he insists that the interests of the producers of

technology have infiltrated education:

we've lost control of the zone, of the teaching and learning zone; so there's a kind of piracy going on, you know the interest of the producers of this technology have entered and plundered and taken over the teaching and learning zone.

41

He continues, “I think it has fantastic potential but like all the technologies in the modern

world it doesn't come out of space, it’s driven by commerce, it's over individualised and not

communal enough”, lamenting that “the technology is coming before the thought is applied to

its use by pedagogues or social policy people, psychologists and so on when we really don't

know what we’re doing” attributing this to the fact that

some people now have actually lost […] their own critical sense. They don't believe in the embeddedness of learning in an environment. […] Some people are so infatuated with the process […] because this is so intellectually seductive.

Hence, Aidan proclaims, “as pedagogues we have to ensure that we keep this thing clean, we

keep it virtuous, we keep it for the good, keep it social”.

Students today it seems “are overloaded with information”. Consequently, one of

Aidan’s “worries” is that because information “comes with such a barrage” it means that

there is very little time for students to do anything other than to treat all information

superficially and equally. He says

there is no time for them to take the critical distance the intellect needs and indeed the body needs to rest for holistic engagement as a human being with the experience. There is no space, and I think it's probably deliberate, there's no space for them to put the thing down and think about things. It all comes about too fast too readily. They are overloaded with information, overloaded with information that they are unable to critically evaluate and assess so everything gets treated equally, everything gets treated superficially there is no time to treat it any other way. The students therefore lose their critical judgements.

Aidan believes it is important that space be allowed between the flow of information, for

private reflective practices by the student and for discourse between the student and the tutor.

Aidan declares that he wants to talk about the concept of the “stick in the sand”

extolled by Socrates as being at the heart of teaching and learning:

I really feel strongly about it. You can do a lot of stuff, you can use a lot of technology to promote, embellish, facilitate, support and develop that process but the damage is when people think that you can replace it.

42

He also talks about the importance of the relationship between the lecturer and the student,

stressing the authority of the lecturer’s knowledge, the interpersonal nature of the relationship

and the boundaries therein:

it's one of those things you learn when you're learning to be a pedagogue. It's about the authority of your knowledge, and the way you exercise that is through authority, through the authority of your teacher presence. It's actually your professorial status to use that old-fashioned idea.

What’s required is that the student just respects that. It’s a mutual thing, you respect their learning […] and they respect that you have it too. And it means there are boundaries and there are moments where the student must defer. […] It’s a subtle thing and the boundaries are hard when you’re a teacher because you've got to make it invisible and part of learning as a student is to get the boundaries, so it's complex and it’s very [emphasis] interpersonal.

How learning happens Aidan maintains is complex and not easy to explain, occurring

somehow in the dialogue between the lecturer and the student(s):

it's very much about people; it's almost animal in a way if you know what I mean. It's very complex and I don't even know how it works, it works in the dialogue between the tutor and the students.

Furthermore, he avows that the process of learning is dialectical, either between two

people or amongst a group of people, so when asked to comment on the premise that Twitter

is suited towards the self-directed learner, Aidan is unequivocal “the self-directed learner is a

fantasy”, continuing that “the idea of this individual learner in control I think is a really

unhealthy idea”. This he considers to have been borne out in the video (Rankin, 2009) but

merely augmented by technology, “she [Prof. Rankin] is using Twitter to precisely facilitate

that process”. He asserts, “those people in the class, that's perfect that's how it is they’re not

on a personal learning thing they’re in a group”.

This is important to Aidan and it pertains to how to replicate the “stick in the sand”

within online environments whilst maintaining group interaction and the interpersonal

dimension of communication. Aidan contends, “it has always been understood that distance is

never the same as presence”. However, he can see that Twitter may be a useful tool when

43

considered in terms of blended learning. Still, he upholds that the main problem with Twitter,

from a teaching and learning perspective, is that it does not appear to have “the range and

depth to allow people to develop their thinking” being literally a “sound bite”.

From the outset, Aidan admits that he has not heard anything about Twitter in higher

education. However, he is familiar with the discourse pertaining to eLearning more generally

and the drive to implement online methods within his institution. He advocates eLearning

initiatives as a means of democratising education but against a tough economic backdrop,

possible commercial and political motives give cause for concern. Aidan notes his president’s

enthusiasm but states, “he/she loves it for the reasons that aren't the ones I love it for”.

Referring back to long established academic practices, he goes on to ask will we “surrender

[all] this to have everybody online” continuing “if you open everything up to the flux it is

fantastic but what do we lose?” Thus, he concludes, “this technology is very challenging”,

“it's going to take a lot of very serious philosophy of education thinking” accepting that “all

of this, as pedagogues, we would have to re-engage with it and build it into the process”.

It is noteworthy that the role of a pedagogue (role being taken to mean “proper or

customary function”) is a constant theme of Aidan’s throughout.

So, as to whether he might consider adopting Twitter, it would seem that this is

dependent upon satisfactory philosophical assessment and careful “piloting” by pedagogues.

He says, “I wouldn't want to just get it and use it. I would want there to be training within the

college by someone who has really spent time thinking about the pedagogy of the uses of

Twitter”.

Declan - religious education

When asked about his thoughts in general regarding Twitter, Declan straightaway

expounds

44

until it became technology, the word twitter was used in an incredibly pejorative sense about a form of communication; as in that person is twittering on, they are not making any sense, there is no substance to what they are saying.

Consequently, upon learning that the word is now being applied to a form of internet

communication Declan admits to being “automatically and instantaneously negatively

disposed towards it, because there’s enough twittering going around between people without

starting to put it on to machines”. Furthermore, when asked how he feels about social

networking and posts on Twitter being public, he ardently replies, “how do I feel about

something being available to everyone? I really cannot psychologically I really cannot

understand why you would want to”. He goes on to explain that for him “communication, if

it's real, is of a much more close intimate and purposeful nature rather than I’m going to buy

chips for my tea this evening”, which is the sort of banal comment with which he associates

Twitter. He persists, why do people do that “is it a sense of ultimately wanting to be seen and

recognised in a way that they haven’t felt before. I absolutely find that very very strange”.

Regarding Twitter for the purposes of higher education, Declan ventures that “as an

educationalist to believe that you can put learning into little sound bites of 140 characters

rather than developing ideas and really looking at arguments for and against over a longer

period […] it's not helpful”. Not only does Declan discern the short 140 character “sound

bite” aspect of Twitter but surmises that one might “get sucked in to that minutiae” of

microblogging. Hence, he pronounces, “I'm really worried that this is mitigating against the

idea of actually having to look at something in-depth and having to get into depth reasoning”.

He then raises the notion of problematic knowledge saying “when you’ve got people

Twittering and they've got different points of views it's nearly always that knowledge is not

unproblematic” adding that today when “we're awash” with information “how are we going

to help people engage much more critically with the unending information”, typically “how

45

to deal with conflicting issues, conflicting statement of fact, conflicting stages of views” as

opposed to seeing information as something that you just access.

Therefore, Declan believes that Twitter, being constrained by lack of depth, would not

be wholly appropriate for teaching and learning; however, he accepts that by taking

advantage of any positive disposition towards the technology that students display, Twitter

might feasibly be used to engage them and provide snapshots of learning.

I suppose really tweeting is a very good way to get learners’ opinions […]. It's a very good way of getting where people are at and it's a very good way of maybe getting initially […] throwing in […] challenging some of the initial assumptions.

He also adds that Twitter may prove useful in terms of learning support, to communicate with

students out on placement facilitating quick responses to issues that arise. However, for

Declan this would have to be managed.

As regards the use of Twitter in a direct classroom setting, in his case it would be

inappropriate as it is not customary for Declan to work with large groups, “I work in small

groups, in tutorials in a circle so I see everyone full on and ask them direct questions; many

lessons I can go round every individual and ask them something”. To advocate Twitter in

such a scenario would seem absurd. For Declan, the person and personal communication is of

paramount importance; it was a constant theme throughout the interview. Therefore, the use

of Twitter in general would be fundamentally challenging, as he says

although  people are Twittering and throwing out ideas at each other they’re not actually engaging with each other on a personal level because they’re just engaging with the words and a screen and these are imaginary people out there; and one of my biggest problems [emphasis] would be this increased individualisation of learning to the world out there rather than actively developing a sense of personal engagement, which is a sense of a community and a community of learning so that would be my major issue about it.

Similarly, on the subject of how much he would trust information on Twitter, he replies, “I

don't trust information, I only trust people”.

46

Twitter, Declan suggests could be part of an increased fascination with functionality

and asserts that in order to decide the merits of the technology and whether to adopt it into

practice you have to know what you are actually trying to achieve. He proclaims, “what I

want to achieve in terms of my teaching, I don't need it”; a primary concern of religious

education after all is how people relate to each other. Likewise, he continues you must know

the values to which you put your skills, being aware at any given time about the values out of

which you are acting. He makes allusion, “what values am I expressing or trying to live out

by all of this and what values are people trying to impinge onto me?”

The college, it appears, recognises that it needs to address the role of social media in

education but it is not a priority at present. Declan feels “there's a fair amount of

apprehension amongst the staff around developing it, particularly when I think many staff

would feel that some of the students would actually be much more au-fait with it than they

would be themselves”.

So what of the possibility that Declan will consider using Twitter in his practice: the

opportunities afforded by Twitter to students on placement is a possibility, but on the whole

Declan is not inclined towards Twitter and feels that to research and develop its use would be

a drain on time, which could potentially lead to more work and he feels he is over worked

already.

Conor - film, photography and digital media

Twitter is largely “natural” for Conor. As he puts it, having been “blathering” online

for over a decade tweeting is in many ways the “outcome of a long engagement with online

activity”. Unsurprisingly, therefore he states that he is “very comfortable” networking with

people that he has not met face to face and declares “No, I don't have a problem being

public”, adjoining

47

I tend to think of the Internet generally as a very public space so if you go on there and communicate you should be comfortable communicating in a public space. I use the model of Times Square - don't do anything on the Internet that you wouldn't do in the middle of Times Square.

Conor discloses that within Twitter he considers himself to have a personal learning

network; in fact, he testifies to probably having “several over laying ones” as his interests are

varied. Conor asserts that using Twitter in this way is valuable. He explains Twitter is “about

ideas and it's about what's current” describing it as “the planet’s take on world events as they

go along”. He goes on to offer the following illustration:

the Golden Globes are out so there will be the film world's response to that. It's instantly there among people I value and trust. To connect with that beat if you like, having a handle; I think it's very important. To me you are not isolated in a way.

Thus, Conor upholds that Twitter is “the best source for ready access to current information”;

nevertheless, he recognises at the same time that Twitter is inherently limited by people’s

attention and their activity level defines what is available. When asked what affect he thinks

Twitter might have on how people engage with knowledge, after some thought he proffers

I don't know it's not so clear. In a way, it's the lazy web. I’ve found it to be great for celebrities who have 20 million followers but if you are like me I don't know I have 900 followers or something like that, sometimes it will produce a ready response and sometimes it won’t produce any response if I just need to plough down a particular thing. So it's about the level of activity, if there's an awful lot of heat or activity around that particular area of interest well then the information is there but if it's something that's quiet and you want to read it or even if it's older, just not active or current, in a way it's harder to do that.

Conor also observes, “the funny thing about Twitter is that it is an expression of self. It’s not

just comments about material, it’s not just observances, it’s about an individual”. He

elaborates, “to express who you are through it takes a while to formulate”, and it takes time to

find your voice within the 140 character constraints of Twitter explaining that “you can't

necessarily be deep but you can be pithy”. Notwithstanding this, Conor asserts that Twitter

expedites connection and interaction with the broader community and the blend of self-

48

expression, connection and interaction found in Twitter suits the “informality” found within

his particular field.

Conor is inclined to incorporate Twitter into his educational practice and induct

students into a community of practice; however, it transpires that only a few students

currently use Twitter. Conor remarks that in a way students are “a bit at sea” there; instead,

“they’re all on Facebook”. Therefore, as a means of supporting learning he has set up a

Facebook group for his students, which is working well. However, he feels that this does not

offer the same level of openness and engagement with outside sources that Twitter offers and

in many ways this is a lost opportunity, “I would probably be happier with that on Twitter in

that it would be something that’s public rather than in a closed little group”. Conor already

has some idea of the benefits that social media offers as some of his photography students are

on Flickr and he can cite an instance where one student was able to solicit feedback from

“professional photographers from all over the planet”. He says “for me that’s a huge

opportunity, if you have a student with a clear talent to have their work read and validated

and encouraged by wider than the college curriculum” he adds, and “Twitter offers that too,

completely”.

Student engagement is of primary importance, therefore employing Twitter in a direct

classroom setting akin to Professor Rankin’s experiment (Rankin, 2009) appeals to Conor as

it is trying to engage students and provide more opportunities for discursive interaction. In

this process he believes quieter students might get to be heard but not only that, Conor detects

that the agenda for learning might possibly emerge out of a more “collective” discourse, as

opposed to what he describes as the traditional top down lecturer led “he who knows filling

up the empty cups” scenario. He imagines

you would just have to messily steer your way through how the discussion is within that, it would be something that I would be open to within my work but I can see an awful lot of lecturers having huge difficulty with it.

49

Although within Conor’s institution it is uncertain how the use of Twitter is currently

viewed, “I don't know the college’s position on tweeting or if they have a policy” he

proclaims. When asked how suited he thinks the institution is to a Twitter-like networked

culture he muses “I think the college here, as a culture, hasn't talked it through” and notes that

“hope might live in certain individuals but I don't know if the college is necessarily orienting

itself that way” particularly as the Head of eLearning “would be pursuing an internal system

[Moodle]”. Moreover, he says that when the topic of Twitter arises amongst colleagues “it’s

always dismissed”, they think that “people are tweeting about their lunch still; the mind-set

hasn't really gone beyond that”. For it to go beyond that, Conor suggests there needs to be

some “shining examples” of Twitter in pedagogic action, so to speak, and cites an instance of

a lecturer in another institution that “tweets as a lecturer” and uses Twitter with his students.

It is worth noting after all that Conor’s identity on Twitter is not that of a lecturer but that of a

filmmaker/photographer who lectures and he acknowledges that his students know him as

this too.

In order to adopt Twitter into his practice and realise any potential for in-class

discussion or to help students develop PLNs, it seems to Conor that “it's really about the

students themselves and whether I can get them to do it” but he wonders “how to get my

students up to that level, I don't know how to get that momentum in there”.

Erin – information technology

Initially Erin had misgivings about Twitter, correlating it with Facebook, which she

does not use. Nonetheless, she was persuaded by a colleague to explore using it in her

practice. Her colleague, who had begun to use Twitter, informed her “it’s a great way to

network with people […]; you can connect with people all over”. So “very lukewarm

originally” and after forming a strategy of “demarcation” between her personal and

professional life, Erin gave Twitter a try. She now avows to finding substantial value there,

50

“what I have gotten back has just been so much. I have definitely made friendships just

tweeting in that way”. Twitter, she continues “is social networking, it’s connecting with other

people […] I like it for engaging in discussions with people”.

Erin upholds that “Twitter’s 140 characters is such strength”; it allows you in a short

space of time to get a snapshot of information and what is happening. With such an

abundance of information though, Erin acknowledges that you just have to “dip in and out”.

Nonetheless, she feels that Twitter affords her increased access to information, saying, “I feel

that I see more academic papers, presentations, videos about the kind of work I'm interested

in because I'm on Twitter”. Then when asked how much she trusts the information, Erin

replies

just as much or as little as I trust information anywhere else. There's nothing different about it being on Twitter. I select the people that I follow, so that would give it another element of trust.

Yet, it is not just access to information that Erin finds so potent, but in terms of

engaging with knowledge it is also

the relationship with the authors, the writers, the academics and the students. That is certainly very powerful because that breaks down barriers. Then you co-create knowledge because you build on other people's ideas; have conversations with them online, and then off-line.

Erin attributes the discovery of such a wealth of resources, information and connections to

having developed a personal learning network (PLN) within Twitter. Consequently, a Twitter

enabled PLN in which it is possible to make connections, develop relationships and have

conversations with the intention of erudition is something that Erin finds “very powerful”,

certainly it was a major theme throughout the interview. Yet, she recognises that developing a

PLN takes time, as “you have to build your network and learn the interaction style”.

For Erin engaging in Twitter has not only benefitted her practice with the

development of her PLN, but she affirms that it has also given her “confidence to try new

51

things”. It has spurred her on to start blogging, thus adding an element of reflection to her

practice.

Accordingly, she feels that the use of Twitter is “absolutely” appropriate for the

purposes of higher education and uses it not only to develop her own PLN but also in her

teaching practice to support learning and to help students develop PLNs of their own. The

primary task of her practice she believes is to create “independent learners” who are able to

take responsibility for their own learning and subsequently participate in a community of

practice. Crucial to this is the development of a personal learning network, and most certainly

Twitter is one of the tools that can facilitate this “it’s all about creating independent learners;

I say that they have to start creating their own personal learning network”. Erin explains her

rationale:

this whole discrete nature of higher education: the lecturer gives all the resources for that module and that gets just wiped out and the student goes on to the next thing [module]. It's not really a good model for learning, so I really try and encourage the students to take responsibility for their own learning; to save the links and make relationships with people […] Their network on Twitter will grow and grow with them when they go.

Erin believes that the creation of a PLN is vital because together with the arrival of open

education resources [OERs], badges and massive open online courses [MOOCs] she declares,

“that’s the future of education”, reasoning

all of those boundaries are blurring between formal and informal, and accredited and non-accredited […] I don't think we can defend the boundaries anymore because they’re just eroding. The university is not going to exist as it is now in 10 or 20 years […] so I think we need to prepare students for learning that way now.

Students are therefore encouraged to create their own PLNs and to make connections.

Testament to the benefits of learning this way, Erin cites an occasion when the author of a

class reading joined in a student’s conversation; illustrating also how the boundaries between

the institution and the outside world are ‘blurring’. However, to enable this dynamic, Erin

draws attention to the role of the lecturer “it’s that mind-set” she says “seeing yourself as a

52

learner, presenting yourself to your students as a learner”, she continues “I'm a learner as well

– there aren't students who are learning and lectures who are done with learning – we are all

learners”, signalling another take within the ‘blurring of the boundaries’ theme.

Erin declares that a Twitter hashtag is effective for supporting learning, facilitating

timely updates and the sharing of resources. Although she acknowledges that students who

are following a wholly online programme already often have a plethora of communication

channels so adding Twitter as one more might just be too much. In this case, Twitter can only

be offered as an optional extra; observing instead that with in-class students “it’s more of an

asset because it adds something”, referring here to the advantages it affords beyond a few

hours of class contact time each week. She reports that some students “find it very useful”

(Appendix VIII).

Though, Erin recognises that not all students are inclined towards Twitter, divulging

there are a good number of them who are locked down. They don't want to go on Twitter, they don't want to go on Google+; they have gotten this whole message that it can be bad to reveal yourself so they’re walling themselves off online.

She further recognises that although dubbed ‘digital natives’, this may be so for students in

relation to their “enthusiasm” for technology and social networking but not necessarily so in

relation to their aptitudes and abilities. Erin notes, “they often know very little about just

using resources critically and thinking about their digital footprint and their online identity,

their privacy, all of those things” elaborating “all these notions of digital literacy are so

important. It's a whole other realm of understanding”.

All-in-all, Erin considers Twitter to be an “entirely appropriate” digital literacy

practice for the purposes of higher education as “it makes it possible to engage with and be

exposed to much more of everything: much more information, opinions, new research, and so

on”. She maintains, “those wonderful things that happen in academic discourse, they can

happen online in a very real way”. Consequently, she encourages colleagues to try it, yet

53

concedes, “people just don't know what Twitter is”. In order to address this she has sent a

paper around her department and now, together with a few like-minded colleagues, is going

to create some resources “to communicate in a better way about the possibilities”.

It must be remembered that Twitter represents part of a new and very different

culture, and Erin concedes that the university “is still a very traditional culture” and one that

is “slow to change”. Consequently, any embrace of Twitter she grants “is going to be a

process”. Over time though she believes these cultures will “merge and blend more”, but due

to the current economic climate Erin acknowledges “it's a difficult environment to try and

encourage people to try something new, to start changing a culture; some people are maybe

not so motivated, a bit defensive”.

Brendan - politics and social policy

For Brendan the arrival of Twitter is both a source of intrigue and a cause for some

concern. On the one hand, Twitter would seem to quicken the dissemination of information

opening up new and exciting possibilities for teaching and learning; whilst on the other it

appears to excite amongst its users “grand scale narcissism”, “seduce” conduct that is “self-

congratulatory” as well as behaviour that might generally be regarded as “odd”.

Initially, Brendan had misgivings regarding Twitter however, he was persuaded by an

associate to consider using it for professional purposes. Thus, having signed up he testifies:

yes of course there was evidence of narcissism right across the Twitter platform but what intrigued me was the spontaneousness and accelerated diffusion and dissemination of information; that I could be engaging with history making even though I was sitting in my office in Fintanford or on a beach in Ballyoisin or whatever. It intrigued me that I could start to contribute ideas, and then I began to realise about its teaching and learning pedagogical properties, you know I could actually have an instantaneous communication space with my students.

Brendan argues, “we have to move beyond the preserve that information is private

and that it is in some sense hoarded”. He says, “I think it’s about a much wider

54

dissemination”. However with its feature of ‘following’, the use of Twitter to accomplish this

Brendan suggests may have “another profoundly interesting outcome” namely on how we

engage with knowledge. He muses “it may just reinforce our own predilections, our own

interests, our own bias and our own prejudices,” explaining

I’m attracted to following certain people and reading certain tweets because it reinforces how I feel about myself. I’d be worried that you could engage in a much greater narrowing of one’s own information access because basically you’re corralling your information sources.

Consequently, Brendan contends that the use of Twitter “has all the possibility of becoming

something that negates our wider consumption of disparate knowledge”, adding that the use

of Twitter, with its combined rapidity and brevity of content, may contribute to us “becoming

desensitised to lengthy expose and lengthy treatises that links to the interrogation of

knowledge”.

Brendan sounds another note of caution, this time vis-à-vis social networking and

trustworthiness within Twitter, proclaiming, “you can't always be absolutely certain about the

authenticity and veracity of information about people”, continuing “it’s up to you to verify

the work that you’re reading”. The open public nature of Twitter he counsels means, “people

have to be very careful in what they say”, counselling further that the law of libel still applies

in cyber-space. In relation to his own position on the matter, Brendan discloses, “I feel

conflicted on this. I set my own access settings as private”.

Currently, Brendan’s use of Twitter is “conflated” between personal and educational

purposes. This constitutes a ‘blurring of the boundaries’ between his personal and

professional life. However, this will be resolved shortly with the addition of another account.

In an attempt to engage students and raise levels of reading, Brendan has recently

encouraged students to sign up to Twitter and follow him. To date, this has had mixed results

with some students declaring “delight” and avowing that “it has really enhanced their

learning”, whilst others Brendan reports prefer not to engage in this method at all. Upon this

55

he muses, “not enough staff are engaging with it so students don’t think it’s absolutely

necessary”.

Using Twitter in this way can ‘blur the boundaries’ between the institution and the

outside world, as evidenced when some of his students arranged to interview an outside

source through connections made on Twitter:

it actually was very beneficial because it streamlined the information they wanted and it brought them into contact with people directly in ways in which they never would have accessed […]. They just found it all emancipating.

Furthermore, Brendan sees that together with his students, Twitter has the potential to

develop into a “full learning network”, in that his own learning also becomes “enhanced” as

well:

I recognise that to become a true fully-fledged functioning network it has to become reciprocal and I have to start hearing what they've got to say, where their research is leading them what sort of links they can bring to my attention.

In contrast, Twitter as a pedagogical device within a direct classroom or lecture

theatre setting gives Brendan cause for concern. Whilst “not dismissing it”, he imagines that

it would be “quite disruptive to the learning experience”. It appears to encourage discussion,

especially for the quieter students, yet it is not apparent how it helps or supports students to

speak confidently in public, which is essential in the discipline of politics; as he says, “from

the discipline that I come from it’s about communication, it’s about face to face, it’s about

developing the skills of oracy”. Therefore, Brendan believes that Twitter in this scenario

“would degrade the deeper learning experience” and that he himself might just feel “a little

bit uncomfortable with it”. He acknowledges the pros and cons that tweeting presents, and

recognises the value of inserting a URL, but overall he thinks that it “reduces the richness of

communication and the nuances of that process”. Still, he accepts that social media is a

medium with which young people “seem to feel the most comfortable”, as is their attachment

56

to mobile phones or personal devices, the use of which in the classroom Brendan has become

indifferent to.

Overall, advocacy of Twitter for higher education and the reasons that lie behind it are

unclear to Brendan, and he fears that any embrace of the technology on the part of his

institution may be based more on economic grounds rather than on pedagogical ones; he asks

“who is championing it and why; what are their motives”. Within the professions and

disciplines there are some esteemed advocates of Twitter (Mollett et al., 2011), thus

providing some degree of validation. Brendan illustrates this when he says:

I respect Dunleavy quite a lot because he's a political scientist and I am and he's a lot older than me and if he’s been convinced of the merit and virtue of Twitter that’s reassuring.

However, Brendan’s Head of Department is not an advocate, considering it to

promote “obsessive” behaviour, so Brendan sees the question as one of leadership asking,

“who will lead it out?” Moreover, Brendan detects that within conventional higher education

providers “there is an antipathy towards social media”, which he believes in many ways is

probably based on the “deep seated rootedness that people have to conventional pedagogy -

chalk and talk”. He remarks, within his institution “there's probably an active anti-technology

and pedagogy culture that permeates the building” and “it’s almost heretical to suggest that

you use stuff like Twitter”. He continues to say that the wider societal (mis)understanding of

Twitter, as a “fad” or as a “type of fetish, where some people are externalising their own lack

of real time connectivity with human beings in the cyber world”, needs to be “challenged and

debunked” if Twitter is to “win the hearts and minds of academics” and be accepted into

practice.

Moreover, as Brendan points out, it also needs to be established if traditional

pedagogy is no longer ‘fit for purpose’ before embracing too hastily the innovation of

Twitter, deliberating

57

I can see with Twitter it’s initiating a new culture, a new way of learning, and I'm not resisting it but I think it needs to be tempered with a little bit of iron in it. What about the conventional ways, are we absolutely certain they have failed and they’re no longer as productive as the substitute Twitter. I'm not sure that we have actually come to that conclusion yet.

Brendan intends to try-out Twitter more extensively in his practice and is encouraging

his colleagues to do likewise. “I downloaded the LSE report. I read that and I'm now going to

e-mail that to all my colleagues, so in a bizarre way I'm becoming a little bit of a change

agent myself or an advocate, even if I’m a conflicted one”. Understandably, Brendan is at

odds on the matter because the full range and merits of Twitter’s pedagogical properties are

not established. He finishes

I'm conflicted about its full merits. If you really want to expand its application rather than just being a repository or a referral system for learning then you would have to have a much bigger discussion, a bigger debate about the inherent merits and the demerits of it.

Chapter 5: Discussion of findings

In this chapter, the varied findings established with the participants are discussed in

terms of contextual disposition and bearing upon the research question(s). Firstly, in relation

to the individual with their distinctive facets of disposition and concomitant orientation

towards the disruptive affects, or anticipated affects, that adoption of Twitter presents to

practice, continuing in terms of the cultural and institutional context that validates or

invalidates any adoption of Twitter and regulates any possibility for action on the part of the

individual. Findings, where appropriate are compared, contrasted and made relevant to the

literature.

Within this chapter, it is prudent to keep in mind that findings are only pertinent to the

dispositions displayed by a small number of lecturers and discussion therefore precedes upon

the premise that these findings are not necessarily generalisable.

58

The lecturer – proclivities, philosophies and practice

What is the disposition towards Twitter in general?

Firstly, considering the variation of dispositional facets amongst participants, it seems

only right to acknowledge at the outset that cultural conditioning and personal proclivities

and/or educational philosophies place constraints on what is either “thinkable” or

“unthinkable” for lecturers with a particular focus of praxis, a particular philosophy or indeed

located in a particular institution. It is for these reasons that differences in the general

disposition of participants towards Twitter are particularly striking, most notably between

one, largely an online habitué with an affinity for social networking and another who

psychologically cannot understand the desire for human beings to communicate in such a

way; this is in addition to a seeming divergence between participants from traditional

disciplines and those with a professional orientation.

Twitter suffers a frivolous image, a point upon which all participants agreed, though

those that have adopted it countenance that it takes time to understand Twitter’s capabilities

and to realise its potential. Nonetheless, individual lecturers must in the first instance want to

use Twitter to achieve some purpose and furthermore be comfortable within themselves that

such usage sits comfortably with their beliefs and values.

Within the enquiry, adoption of Twitter for the purposes of higher education and

lecturers’ disposition towards it intimates Becker’s (2000) observation that “the way in which

a teacher uses a computer gives an indication of their underlying philosophy” (p. 9);

philosophy being a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs. A number of

philosophies were expressed regarding some of the objectives of practice, namely the

creation of independent learners, the development of individual voice and the development of

a sense of a personal engagement in a community. Appreciably, it is this concept of the

individual that appears to reveal something of disposition towards Twitter; participants ill-

59

disposed to Twitter were concerned that the technology was “over individualised and not

communal enough” being symptomatic of the "increased individualisation of learning”.

How would the adoption of Twitter affect the role of the lecturer and the teaching and

learning?

Within the enquiry, Twitter is posited as a disruptive technology; it being expected

that the determination of disruptive affects, or anticipated affects, upon the role of the

lecturer, the teaching and learning and engagement with knowledge would expedite

correlation of participants’ disposition towards its adoption. Evidence emerges to indicate

that with the adoption of Twitter knowledge-making practices and a number of germane

boundaries within higher education are subject to change. Consequently, the theme of

‘blurring the boundaries’ greatly underscores much of what is discussed here.

The enquiry establishes that the traditional boundary between lecturer and learner is

altered somewhat with the adoption of Twitter, because in order to take account of new

technology, ascertain pedagogic affordances, develop effective practice and introduce

learners to any benefits, the lecturer must also become a learner. This is consistent with

Conole and Alevizou’s (2010) assessment, noting that Web 2.0 tools do not permit the

lecturer the same level of control as would traditionally be expected. Therefore, in order to

work in new spaces such as personal learning networks and induct and support their learners,

lecturers must adjust their thinking accordingly; a participant within this enquiry that has

adopted Twitter endorses this sentiment. A further participant surmises that the direct use of

Twitter in the classroom may have the effect of equalising the power dynamic with the

lecturer steering “messy” discussions and allowing a more “collective” learning agenda to

evolve.

This contrasts with the more traditional view also offered in this enquiry, which sees

the relationship as based upon the authority of the lecturer’s knowledge, permitting the

60

lecturer to claim “professorial status”, or exert “teacher presence” making it incumbent upon

the student to recognise and respect the boundaries that this entails. However, substantiating

Masie’s (2008) claim that technology is facilitating a shift away from single-source

knowledge such as that embodied in a learned “teacher” some participants were able to cite

instances where, via Twitter and other social networking applications, authoritative external

sources became available to their students, thus facilitating participation in a wider

community of practice (Dunlap and Lowenthal, 2009) and effectively blurring the boundary

between the institution and the outside world (Traxler, 2010).

Within the enquiry, adopters of Twitter were convincing in their endorsement of

Twitter as the “perfect” tool for establishing a PLN though it was also noted by one

participant that the concept of a PLN is not exactly new as networking has always been part

of the academic’s function. Indeed, Digenti’s (1999) definition refers to the phenomenon of

networking pre Twitter. However, as evidenced in this enquiry, lecturers are now beginning

to assist students to develop PLNs of their own and induct them into communities of practice

with such moves implicating Web 2.0 affordances and connectivist or Learning 2.0

pedagogies (Siemens, 2005; Downes, 2005). Siemens (2010) makes distinct that in this

application the lecturer shapes networks and assumes the role of influencer. Based on

reciprocity between lecturer and students one participant anticipates the realisation of a “full

learning network” within their practice; this is redolent of the paradigmatic shift believed to

be underway, switching emphasis from teaching to learning to create a more autonomous

learner (Lim et al., 2010; Kop and Hill, 2008) which, incidentally blurs the boundaries

between both teaching and learning and teacher and learner.

Throughout this enquiry, all participants heralded discussion, or conversation, as

consummate within the learning process. Technologies such as Twitter are thought to

accentuate the role of dialogue (Laurillard, 2005; Sarker et al., 2005) however; variance

61

arises as to the faithfulness of computer-mediated conversation and accordingly seems to

influence disposition. The high value placed on face to face communication was asserted by

the none and “conflicted” adopters within the enquiry and the importance given to speaking

confidently in public stressed; after all it is of paramount importance in some disciplines and

Dunlap and Lowenthal (2009) caution “Twitter is not for everyone, different disciplines

might have very different experiences when using it [Twitter] for instructional purposes”

(para. 38). In a direct classroom setting the aim of Twitter is to make learning more

interactive and increase student participation in discussion. However, amongst the

participants claims as to Twitter’s ability to promote in-class discussion was a moot point and

one upon which they were somewhat perturbed, questioning matters of quality and the

requirement of technology to intervene in the first instance.

In contrast, all participants accept that Twitter is a plausible option for supporting

learning beyond class contact time, allowing students to gain clarification on content or

assignments and faculty to alert students to new resources or administrative matters.

Evidence was also provided to the enquiry of student endorsement (Appendix VIII), but it

was also revealed that adoption or approval of Twitter amongst students is not universal.

How would the adoption of Twitter affect engagement with knowledge?

Within the enquiry, the extent of Twitter’s 140 character limitation was deliberated in

terms of its ability to rapidly disseminate ideas and information, its capacity to facilitate deep

learning and its ability to facilitate participation in online communities. For that reason, it is

important to differentiate here between knowledge and information: information is content,

however when information affects the answering of a question, the solving of a problem, or

the accomplishment of a goal then it becomes knowledge (Warlick, 2006). Using the term

“knowledge-in-use”, Littlejohn et al. (2012, p. 5) observe a blurring of the boundaries

between information and communication; such ambiguity may account for the concern felt by

62

one participant as to Twitter’s full potential; is it a “repository” for information or as some

avow a communication channel that can be harnessed for knowledge creation.

Even so, Twitter was espoused by some as a tremendous source of current

information, but seeing as its content is defined by people’s attention this inherently limits

what is available and as such gives some participants cause for concern, having implications

for access and engagement with less popular topics or possibly more stable knowledge, like

historical or cultural knowledge for instance. Knowing where to find information when it is

needed is of elevated importance in network applications, consequently the traditional

boundaries of disciplinary knowledge seem less amenable to Web 2.0practices (Conole and

Alevizou, 2010), conceivably accounting for the disapproving or conflicted dispositions of

some within this enquiry.

What is more, concerns were also mooted about the propensity of Twitter to narrow

access to information sources and negate engagement with disparate or problematic

knowledge, prompting concerns amongst some as to Twitter’s ability to fulfil the deeper,

more critical aims of higher education. This concurs with the work of Beetham et al. (2009)

who identify that so far there has been a lack of success in developing students’ capacities to

learn deeply in such technology-rich environments. This is in addition to concerns expressed

by all participants relating to the overabundance of information today and deliberations as to

how education is to deal with this.

With around 340 million tweets per day (Twitter, 2012) Twitter broadcasts and

distributes information with remarkable rapidity and voluminosity. Twitter users remark that

it is necessary to dip in and out of the Twitter stream in order to assuage the effects of

information overload. However, one Twitter abstinent asks if it is possible to get the

necessary time and distance that the intellect and the body requires for critical engagement

63

with information, proffering that it is not and as a consequence all information becomes

treated equally.

Participants inclined towards Twitter spoke of the importance, or of their desire, to

induct learners into an appropriate community of practice. Such a move emphasises a more

participatory epistemology of practice as opposed to an epistemology of possession (Cook

and Brown, 1999). Notably, participants largely antagonistic or conflicted towards Twitter

hailed from disciplinary practices rather than practices more aligned to the professions.

Are lecturers disposed to adopt Twitter for some aspects of their practice more than

others?

Hitherto, discussion of findings indicates that Twitter is recognised as a feasible

technology to support learning and, allowing for personal proclivities is largely accepted as

such. However, this is in contrast to its ability to facilitate a PLN and/or in-class discussion,

which is keenly contested amongst the participants with explanation for such dispute

seemingly lying deep within personal values and beliefs, educational philosophies and

orientation towards knowledge-making practices.

The context - appropriateness, negotiation and validation

It is judicious at this point to recapitulate Bourdieu’s explanation of contextual

disposition with its allusion of habitus, appearing in one sense as each individual's

characteristic set of dispositions for action and likewise as the individual’s meeting point with

society and its institutions. It is the habitus that helps individuals determine which choices to

make and assess what possibilities there are for action. These cultural and institutional

aspects that signal appropriateness and the likelihood of approval are now discussed.

How appropriate is Twitter in the context of higher education?

In this enquiry student engagement, raising standards and equipping students with

21st century digital literacies were all cited by participants as reasons to embrace, or at least

64

consider, Twitter as a suitable practice; countered by concerns over quality, safety, criticality

and outside forces driving technology adoption. At this point, it is worthwhile to note that,

notwithstanding one notable exception, within the classroom the use of Twitter synergised

with mobile technology does not appear to faze participants. It would seem that they accept

mobile devices are now part of everyday life.

However, whilst learners generally display familiarity with mobile technology and

can demonstrate competence in digital skills, it was remarked that “they know very little

about using resources critically”, reflecting discernment similar to that of Sharpe (cited in

Littlejohn et al. 2011, p. 6) who notes that “learners can be extremely confident about their

Internet use while lacking evaluative and critical capabilities and research skills of any

sophistication”. Calls to address the element of critical thinking skills in relation to digital

technologies was widely held to be of growing importance amongst the participants;

Fieldhouse and Nicholas (2008) aver that digital literacy requires students to have critical

thinking skills for “determining how credible information is and to contextualise, analyse,

and synthesise what is found online” (p. 57).

However as voiced by one participant in this enquiry, the very technology that is

deployed affects the ways in which we are able to inquire into things, communicate with each

other and subsequently the type of knowledge we can acquire. Pertinent to both students and

lecturers, this resonates with the call by Goodfellow and Lea (2007) and others (Selfe, 1999;

Khan and Kellner, 2005) that critical technology literacy is required in order to become aware

of one’s digital environment and the influence of technology in society. Concerning Twitter,

such an approach would help answer the question raised in this enquiry “who is championing

it and why; what are their motives”.

Be that as it may, it appears from accounts offered here that, contrary to participants’

initial suppositions, the depiction of students as ‘digital natives’ Prensky (2001) obscures

65

many nuances and contradictions in their experience of and their stance towards technology

(Margaryan and Littlejohn 2008; Luckin et al, 2009): student adoption of Twitter was

discovered not to be as widespread as anticipated nor endorsement of social media as

extensive amongst students either. Observation is made within this study that students are “all

at sea” on Twitter, which correlates with the findings of Cranmer (2006) and Facer and

Selwyn (2010) highlighting the difficulties of translating practices from social contexts into

formal learning.

Consequently, it appears that digital literacy practices engendered by these new

technologies are influenced by context, having to be socially negotiated and validated, and

not just between lecturers and students but amongst lecturers as well. One participant

identifies the cultural aspect pertaining to the validation of Twitter pronouncing that “not

enough staff are engaging with it so students don't think it's absolutely critical”, which is

consistent with Lea and Jones’ (2011) finding that validation from lecturers is a key factor in

students’ access and use of these technologies. This cuts both ways as the aforementioned

participant similarly sought validation from his peers whilst another lamented the dearth of

“shining examples”.

Possibilities for action

That being said, individuals with their distinctive facets of disposition and corollary

inclination for action still have to take account of cultural concerns and the specific culture of

their institutional setting. Cultural beliefs regarding knowledge and what constitutes

legitimate practices in its construction are, as Lord Puttnam (2011) has noted, incredibly

deep-rooted. Within the enquiry, the traditional nature of higher education is recognised

along with its measured approach to change. One participant stated that possibly the main

obstacle to the adoption of Twitter practices is the institution’s affinity with conventional

“chalk and talk” pedagogy, which accords with the assertion by Bradwell (2009) that

66

constructivist teaching is still not the norm. There is no evidence to suggest that adoption of

Twitter, or other social Web 2.0 affordances, are being promoted currently as part of any

institutional policy or initiative. However, concurring with Weller and Dalziel’s (2007)

contention that Web 2.0 approaches such as Twitter are characteristically built around

bottom-up principles, it was noticeable from participants within this enquiry that any moves

towards incorporation of Twitter or other social media initiatives were precisely that, being

trialled or championed by individual lecturers themselves.

Overall findings

What is the disposition of lecturers towards the adoption of Twitter practices?

In answer to the enquiry’s central question it appears that within the complex context

of higher education, lecturers’ disposition towards the adoption of Twitter, analogous to

Bourdieu’s “habitus”, is comprised of two strands. On the one hand, it consists of their

personal proclivities and educational philosophies as well as, relative to their practice,

orientation towards the effects of Twitter. Then on the other hand, given that the attitudes of

fellow lecturers and students are taken into account when determining validity, lecturers’

disposition reflects wider societal influences as they evaluate the possibilities that exist for

action within their specific institution. Thus, it would seem from the accounts within this

enquiry that lecturers are disposed to adopt Twitter where a high degree of congruence

amongst these factors occurs and similarly to spurn such adoption where they do not.

Chapter 6: Issues and implications of findings

Considering the aim of this enquiry is to present a descriptive interpretation of

lecturers’ disposition towards the adoption of Twitter practices and that only a small sample

of lecturers were examined, it is acknowledged that to offer conclusions per se may not be

reflective of the wider picture. Therefore, this short chapter will highlight some key findings

67

of the enquiry to raise a number of issues and implications that have emerged, the central

themes of which are disruption to practice and the advent of a new value proposition that

Twitter represents, lecturers’ disposition as action or positioning upon the matter and, how

Twitter practices are entering higher education. Suggestions are also made where it is thought

that further research needs to be carried out.

Disruption to practice – a new value proposition

It has been established that Twitter is a disruptive technology; disruptive not in itself

but rather because of the way in which it may be innovatively deployed. Maddux and

Johnson (2005) explain this by differentiating Type I technologies, such as the institutional

virtual learning environments [VLEs], which replicates existing practice and essentially

supports passive instructional models, as opposed to Type II technologies such as Twitter that

allows students and lecturers to do things they could not have done previously, such as

develop a personal learning network [PLN]: one technology maintains existing relationships

whereas the other changes the relationship between faculty, students and knowledge in

fundamental ways. Disruption is a function typically not of the technology itself but rather of

its application and ensuing impact upon commodities or services; it should therefore more

accurately be regarded as disruptive innovation (Christensen and Raynor, 2003). Disruptive

innovations help to “change the value proposition” (Christensen et al., 2004, p. 2) in relation

to particular commodities. In terms of knowledge as a commodity, it is the teaching

pedagogies that Twitter enables and the effect upon knowledge production and dissemination

that gives Twitter its disruptive effect. Importantly, since values are integral to the criteria

that individuals use to make decisions this means that the particular values embedded in the

personal proclivities and educational philosophies of lecturers may dispose them perfectly

well for the traditional value proposition found within higher education but utterly incapable

68

of operating within the new value proposition, or culture of learning, that Twitter and similar

technologies enable.

What is more, this new value proposition relative to learners entreats them to develop

PLNs of their own and to construct knowledge themselves; however, in this scenario learners

must be both willing and able to embrace such empowerment (Lim et al., 2010). Therefore,

considering that this enquiry has indirectly found Twitter usage and endorsement amongst

learners to be at variance, and allowing that cultural beliefs pertaining to learning and what it

means to be a student must similarly run deep, it seems that research into learners’

viewpoint(s) regarding such a proposition is correspondingly required.

Disposition as action or positioning

The notion of disposition inherently suggests action or positioning, to be for or against

something, and can thus signal division or polarity upon a subject. In relation to the adoption

of Twitter it would seem that personal proclivities, educational philosophies and the type of

knowledge production required for practice is of utmost importance amongst lecturers in

determining their disposition towards it. And Twitter, like other Web 2.0 technologies, being

inherently participatory and amenable to process-oriented knowledge and an epistemology of

practice speaks largely to learner centred philosophies, constructivist pedagogies and an

epistemology of practice thus leaving lecturers with more traditional educational philosophies

and/or from disciplines concerned with a body of knowledge and an epistemology of

possession possibly ill-disposed or conflicted as to its adoption.

Here it must be noted that within academic contexts the discourse pertaining to

literacy, of which Twitter is a new digital literacy, has historically been framed in the

language of deficit (Lea and Street, 2006) and so the discourse relating to the adoption of

Twitter is unlikely to be any different. Therefore, suggestive of much further research, the

question going forward is how will this division of disposition, indicative of competing and

69

colliding approaches to practice and with implications for knowledge production and the role

and function of the lecturer be dealt with within higher education as it negotiates the coming

together of digital and academic practices with their differing cultures. As remarked earlier,

“institutions aren’t anything other than diverse” so this will be crucial if higher education is

to “embrace its own interdisciplinarity” (Beetham et al., 2009, p. 74) and recognise the

strengths relative to each particular discipline, each with its distinct purpose, and ultimately

distinct disposition towards the adoption of Twitter practices as a means of achieving that

purpose.

How Twitter is entering higher education

As has been identified within this enquiry, and signalling a ‘bottom-up” approach,

Twitter practices are already beginning to be adopted by some lecturers within higher

education with others being similarly disposed. Yet, a New Literacy Studies perspective,

which is implicitly critical prompts consideration of the reasons for this and to question why

there is a lack of “top-down” policy or guidance within higher education on the matter of

Twitter and other social media as well as apparently scant interest in opening up wider debate

on the subject. So considering the not insubstantial blurring of the boundaries relating to

important aspects of knowledge production and dissemination, it would seem that a question

worthy of further investigation is, why are lecturers in this instance privy to such jurisdiction

and control and in whose interests is it that this should be so.

70

References

Acker, S. (2004) “CMS and ePortfolio: at the crossroads”. Campus Technology, September 2004. Available at: www.campustechnology.com/news_article.asp?id¼10041&typeid¼155 (accessed 30th March 2011) (Internet).

Albright, J., Purohit, K. D. and Walsh, C. H. (2005) Chinatown: Globalization, hybridity and literacy education. Paper presented at the Redesigning Pedagogy: Research, Policy and Practice Conference, 30th May-1st June 2005. Singapore: National Institute of Education.

Alreck, P. and Settle, R. (1985) The survey research handbook. New York: Irwin.

Anderson, T. (2008) Disruptive, Online Education to go Main Stream. Virtual Canuck Teaching and Learning in a Net-Centric World blog, (blog) 26th June 2008. Available at: http://terrya.edublogs.org/2008/06/26/disruptive-online-education-to-go-main-stream/. (accessed 4th December 2011) (Internet).

Aspden, E. J. and Thorpe, L.P. (2009) “Where Do You Learn?”: Tweeting to Inform Learning Space Development. Educause Quarterly, 32(1). Available at: http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolum/WhereDoYouLearnTweetingtoInfor/163852 (accessed 5th November 2011) (Internet).

Barton, D. (1994) Literacy: An introduction to the ecology of written language. Oxford: Blackwell.

Barton, D. and Hamilton, M. (1998) Local Literacies: Reading and Writing in One Community. London: Routledge.

Babbie E. (1995) The Practice of Social Research. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Baggley, J. (2010) The Luddite Revolt Continues. Distance Education. 31(3), pp. 337 – 434.

Becker, H. J. (1970) Sociological Work: Method and Substance. Chicago: Aldane.

Becker, H. J. and Anderson, R. E. (1998) Teaching Learning, and Computing: 1998 A National Survey of Schools and Teachers Describing Their Best Practices, Teaching Philosophies, and Uses of Technology. Available at: http://www.crito.uci.edu/tlc/questionnaires/teachers_qs.pdf (accessed 1st November 2011)

Becker, H. J. (2000) Findings from the Teaching, Learning and Computing Survey: Is Larry Cuban Right? Computing. 2001(October 2), pp. 1–33.

Beetham, H., Littlejohn, A. and McGill, L. (2009) Thriving in the Twenty-First Century: Report of the Learning Literacies in a Digital Age project. JISC. Available at: http://www.academy.gcal.ac.uk/llida/LLiDAReportJune2009.pdf. (accessed 5th October 2011) (Internet).

71

Beetham, H., Littlejohn, A. and McGill, L. (2010) Beyond competence: digital literacies as knowledge practices, and implications for learner development. LiDU (Literacy in the Digital University): Seminar Programmes, Seminar 2. Available at: http://www.open.ac.uk/researchprojects/lidu/p3_2.shtml (accessed 5th October 2011) (Internet).

Bergquist, W. H. and Pawlak, K. (2008) Engaging the six cultures of the academy: revised and expanded edition of the four cultures of the academy. San Francisco, CA: John Wiley and Sons.

Berlanga, A. J., Peñalvo, F. G. & Sloep, P. B. (2010) Towards eLearning 2.0 University. Interactive Learning Environments, 18(3), pp. 199-201.

Borg, W. R. and Gall, M. D. (1989) Educational research : an introduction (5th Edition). New York: Longman.

Bourdieu, P. (1977) Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1990) The Logic of Practice. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Bower, J. L. and Christensen, C. M. (1995) Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave. Harvard Business Review. January–February, pp. 43-53.

Boyd, D. M. and Ellison, N.B. (2007) Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), pp. 210-230. Available at: http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol13/issue1/boyd.ellison.html (accessed 5th October 2011) (Internet).

Bradwell, P. (2009) The Edgeless University - Why Higher Education Must Embrace Technology. London: Demos.

Brown, J. S. (2005) New Learning Environments for the 21st Century - Exploring the Edge. Educause podcast. (podcast) 16th August 2005. Available at: http://www.educause.edu/blog/mpasiewicz/PodcastNewRecordingofJohnSeely/164861. (Accessed 4th November 2011) (Internet).

Brown, S. J. and Adler, R.P. (2008) Minds on Fire: Open Education, the Long Tail, and Learning 2.0. Educause Review. 43(1), pp. 16-32. Available at: http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Review/EDUCAUSEReviewMagazineVolume43/MindsonFireOpenEducationtheLon/162420 (accessed 12th October 2011) (Internet).

Christensen, C. M. and Raynor, M.E. (2003). The Innovator’s Solution: Creating and Sustaining Successful Growth. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Christensen, C. M., Anthony, S.D. and Roth, E. A. (2004) Seeing what’s next: using the theories of innovation to predict industry change. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.

Clarke, A. and Dawson, R. (1999) Evaluation research: an introduction to principles, methods, and practice. London: Sage.

72

Clark, Donald (2010) Transcript of keynote speech, "Don't Lecture Me". In: ALT-C 2010 'Into something rich and strange' - making sense of the sea-change, 7th to 9th September 2009, Nottingham. Available at: http://repository.alt.ac.uk/841/ (accessed 31st September 2011) (Internet).

Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2007) Research Methods in Education. (6th Edition). London: Routledge.

Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, K. (2011) Research Methods in Education (7th

Edition). London: Routledge.

Comm, J. (2009) Twitter power: How to dominate your market one tweet at a time. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.

Conole, G., de Laat, M., Dillon, T. and Darby, J. (2006) Student experiences of technologies: final report. JISC. Available at: http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/programmes/elearningpedagogy/lxpprojectfinalreportdec06.pdf (accessed 31st October 2011) (Internet).

Conole, G. and Alevizou, P. (2010) A literature review of the use of Web 2.0 tools in Higher Education. Available at: http://cloudworks.ac.uk/cloud/view/2294 (accessed 28th

March 2012) (Internet).

Conole, G. (2012) To tweet or not to tweet. e4innovation blog (blog) 10th January 2012. Available at: http://e4innovation.com/?p=513 (accessed 12th January 2012) (Internet).

Cook, S. D. N. and Brown, J. S. (1999) Bridging Epistemologies: The Generative Dance between Organizational Knowledge and Organizational Knowing. Organizational Science, 10, pp. 381-400.

Costa, C., Beham, G., Reinhardt, W. and Sillaots, M. (2008) Microblogging In Technology Enhanced Learning: A Use-Case Inspection of PPE Summer School. Paper presented at the European Conference of Technology Enhanced Learning (ECTEL), 16th -19th September 2008. The Netherlands: Maastricht. Available at: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.142.9613. (accessed 3rd November 2011) (Internet).

Cranmer, S. (2006) Children and young people’s uses of the Internet for homework. Learning, Media and Technology. 31(3), pp. 301–315.

Creswell, J. W. (1994) Research design: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. London: Sage.

Creswell, J. W. (1998) Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five designs. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Cuban, L., 1986. Teachers and Machines: The Classroom Use of Technology Since 1920. New York: Teachers College Press.

Cuban, L (2000) So Much High Tech Money Invested, So Little Use and Changes in Practice: How Come? Paper for the Council of Chief State School Officers’s State Educational Technology Leadership Conference 2000, cited in Becker, H. J. (2000)

73

Findings from the Teaching, Learning and Computing Survey: Is Larry Cuban Right? Computing. 2001(October 2), pp. 1–33.

Davis, F. (1989) Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly, 13(3), pp. 319-340.

Delanty, G. (2001a) Challenging knowledge: the university in the knowledge society. Buckingham: Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Delanty, G. (2001b) The University in the Knowledge Society. Organization. 8(2), pp. 149 –153.

Denzin, N. K. (1978) The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Denzin, N. K. and Lincoln, Y. S. (Eds.) (1994) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Department of Education and Skills (2011) National Strategy for Higher Education 2030. Dublin: The Government Publications Sales Office. Available at: http://www.hea.ie/files/files/DES_Higher_Ed_Main_Report.pdf (accessed 10th October 2011) (Internet).

Dervin, B. (1983) An Overview Of Sense-Making Research: Concepts, Methods, And Results To Date. Paper presented at: International Communication Association Annual Meeting. Held May 1983, Dallas, Texas. Available at: https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/2281/Dervin83a.htm. (accessed 27th

February 2012) (Internet).

Diener, E. and Crendall, R. (1978) Ethics in Social and Behavioural Research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Digenti, D. (1999) Collaborative learning: A core capability for organizations in the new economy. Reflections. 1(2), pp. 45–57.

Downes, S. (2004) Educational Blogging. Educause Review, 9(5), pp. 14-26. Available at: http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ERM0450.pdf (accessed 23rd October 2011) (Internet).

Downes, S. (2005) E-Learning 2.0. eLearn Magazine. 2005 (10), pp. 1. Available at: http://elearnmag.acm.org/featured.cfm?aid=1104968 (accessed 12th October 2011) (Internet).

Dunlap, J.C. and Lowenthal, P. R. (2009). Horton Hears a Tweet. Educause Quarterly, 32 (4).

Ebner, M. and Schiefner, M. (2008) Microblogging - more than fun ? Learning, 155, pp. 155-159.

Ebner, M., Lienhardt, C., Rohs, M. and Meyer, I. (2010) Microblogs in Higher Education - A chance to facilitate informal and process-oriented learning? Computers & Education, 55(1), pp. 92-100.

74

Facer K. and Selwyn N. (2010) Social Networking. IN Sharpe, R., Beetham, H. and de Freitas (Editors.) Rethinking Learning for A Digital Age. London: Routledge, pp. 39-40.

Fieldhouse, M. and Nicholas, N. (2008) Digital Literacy as Information Savvy: The Road to Information Literacy. IN: Lankshear, C. and Knobel, M. (Editors.) Digital Literacies Concepts, Policies and Practices. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, pp. 43-72.

Finlay, L. (2009) Debating phenomenological research methods. Phenomenology and practice. 3(1) pp. 6 - 25.

Fraenkel, F. and Wallen, N. (2000) How to Design and Evaluate Research in Education. New York: McGraw Hill.

Gannes, L. (2011) Twitter Numbers: Cool, But How Many Users Does It Actually Have? All Things D blog (blog) 14th March 2011. Available at: http://allthingsd.com/20110314/twitter-numbers-cool-but-how-many-users-do-you-have/ (accessed 2nd December 2011) (Internet).

Garfinkel, H. (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Garrison, D. R. and Anderson, T. (2003) E-learning in the 21st century: a framework for research and practice. London: Routledge.

Gee, J. P. (1996) Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourse. London: Falmer.

Geertz, C. (1973) The Interpretation Of Cultures. London: Hutchinson.

Gibbons, P. M., Limoges, C., Nowotny, H., Schwartzman, S., Scott, P. and Trow, M. (1994) The New Production of Knowledge: The Dynamics of Science and Research in Contemporary Societies. London: Sage Publications Ltd.

Gilpin, D. R. (2010) Working the Twittersphere: Microblogging as Professional Identity Construction. In A Networked Self: Identity, Community, and Culture on Social Network Sites. Papacharissi, Z. (ed.). New York: Routledge, pp. 232-250.

Giorgi, A., Fischer, W. F. and von Eckartsberg, R. (1971). Duquesne studiesin phenomenological psychology (Vol. 1). Pittsburgh, PA: Duquesne University Press, cited in Hycner, R. H. (1985) Some Guidelines For The Phenomenological Analysis Of Interview Data. Human Studies. 8(3). pp. 279–303.

Goodfellow, R. and Lea, M. R., (2007) Challenging e-learning in the university : a literacies perspective. Maidenhead: McGraw Hill Society for Research into Higher Education and Open University Press.

Goodfellow, R. (2009) The great LiDU Twitter debate! Literacy in the Digital University blog (blog) 23rd October 2009. Available at: http://literacyinthedigitaluniversity.blogspot.com/2009/10/great-lidu-twitter-debate_23.html (accessed 28th September 2011) (Internet).

75

Goodfellow, R. and Jones, C. (2011) The Academy and the Digital: Knowledge, practices, devices. Paper presented at workshop on New Media, New Literacies, and New Forms of Learning, Institute of Education, 15th December 2011. England: London, London Knowledge Lab. Available at: http://blogs.ubc.ca/newliteracies/ (accessed 13th

February 2012) (Internet).

Goodfellow, R. (2011) Digital literacy events: Revisiting the twitter debate (rather long post). Literacy in the Digital University blog (blog) 2nd December 2011. Available at: http://literacyinthedigitaluniversity.blogspot.com/2011/12/digital-literacy-events-revisiting.html (accessed 14th December 2012) (Internet).

Gritton, J. (2012) Of serendipity, free association and aimless browsing: do they lead to serendipitous learning? University of Edinburgh. Unpublished MSc. Available at: http://online.education.ed.ac.uk/2012/02/jim-gritton-of-serendipity-free-association-and-aimless-browsing-do-they-lead-to-serendipitous-learning/ (accessed 27th February 2012) (Internet).

Grosseck, G. and Holotescu, C. (2008) Can We Use Twitter For Educational Purposes? Paper presented at the eLearning and Software for Education, 4th International Scientific Conference (eLSE), 17th - 18th April 2008. Hungary: Budapest.

Hammersley, M. (1987) Some notes on the terms 'validity' and 'reliability. British Educational Research Journal. 13(1), pp. 73-81, cited in Winter, G. (2000) A Comparative Discussion of the Notion of “Validity” in Qualitative and Quantitative Research. The Qualitative Report. 4(3/4).

Harasim, L., Hiltz, S. R., Teles, L. and Turoff, M. (1995) Learning networks: A field guide to teaching and learning online. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

Holotescu, C. (2009) Using Microblogging For Collaborative Learning In New Technology Platforms for Learning – Revisited. In New Technology Platforms for Learning – Revisited. Budapest: EDEN - European Distance and E-learning Network, pp. 71-80.

Husserl, E. (1962) Ideas: general introduction to pure phenomenology. New York: Collier Macmillan.

Hycner, R. H. (1985) Some Guidelines For The Phenomenological Analysis Of Interview Data. Human Studies. 8(3). pp. 279–303.

Isaac, S. and Michael, W. B. (1981) Handbook in research and evaluation: a collection of principles, methods, and strategies useful in the planning, design, and evaluation of studies in education and the behavioural sciences. San Diego, CA: EDITS Publishers.

Java, A., Song, X., Finin, T. and Tseng, B. (2007) Why we twitter: understanding microblogging usage and communities. Published in: Proceedings of the 9th WebKDD and 1st SNA-KDD 2007 workshop on Web mining and social network analysis. New York: ACM. Available at: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1348549.1348556 (accessed 3rd November 2011) (Internet).

76

JISC (2009) Web2practice. Microblogging: Expand your network and make sense of the noise! Available at: http://web2practice.jiscinvolve.org/wp/microblogging/. (accessed 21st

October 2011) (Internet).

Johannisson, B. (1987) Beyond Process and Structure: Social Exchange Networks. International Studies of Management and Organization. 17(1), pp. 3-23.

Kahn, R. and Kelner, D. (2005) Reconstructing Technoliteracy: A multiple literacies Approach. E-learning. 2, pp. 238-251.

Katz, L. G. (1988) What should young children be doing (learning)? American Educator. pp. 28-33.

Katz, L. G. (1993) Dispositions as Educational Goals. ERIC Digest. Available at: http://www.ericdigests.org/1994/goals.htm (accessed 8th September 2011) (Internet).

Keen, E. (1975) A Primer in Phenomenological Psychology. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston, Inc.

King, A. (1993) From Sage on the Stage to Guide on the Side. College Teaching. 41(1), pp. 30–35.

Kvale, S. (2007) Doing Interviews. London: Sage.

Kester, L., Sloep, P., Brouns, F., Van Rosmalen, P., De Vries, F. and De Croock, M. (2006) Enhancing social interaction and spreading tutor responsibilities in bottom-up organized learning networks. Paper presented at the IADIS International Conference Web Based Communities, 26th - 28th February 2006. Spain: San Sebastian.

Kop, R. and Hill, A. (2008) Connectivism: Learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9(3), pp. Article 9.3.4. Available at: http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/viewArticle/523/1103 (Accessed 9th

November 2011) (Internet).

Kuh, G. D. (1995) The Other Curriculum: Out-of-Class Experiences Associated with Student Learning and Personal Development. The Journal of Higher Education, 66(2), pp. 123-155.

Kuhn, T. S. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago, IL: The University Of Chicago Press.

Laurillard, D. (2005) E-Learning in higher education. In Ashton, P. (Ed.) Changing higher education: the development of learning and teaching. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 71-84.

Lea, Mary R. and Street, B.V. (2006) The “Academic Literacies” Model: Theory and Applications. Theory Into Practice. 45(4), pp. 368–377.

Lea, M. R. (2011) Digital literacies: competing discourses and practices in higher education. Paper presented at workshop on New Media, New Literacies, and New Forms of Learning, Institute of Education, 15th December 2011. England: London, London

77

Knowledge Lab. Available at: http://blogs.ubc.ca/newliteracies/ (accessed 13th February 2012) (Internet).

Lea, M. R. and Jones, S. (2011) Digital literacies in higher education: exploring textual and technological practice. Studies in Higher Education. 36, pp. 377-393.

Lee, M. J. W., McLoughlin, C. and Chan, A. (2007) Knowledge creation processes of students as producers of audio learning objects. In: Wheeler, S. and Whitton, N. (Eds). Beyond control Learning technology for the social network generation. Research Proceedings of the 14th Association for Learning Technology Conference (ALT-C 2007). Held 4th to 6th September 2007, Nottingham University, England, UK. Available at: http://www.alt.ac.uk/altc2007/altc2007_documents/altc2007_research_proceedings.pdf. (accessed 20th December 2011) (Internet).

Lester, S. (1999) An introduction to phenomenological research. Available at: http://www.sld.demon.co.uk/resmethy.pdf. (accessed 1st October 2011) (Internet).

LeVasseur, J. J. (2003) The Problem of Bracketing in Phenomenology. Qualitative Health Research. 13(3), pp. 408–420.

Lim, W.-Y., So, H.-J. and Tan, S.-C. (2010) eLearning 2.0 and new literacies: are social practices lagging behind? Interactive Learning Environments, 18,pp. 203-218.

Lincoln, Y. S. and Guba, E.G. (1985) Naturalistic inquiry. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.

Littlejohn, A., Beetham, H. and McGill, L. (2011) Learning at the digital frontier: a review of digital literacies in theory and practice. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.libgate.library.nuigalway.ie/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00474.x (accessed 29th February 2012) (Internet).

Lopez, K. A. and Willis, D. G. (2004) Descriptive Versus Interpretive Phenomenology: Their Contributions to Knowledge. Qualitative Health Research. 14(5), pp .726–735.

Lopp, M. (2008) We Travel in Tribes. Randsinrepose blog, (blog) 15th May 2008. Available at: http://www.randsinrepose.com/archives/2008/05/15/we_travel_in_tr.html (accessed 10th September 2011) (Internet).

Luckin, R., Clark, W., Logan, K., Graber, R., Oliver, M. and Mee, A. (2009) Do Web 2.0 tools really open the door to learning? Practices, perceptions and profiles of 11–16 year old students. Learning, Media and Technology. 34(2), pp. 87–104.

Maddux, C. D. and Johnson, D. L. (2005) Type II Applications of Technology in Education. Computers in the Schools. 22(1-2), pp. 1–5.

Makice, K. (2009) Twitter API: Up and Running: Learn How to Build Applications with the Twitter API. Sebastopol: O’Reilly Media.

Margaryan, A. and Littlejohn, A. (2008) Repositories and communities at cross purposes: issues in sharing and reuse of digital learning resources. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. 24(4), pp. 333–347.

Marginson, S. (2004) University Futures. Policy Futures in Education. 2(2), pp. 159-174.

78

Marshall, M. N. (1996) Sampling for Qualitative Research. Family Practice. 13(6), pp. 522–526.

Marshall, S. (2010) Change, technology and higher education: are universities capable of organisational change? Research in Learning Technology. 18(3), pp. 179 - 192.

Masie, E. (2008) Social learning: An emerging trend. Training Zone. Available at: http://www.trainingzone.co.uk/item/185770 (accessed 6th November 2011) (Internet).

Mason, R. and Rennie, F. (2008) E-learning and social networking handbook: resources for higher education. New York: Taylor and Francis.

Maxwell, J. A. (1992) Understanding and validity in qualitative research. Harvard Educational Review, 62(3), pp. 279-300.

Maxwell, J. A. (2005) Qualitative research design: an interactive approach (2nd Edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Mayernik, M. and Pepe, A. (2009) Micro-blogging from the field: capturing contextual information in highly mobile research. Available at: http://research.cens.ucla.edu/events/?event_id=231. (accessed 1st November 2011) (Internet).

McFedries, P. (2007) All A-Twitter. IEEE Spectrum Inside Technology. Available at: http://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/software/all-atwitter. (accessed 13th October 2011). (Internet).

McLoughlin, C. and Lee, M. J. W. (2008a) The Three P’s of Pedagogy for the Networked Society: Personalization, Participation, and Productivity. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education. 20(1), pp. 10-27.

McLoughlin, C. and Lee, M. J. W. (2008b) Future learning landscapes: Transforming pedagogy through social software .Innovate, 4. Available from: http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=539 (accessed 31st August 2011) (Internet).

Meyer, K. A. (2010). The Role of Disruptive Technology in the Future of Higher Education. Educause Quarterly. 3(1). Available at: http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolum/TheRoleofDisruptiveTechnologyi/199378. (accessed 31st October 2011) (Internet).

Mollett, A., Moran, D. and Dunleavy, P. (2011) Using Twitter in university research, teaching and impact activities. Impact of social sciences: maximizing the impact of academic research. London: London School of Economics and Political Science.

Morse, J. M. (2000) Determining Sample Size. Qualitative Health Research. 10(1), pp. 3–5.

Oppenheim, A. N. (1992) Questionnaire design, interviewing and attitude measurement. London: Pinter Publishers Ltd.

Oulasvirta, A., Lehtonen, E., Kurvinen, E. and Raento, M. (2010) Making the ordinary visible in microblogs. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing. Online first. Special issue on Social Interaction and Mundane Technologies. 14, pp. 237-249.

79

O’Reilly, T. (2005) What is Web 2.0 – Design patterns and business models for the next generation in software. Available at: http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html. (accessed 12th October 2011) (Internet).

Owens, J. W., Lenz, K. and Speagle, S. (2009) Trick or Tweet: How Usable is Twitter for First-Time Users? Usability News, 11(2), pp. 1-8. Available at: http://surl.org/usabilitynews/112/pdf/Usability%20News%20112%20-%20Owens.pdf (accessed 24th October 2011) (Internet).

Papert, S. (1980) Mindstorms: children, computers, and powerful ideas. New York: Basic Books.

Parry, D. (2008) Teaching with Twitter. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Available at: http://chronicle.com/article/Teaching-With-Twitter-Not-for/49230/ (accessed 2nd November 2011) (Internet).

Pena-Lopez, I. (2011) Reconsidering Teachers’ Roles (III). Douglas Thomas: Cultivating the imagination for a world of constant change. ICTlogy blog (blog) 6th October 2011. Available at: http://ictlogy.net/20111006-reconsidering-teachers-roles-iii-douglas-thomas-cultivating-the-imagination-for-a-world-of-constant-change/ (accessed 13th November 2011) (Internet).

Peterson, M. and Spencer, M. G. (1991) Understanding academic culture and climate. In Peterson, M., Chaffee, E. E. and White, T. H. (Eds.) ASHE reader on organization and governance. Needham Heights, MA: Simon and Schuster, (pp. 140–155).

Prensky, M. (2001) Digital natives, digital immigrants. On the Horizon. 9(5), pp. 1-6.

Procter, R., Williams, R. and Stewart, J. (2010) If you build it, will they come? How researchers perceive and use web 2.0. London: Research Institution Network. Available at: www.rin.ac.uk/system/files/attachments/web_2.0_screen.pdf. (accessed 25th October 2011) (Internet).

Punch, M. (1994) Politics and ethics in qualitative research. In Denzin, N.K. and Lincoln, Y.S. (Eds.). Handbook of qualitative research, pp.83-97, Newbery Park, CA: Sage, cited in Punch, K.F. (2005) Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approache. (2nd Edition).London: Sage Publications.

Punch, K.F. (2005) Introduction to Social Research: Quantitative and Qualitative Approache. (2nd Edition).London: Sage Publications.

Puttnam, D. (2011) Keynote speech: Ireland’s survival guide for the 21st century. Digital Ireland Forum, 30th September 2011, cited in Kennedy, J. (2011) Lord Puttnam: Ireland’s survival guide for the 21st century. Available at: http://www.siliconrepublic.com/innovation/item/23839-lord-puttnam-irelands-sur (accessed 10th October 2011) (Internet).

Rankin, M. (2009) The Twitter Experiment - Twitter in the Classroom (video online). Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WPVWDkF7U8&noredirect=1. (accessed 9th November 2011) (Internet).

80

R.C.L.C.E., (2007) A Critical Literacy Approach to Intercultural Language Teaching and Learning. Available at: www.iltlp.unisa.edu.au/doclibmodules/iltlp_module_self_access01.doc. (accessed 21st

November 2011) (Internet).

Reeves, T. C., Herrington, J. and Oliver, R. (2004) “A development research agenda for online collaborative learning”. Educational Technology Research and Development, Vol. 52, No. 4, pp. 53-66.

Rigby, L. (2008) Twitter in Higher Education. Just another dent in the damage blog, (blog) 17th November 2008. Available at: http://www.lexrigby.com/2008/11/17/twitter-in-higher-education/. (accessed 31st October 2011) (Internet).

Sample, M. (2010) Practical Advice for Teaching with Twitter. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Available at: http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Practical-Advice/26416 (accessed 6th November 2011) (Internet).

Sarker, S., Sarker, S., Nicholson, D. B. and Joshi, K. D. (2005) Knowledge transfer in virtual systems development teams: an exploratory study of four key enablers. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 48(2), pp. 201- 218.

Saunders, N., Beltrão, P., Jensen, L., Jurczak, D., Krause, R., Kuhn, M. and Wu, S. (2009) Microblogging the ISMB: A New Approach to Conference Reporting. PLoS Computational Biology, 5(1). Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000263(accessed 12th September 2011) (Internet).

Selfe, C. L. (1999) Technology and Literacy in the 21st Century: The Importance of Paying Attention (1st Edition). Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press.

Selwyn, N. (2008) Education Web 2.0? Designing the web for teaching and learning. London: London Knowledge Lab TLRP_TEL.

Sharpe R. (2010) Conceptualizing Differences in Learners’ Experiences of E-Learning: A Review of Contextual Models: Report of the Higher Education Academy Learner Difference (HEALD) Synthesis Project, cited in Littlejohn, A., Beetham, H. and McGill, L. (2011) Learning at the digital frontier: a review of digital literacies in theory and practice. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. Available at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.libgate.library.nuigalway.ie/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00474.x (accessed 29th February 2012) (Internet).

Siemens, G. (2005) Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2(1), pp. 3-10.

Siemens, G. (2010) Teaching in Social and Technological Networks « Connectivism. Connectivism blog, (blog) 16th February 2010. Available at: http://www.connectivism.ca/?p=220 (accessed 24th March 2012) (Internet).

Sterne, J. (2003) Bourdieu, Technique and Technology. Cultural Studies. 17(3), pp. 367–389.

Stevens, V. (2008) Trial by Twitter: The Rise and Slide of the Year’s Most Viral Microblogging Platform. TESLEJ: Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language,

81

12(1). Available at: http://tesl-ej.org/ej45/int.html. (accessed 7th October 20011) (Internet).

Street, B. V. (1984). Literacy in Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Street, B. V. (1995) Social Literacies. London: Longman.

Street, B. V. (2003) What’s new in new literacy studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 5, pp. 77–91.

Street, B. V. (2005) At Last: Recent Applications of New Literacy Studies in Educational Contexts. Research in the Teaching of English. 39(4), pp. 417–423.

Streubert, H. J. and Carpenter, D. R. (2010) Qualitative Research in Nursing: Advancing the Humanistic Imperative (5th Edition). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.

Tan, P.-L., J. and McWilliam, E. (2008) Digital or Diligent? Web 2.0’s challenge to formal schooling. Paper presented at the Australian Association for Research in Education International Education Conference, 29th November - 4th December 2008. Australia: Brisbane.

Thompson, C. (2007) Clive Thompson on How Twitter Creates a Social Sixth Sense. Available at: http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/magazine/15-07/st_thompson (accessed 2nd November 2011) (Internet).

Traxler, J., (2010) Will Student Devices Deliver Innovation, Inclusion, and Transformation? Journal of the Research Center for Educational Technology (RCET). 6(1). Available at: http://rcetj.org/index.php/rcetj/article/view/56/177. (accessed 30th April, 2012) (Internet).

Twitter (anon). (2012) Twitter turns six. Twitter blog, (blog) 21st March 2012. Available at: http://blog.twitter.com/2012/03/twitter-turns-six.html (accessed 31st March 2012) (Internet).

Waks, L. J. (2007) The Concept of Fundamental Educational Change. Educational Theory. 57(3), pp. 277 - 295.

Vannatta, R. A and Fordham, N. (2004). Teacher Dispositions as Predictors of Classroom Technology Use. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. Spring 2004: 36, 3

Walton, A., Weller, M. and Conole, G. (2008) Social: Learn - Widening Participation and Sustainability of Higher Education. Paper presented at EDEN 2008 Annual Conference, 12th June 2008. Portugal: Lisbon. Available at: http://www.eden-online.org/online/book/papers/006.pdf. (accessed 12th October 2010) (Internet).

Warlick, D. (2005) The Difference between Information and Knowledge : 2¢ Worth. 2 cents blog, (blog) 25th July 2005. Available at: http://davidwarlick.com/2cents/?p=105 (accessed 27th March 2012) (Internet).

82

Warschauer, M. (2007) The paradoxical future of digital learning. Learning Inquiry, 1, pp. 41-49.

Weinberger, D. (2007) Everything Is Miscellaneous: The Power of the New Digital Disorder. New York: Times Books Henry Holt and Company.

Weller, M. and Dalziel, J. (2007) Bridging the gap between web 2.0 and higher education. In 2nd International LAMS Conference. Practical Benefits of Learning Design. Australia: Sydney, pp. 76-82. Available at: http://lams2007sydney.lamsfoundation.org/pdfs/04g.pdf. (accessed 7th October 2011) (Internet).

Wellman, B., Boase, J. and Chen, W. (2002) The Networked Nature of Community Online And Offline. IT and Society, 1(1). pp. 151-165.

Wenger, E. (1998) Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger, E. (2006) Communities of practice a brief introduction. Available at: http://www.ewenger.com/theory/communities_of_practice_intro.htm. (accessed 3rd

November 2011) (Internet).

Whitney, L. (2010) More Twitter users tweeting via mobile apps. CNET News. Available from: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20015553-93.html 3rd September 2010. (accessed 2nd December 2011) (Internet).

Woods, P. (2006) Qualitative Research. Available at: http://www.edu.plymouth.ac.uk/resined/qualitative%20methods%202/qualrshm.htm. (accessed 9th November 2011) (Internet).

Young, J. R. (2008) Forget E-Mail: New Messaging Service Has Students and Professors Atwitter. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Vol. 54, Issue 25 pp. 15 -17.

Young, J. R. (2009) Teaching with Twitter: Not for the Faint of Heart. Chronicle of Higher Education. Vol. 56, Issue 14.

Zhao, D. and Rosson, M. B. (2009) How and Why People Twitter: The Role that Microblogging Plays in Informal Communication at Work. In Proceedings of the ACM 2009 International Conference on Supporting Group Work. USA: Sanibel Island, Florida Available at: http://personal.psu.edu/duz108/blogs/publications/group09%20-%20twitter%20study.pdf. (accessed 4th October 2011) (Internet).

83

Acronyms

CoPs communities of practice

CPD continuing professional development

IM instant messaging

LMS learning management system

LSE London School of Economics

MOOC massive open online course

OER open education resource

PLN personal learning network

PRN personal research network

SMS short message service

URL unique resource locator

VLE virtual learning environment

Glossary

Back-channel amplified by Twitter, the feedback listeners share without interrupting the speaker

Badge an alternative accreditation/credentialing system that enables learners to earn badges wherever they're learning across the web

Blended learning the term normally refers to combining Internet-based distance learning with face-to-face tuition

Blog a blend of the terms web and log to denote a type of website updated with new content from time to time; often maintained by an individual to include commentary or descriptions of events

Communities of Practice groups of people who share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how

84

to do it better as they interact regularly

Connectivism an emerging learning theory, formulated by George Siemens.  "Connectivism is the integration of principles explored by chaos, network, and complexity and self-organization theories.  Learning is a process that occurs within nebulous environments of shifting core elements – not entirely under the control of the individual.  Learning (defined as actionable knowledge) can reside outside of ourselves (within an organization or a database), is focused on connecting specialized information sets, and the connections that enable us to learn more are more important than our current state of knowing" Siemens (2004)

Constructivism a set of assumptions about the nature of human learning that guide constructivist learning theories and teaching methods of education. Constructivism values developmentally appropriate teacher-supported learning that is initiated and directed by the student.  The theory of constructivism suggests that learners construct knowledge

Digital native a person who was born during or after the general introduction of digital technology, and through interacting with digital technology from an early age, is thought to have a greater understanding of its concepts. The term was coined by Marc Prensky (2001)

eLearning consists of all forms of electronically supported teaching and learning

Facebook one of the most popular social networking sites that allows users to their personal profiles with other users in order to stay connected (more than 800 million active users- May 2012).

Flickr an image and video hosting website and online community

Hashtag a tag embedded in a message posted on the Twitter microblogging service, consisting of an identifying word or acronym within the message prefixed with a hash sign. Used to

85

track and make easily findable topics, communities, live events, or breaking news; they facilitate “on-the-fly” collaboration

Instant messaging the exchange of typed messages between computer users in real time via the Internet

Learning 2.0 pertains to the integration of social Web 2.0 technologies to support teaching and learning

Massive Online Open Course an online course with the option of free and open registration, a publicly shared curriculum, and open-ended outcomes. MOOCs integrate social networking, accessible online resources, and are facilitated by leading practitioners in the field of study. Most significantly, MOOCs build on the engagement of learners who self-organize their participation according to learning goals, prior knowledge and skills, and common interests

Microblogging a broadcast medium in the form of blogging

Microblog differs from a traditional blog in that its content is typically smaller in both actual and aggregate file size, allowing users to exchange small elements of content such as short sentences or phrases, individual images or hyperlinks

mLearning related to e-learning and distance education, with a distinct focus on learning across contexts and learning with mobile devices

Moodle abbreviation for Modular Object-Oriented Dynamic Learning Environment. It is a free and open-source e-learning software platform, also known as a Learning Management System (LMS) or Virtual Learning Environment (VLE)

Multi-platform technology developed for use within multiple operating systems

Open education resource learning materials that are freely available for use, remixing and redistribution

Personal learning network the term is generally allied today with social networking technology to denote online or virtual relationships between individuals where the goal is enhancement of mutual learning

86

Process-oriented learning the development of skills for acquiring, applying, and generating knowledge

Smartphone a high-end mobile phone with more advanced computing ability and connectivity than a traditional mobile phone, typically combining the functions of portable media players, digital cameras, video cameras, and GPS navigation units. Also typically includes high-resolution touchscreens and web browsers that can access via Wi-Fi and mobile broadband to display web pages

Social media interactive forms of media that allow users to interact with and publish to each other, generally by means of the Internet

Social network comprised of various independent actors who develop relatively loose relationships between each other to pursue some common goals, more recently the term is conflated with the use social Web 2.0 technologies

Spam the same message sent indiscriminately to large numbers of recipients on the Internet

Tweet a post or status update on the microblogging service Twitter

Twitter a multi-platform Web 2.0, part microblogging tool, part social networking tool

Web 2.0 an umbrella term for internet applications built around the appropriation and sharing of content offering greater opportunities for creation, collaboration and communication. The term “social media” is often used to describe Web 2.0 tools and services

Wiki a web site developed collaboratively by a community of users, allowing any user to add and edit content

Wikipedia a free, web-based, collaborative, multilingual encyclopaedia project supported by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation

87

Appendices

Appendix I – Researcher’s prior assumptions

Streubert and Carpenter (2010) emphasise that it is vital for the researcher to identify

at the outset any assumptions, preconceptions or biases that they may have towards the

phenomenon under study. Through identifying and bracketing these assumptions etc., it is

possible to engage with the phenomenon without prejudice and impart faithfully the

participants’ perspective. In this case, the researcher believes that they do not hold any biases

in relation to the phenomenon, but feels that it is worth explaining more fully how they came

to be interested in the phenomenon in the first instance.

As a student in higher education investigating the affordances of Web 2.0 technology

in general and Twitter in particular, the researcher was aware of developments to establish

the credentials of Twitter as both a tool for professional development and as a pedagogical

device. However, the researcher started to notice amongst some lecturers reactions ranging

from indignant to indifferent to such a prospect, which was in contrast to the degree of

enthusiastic endorsement that Twitter was receiving in other quarters and amongst some

lecturers.

With a professional background in adult and young adult literacy and with an interest

in literacy as social practice, the researcher came to imagine that for some lecturers Twitter

invokes reactions similar to those stereotypical of teenage boys in classrooms relative to pens.

Neither wants to use the technology (Twitter/pen) because it does not identify them as who

they are, what they stand for or who they want to be. Consequently, the enquiry came to

combine lecturers’ disposition and literacy as social practice when considering the adoption

of Twitter into higher education.

88

Appendix II – Recruitment email

Hello XXXX

I am a Masters student on the M.A. Technology, Learning, Innovation and Change programme in St. Angela's College, Sligo, and am interested in the use of Twitter for the purposes of higher education. I am a literacies practitioner, so my interest in Twitter stems from a literacies perspective and the new digital literacy practices that Twitter enables.

I am contacting you to politely inquire if you would be willing to participate in my research. My aim is to get the views of a wide range of higher education lecturers based on their different disciplines, institutions and experiences; I believe that you can provide a valuable contribution. At a time of your choosing, I would like to meet you to talk about the topic. The interview should take approximately one hour.

You may like to note that my research has received ethical approval and that no material relating to the interview will be accessible to anyone other than myself. It is my intention, with your agreement, to record the interview. You are free to read and comment on its transcript if you wish. In reporting the work, I will ensure that individuals and institutions remain anonymous.

I would sincerely appreciate your input into this developing research area, but please do not feel under any obligation to participate. If you are happy to participate, upon your reply I will forward you a copy of the consent form and arrange the logistics of conducting the interview, or if you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me.

Thank you for your attention. I look forward to hearing from you shortly.

Kind regards

Helen CrumpM.A. Technology, Learning, Innovation and ChangeSt. Angela's CollegeLough GillSligo

89

Appendix III – Participant consent

This document is to obtain your permission to participate in the research project called “To tweet or not to tweet: a qualitative enquiry into the disposition of higher education lecturers towards the adoption of Twitter microblogging practices” (working title).

For this research, you are being asked to take part in a 1-hour in-depth interview. In which I will be asking you to express your personal opinion and disposition towards using Twitter as it relates to your professional practice within higher education. The interview is semi-structured, meaning that the exact questions asked to each participant will vary, depending on each participant’s unique disposition towards Twitter microblogging practices.

I do not anticipate there will be any risks or discomfort from your participation in this study. Your participation in the study is voluntary and you may choose to withdraw at any time for any reason. All information you supply during the research will be held in confidence.

The interview will be recorded and then transcribed. Upon transcription, I will send you a copy to ensure that it accurately represents our interview. Any comments you have will be taken into account in the analysis. The interviews and transcripts will be stored safely, and I will be the only one who accesses your information. Your data will also be stored on a separate hard drive as a backup.

All personally identifiable information, including names, institutional affiliation, or other information that may otherwise identify you will be removed from the final research report. You will be given a pseudonym during the transcription process, and this will be used to identify participants in the final report. Therefore, if the research is made publically available your name will not appear.

If you have questions about the research in general or about your role in the study, please feel free to contact me by phone: XXX XXXXXXX or by email: XXXXXXX@stangelas.nuigalway.ie. This research has been reviewed and approved by the St. Angela’s College Ethics Committee in line with The Irish Psychological Society of Ireland code of research ethics.

Participant’s Consent:

I _____________________________ consent to participate in “To tweet or not to tweet: a qualitative enquiry into the disposition of higher education lecturers towards the adoption of Twitter microblogging practices” (working title) conducted by Helen Crump of St. Angela’s College, Sligo.

I have understood the nature of this project and wish to participate. My signature below indicates my consent.

Participant’s name: ________________________________________

Signature: _______________________________________________ Date: ______________

Researcher’s name: ________________________________________

90

Signature: ________________________________________________ Date: _____________

91

Participants’ information

Pseudonym AidanP1

BrendanP2

ErinP3

ConorP4

DeclanP5

Professional information

DisciplineSocial

SciencePolitics &

Social PolicyInformation Technology

Film, Photography

& Digital Media

Religious Education

No. of years in higher education 25 19 23 12 18.5No. of years current institution

9 8 7 9 16.5

Interview information

Interview Date

16th Dec 2011

09th Jan 2012

13th Jan 2012

16th Jan 2012

23rd Jan 2012

Interview Duration

105 mins 57 mins 55 mins 60 mins 55 mins

Twitter information

Twitter Account

No Yes Yes Yes No

Use Twitter for personal use

N/AYes

Yes Yes N/A

Use Twitter for professional use

N/AYes

Yes Yes N/A

How long on Twitter since

N/A approx. 1 year

approx. 3 years

4 years N/A

Privacy settings N/A

only viewable to approved followers

_ viewable to the public

N/A

Twitter usage

N/Apost updates on a regular

basis

_post updates on a regular

basis

N/A

92

Appendix IV – Participant information

93

Appendix V – Interview schedule (part A)

1. Personal information:

1.1. Name: ___________________________________________________________

2. Twitter information:

2.1. Do you have a Twitter account? ( ) yes ( ) no

If no, please go to section 3. If yes, please continue with section 2.

2.2. For what purpose(s) do you use Twitter?

( ) for personal use ( ) for professional use ( ) both

2.3. What is the privacy setting of your Twitter account?

( ) viewable to the public ( ) only viewable to approved followers

2.4. How long have you been a registered user of Twitter? __________________________

2.5. How would you categorise your Twitter use?

( ) post updates on a regular basis ( ) follow others but rarely post

( ) other: please state: _________________________________________________

3. Professional information:

3.1. What is your professional or disciplinary area of specialism? _____________________

3.2. Number of years employed in current institution of higher education: _______________

3.3. Number of years employed in higher education altogether: _______________________

3.4. As part of your current role in higher education, are you engaged in:

teaching and learning in the classroom ( ) yes ( ) no

teaching and learning online ( ) yes ( ) no

research ( ) yes ( ) no

activities to promote wider engagement of the institution ( ) yes ( ) no

94

3.5. Expressed approximately in percentage terms, how is your role divided up?

teaching and learning in the classroom________________________________________%

teaching and learning online_________________________________________________%

research_________________________________________________________________%

activities to promote wider engagement of the institution___________________________%

95

Appendix VI – Interview schedule (part B)

4. Twitter in general

Can you tell me what your thoughts are in general regarding Twitter?

How do you feel about the fact that posts on Twitter are public and anyone on the web can read them?

How do you feel about networking on the web with people that you have not met f2f?

5. Twitter within higher education

It is being suggested that Twitter can be used for the purposes of higher education; can you tell me what you have heard about this and how appropriate you think Twitter is?

It is said that Twitter blurs the boundaries between the institution and the outside world. What are your thoughts on this?

What affect do you think using Twitter has on how people engage with knowledge?

How much would you trust the information posted on Twitter?

6. Twitter as part of a Personal Learning – PLN

PLNs can be thought of as “personal web-based environments that explicitly support one’s professional and learning activities within a network”. Do you consider yourself to have a PLN on Twitter?

Yes: Why did you develop a PLN on Twitter? What value do you gain from it?

No: Why have you not engaged in developing a PLN? Why do you think some lecturers develop a PLN on Twitter?

How do you feel about helping students to develop PLNs of their own and inducting them into a professional community of practice?

7. a. Twitter to support a formal course of study f2f

Show Twitter Experiment Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WPVWDkF7U8

How do you think using Twitter in this way would affect the role of the lecturer?

How do you think using Twitter in this way would affect the learning?

96

It is said that Twitter blurs the boundaries between formal and informal learning and that it is useful for self-directed learning. How appropriate do you think this is in higher education?

What do you think about students using their mobile phones or other personal devices to access a class hashtag on Twitter, both in class and out of class?

7. b. Twitter to support a formal course of study - online

Show Twitter Experiment Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WPVWDkF7U8

In what ways do you think using Twitter to support an online course might be different?

How do you think using Twitter to support an online course affects the role of the lecturer?

How do you think using Twitter to support an online course affects the learning?

It is said that Twitter blurs the boundaries between formal and informal learning and that it is useful for self-directed learning. How appropriate do you think this is in higher education?

What do you think about students using their mobile phones or other personal devices to access a class hashtag on Twitter?

8. Twitter in relation to digital natives & new digital literacy

Today’s students are often referred to as “digital natives” in that they are comfortable with using technology. Some people advocate that education needs to harness this aptitude and enthusiasm and introduce technology such as Twitter into teaching and learning. How do you feel about this?

In what ways do you think Twitter, as a new digital literacy,affects academic study?

To what extent do you think Twitter, as a new digital literacy, is appropriate for the professional practice of lecturers?

9. HE and institutional culture

To what extent do you think your institution values, or is suited to, the networked virtual culture found in Twitter, as opposed to the more traditional academic culture?

Generally, in the staff room or at meetings, if the topic of Twitter comes up to what extent would it be discussed favourably/ unfavourably?

How are you encouraged/ discouraged by colleagues and/or management to incorporate Twitter into your practice?

97

Within this institutional setting, what do you see as the main obstacles for the adoption of Twitter practices?

10. Individual practice

Into which aspects of your professional practice might you consider adopting/further adopting Twitter? Why?

Yes: What do you consider are the main reasons to adopt Twitter into your practice? What do you think would be gained with the adoption of Twitter into your practice?

No: What do you consider are the main reasons not to adopt Twitter into your practice? What do you think would be lost if you adopted Twitter into your practice?

Can you tell me if there are any ways that you use/would consider using Twitter for professional purposes that we have not discussed?

11. Final question

Is there anything else that you want to say about this topic that I have not asked you?

Is there anything else that you want to ask me?

98

Appendix VII _ Process of data analysis exemplar

Meaning condensation method of data analysis adapted from Hycner’s guidelines for

phenomenological analysis (1985).

1. Transcription.

2. Forward the transcription to the participants to verify accuracy.

3. Undertake phenomenological reduction (suspension of any premature judgement and theoretical constraints by researcher so as to be as true to the phenomenon as possible).

4. Listen to each interview to gain a holistic sense.

5. Delineate units of relevant meaning and eliminate units of irrelevant meaning.

INT = interviewer (researcher) P2 = participant 2

= unit of relevant meaning = unit of irrelevant meaning

INT: That makes me move on. Why did you develop a PLN on Twitter and what value do you gain from it?

P2: I developed it because I don't think my students read enough in general I suppose it was also about sharing stuff that I read in an accessible way and I suppose maybe I was scared that by not doing this I would disadvantage my students because I am aware of what is happening elsewhere and I just felt that I would be short changing them if I did not engage with the new social media you know I think they benefit as well now when we deal with this little issue with the blurring of the boundaries that we discussed earlier I think it will become a full learning network as in my learning will be enhanced as well right because at the moment I am not following them for the reasons I articulated earlier at the beginning ideally I would like to start following them but within that xxxxx xxxxx policy studies specific learning network so there is a little grey area for me at the moment I recognise that to become a true fully fledged functioning network I have to… it has to become reciprocal and I have to start hearing what they've got to say where their research is leading them what sort of links that they can bring to my attention

INT: OK so that really is my next question. How do you feel about helping students to develop PLNs of their own and inducting them into a professional community of practice?

P2: I think that it's absolutely essential in the last semester I taught maybe 200 students and one group in particular were very had issues around IT literacy let’s put it that way and part of me I wanted to address that because

99

nobody else was and I was one of the only lectures they had that was even using Moodle and I really really encouraged them to set up Twitter accounts from the very outset and I know that only around 30% of them did even though I said look this is a prerequisite of learning this module Here's how you do it ddd yet only 30% of them signed up to follow me and of that I would say nearly 80% never once tweeted themselves and that's frightening now of other 20% who do actively tweet themselves I know for a fact from talking to them because I have followed it through that they are absolutely delighted with it they love it quite a few of them said that it really enhanced their learning for all the reasons we discussed earlier about the possibility of you know reducing your world view to your own preferences it actually was very beneficial because it streamlined the information they wanted and it brought them into contact with people directly in ways in which they never would have accessed and one group in particular ended up interviewing the Minister for xxxxxxxx husband who happens to be a professor of psychology child psychology and he gave them his mobile phone number landline number all through Twitter to contact him so they just found it all in emancipating

6. Number list of delineated units of relevant meaning.

61. I developed it because I don't think my students read enough in general

62. it was also about sharing stuff that I read in an accessible way

63. and I suppose maybe I was scared that by not doing this I would disadvantage my students because I am aware of what is happening elsewhere and I just felt that I would be short changing them if I did not engage with the new social media

64. you know I think they benefit as well

65. now when we deal with this little issue with the blurring of the boundaries that we discussed earlier I think it will become a full learning network as in my learning will be enhanced as well

66. so there is a little grey area for me at the moment [blurring prof/personal]

67. I recognise that to become a true fully fledged functioning network I have to… it has to become reciprocal and I have to start hearing what they've got to say where their research is leading them what sort of links that they can bring to my attention

68. I think that it's absolutely essential

69. [last semester] I really really encouraged them to set up Twitter accounts

100

70. I know that only around 30% of them did even though I said look this is a prerequisite of learning this module… yet only 30% of them signed up to follow me and of that I would say nearly 80% never once tweeted themselves and that's frightening

71. now of other 20% who do actively tweet themselves I know for a fact from talking to them because I have followed it through that they are absolutely delighted with it they love it quite a few of them said that it really enhanced their learning for all the reasons we discussed earlier about the possibility of you know reducing your world view to your own preferences it actually was very beneficial because it streamlined the information they wanted and it brought them into contact with people directly in ways in which they never would have accessed

71a. it actually was very beneficial because it streamlined the information they wanted and it brought them into contact with people directly in ways in which they never would have accessed

72. one group in particular ended up interviewing the Minister for xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx husband who happens to be a professor of psychology child psychology and he gave them his mobile phone number landline number all through Twitter to contact him so they just found it all in emancipating

7. Cluster units of relevant meaning in relation to the concept questions of the enquiry.

8. Determine disposition within each cluster (positive/ negative or non-aligned) and determine any themes therein.

PLN with the students – Positive Aspects

[in general]

8. and then I began to realise about its teaching and learning pedagogical properties that you know I could actually have an instantaneous communication space with my students

65. now when we deal with this little issue with the blurring of the boundaries that we discussed earlier I think it will become a full learning network as in my learning will be enhanced as well

67. I recognise that to become a true fully fledged functioning network I have to… it has to become reciprocal and I have to start hearing what they've got to say where their research is leading them what sort of links that they can bring to my attention

101

75. so yes they have used it as learning networks but I think that there's an awful lot more that can be done with it from the student perspective

[student engagement]

71. now of other 20% who do actively tweet themselves I know for a fact from talking to them because I have followed it through that they are absolutely delighted with it they love it quite a few of them said that it really enhanced their learning for all the reasons we discussed earlier about the possibility of you know reducing your world view to your own preferences it actually was very beneficial because it streamlined the information they wanted and it brought them into contact with people directly in ways in which they never would have accessed

72. one group in particular ended up interviewing the Minister for xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx husband who happens to be a professor of psychology child psychology and he gave them his mobile phone number landline number all through Twitter to contact him so they just found it all in emancipating

[blurring of the boundaries – institution/outside world]

71a. it actually was very beneficial because it streamlined the information they wanted and it brought them into contact with people directly in ways in which they never would have accessed

72. one group in particular ended up interviewing the Minister for xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx husband who happens to be a professor of psychology child psychology and he gave them his mobile phone number landline number all through Twitter to contact him so they just found it all in emancipating

PLN with the students – Negative Aspects

[student engagement]

70. I know that only around 30% of them did even though I said look this is a prerequisite of learning this module… yet only 30% of them signed up to follow me and of that I would say nearly 80% never once tweeted themselves and that's frightening

73. why did they refuse in the main to really engage with this and they are all 20 something

102

PLN in General – Non-aligned aspects

[blurring of boundaries – institution/outside world]

39. Yes I can see that can happen [blurs boundaries institution/outside world]

[narrowing of access to variety of information/information sources]

48a. but it may also have another profoundly interesting outcome in that it just reinforces our own predilections our own interests our own bias and our own prejudices you know I read the Guardian I read the Irish Times because it reinforces my worldview and hence I follow X Y and Z because it does the same thing and the same cyberspace sort of implication for my own social construction that’s why am I attracted to following certain people and reading certain tweets because it reinforces how I feel about myself

49. I’d be worried about that you could engage in a much greater narrowing of one’s own information access

50. because you are following basically corralling your information sources

51. I'm not suggesting that that is necessarily wrong or problematical I believe it has all the possibility of becoming something that negates our wider consumption of disparate knowledge

53. you've got to be aware in the back of your mind this could be where a totalitarian a very narrow monopoly of opinion

9. Summarise each individual interview.

10. Forward the summary and the document determining disposition relevant to the concept questions of the enquiry for the participants to verify accuracy.

103

Appendix VIII – Student endorsement

In part-clarification of meaning of the interview, participant 3 submitted the following quote from a student:

P3: For the sake of completeness, what I was referring to here was the advantage of continuing communication and sharing with students throughout the week, i.e. not limiting our contact to only one/two hours per week.

The students enjoy this as well... here is a comment from one of my students (contributed on Google+):

If a student is working on an assignment and they don’t understand something, who better to ask then to ask the lecturer who set the assignment! Twitter allows this question to be posted instantly, the lecturer or indeed another student would be very prompt in their response. Twitter allows lecturers to instantly share their ideas or websites or posts that they have just discovered themselves with students, instead of having to wait until the next lecture. It can also allow people who are not in the class to engage in the classroom discussion, possibly including sources they know about or their opinion on a topic. Twitter lets the classroom open up and engage to a world full of people with experience and knowledge.

104