This article was downloaded by: [Elon University]On: 17 July 2015, At: 17:44Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG

Click for updates

Professional Development in EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjie20

Engagement through microblogging:educator professional development viaTwitterJeffrey P. Carpentera & Daniel G. Krutkab

a Department of Education, Elon University, Campus Box 2105,Elon, NC 27244, USAb Department of Teacher Education, Texas Woman’s University,Denton, TX 76204-5769, USAPublished online: 19 Aug 2014.

To cite this article: Jeffrey P. Carpenter & Daniel G. Krutka (2015) Engagement throughmicroblogging: educator professional development via Twitter, Professional Development inEducation, 41:4, 707-728, DOI: 10.1080/19415257.2014.939294

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2014.939294

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

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

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Elo

n U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

44 1

7 Ju

ly 2

015

Engagement through microblogging: educator professionaldevelopment via Twitter

Jeffrey P. Carpentera* and Daniel G. Krutkab

aDepartment of Education, Elon University, Campus Box 2105, Elon, NC 27244, USA;bDepartment of Teacher Education, Texas Woman’s University, Denton, TX 76204-5769, USA

(Received 17 March 2014; accepted 23 June 2014)

Traditional, top-down professional development (PD) can render teachers mereimplementers of the ideas of others, but there is some hope that the participatorynature of social media such as Twitter might support more grassroots PD. Tobetter understand Twitter’s role in education, we conducted a survey of K–16educators regarding their use of the microblogging service for professionalpurposes. Respondents described multifaceted and intense use, with PD activitiesmore common than use with students and families. This paper delves into qualita-tive data from 494 respondents who described their perspectives on Twitter PD.Educators praised the platform as efficient, accessible and interactive. Twitterwas credited with providing opportunities to access novel ideas and stay abreastof education advances and trends, particularly regarding educational technology.Numerous respondents compared Twitter favorably with other PD available tothem. Members of our sample also appreciated how Twitter connected themto educators beyond their own schools and districts, with mention of exposure toboth like-minded and diverse perspectives. Respondents described positive andcollaborative professional activity facilitated by Twitter, and many noted how ithelped them combat various forms of isolation. We conclude by discussingimplications of the survey results for educators, researchers and policy-makers.

Keywords: Twitter; professional development; online professional development;teacher community; social media; isolation

Introduction

For more than a quarter of a century, educational reforms in many countries havefocused on standardization. In many cases, teachers are rendered passive objects inprocesses that, as Giroux put it, reduce ‘them to the status of high-level technicianscarrying out dictates and objectives decided by “experts” far removed from theeveryday realities of classroom life’ (1985, p. 376). Instead of treating teachers asreflective professionals who make decisions appropriate to specific classroom cir-cumstances, many efforts at school improvement threaten to de-skill teachers fromthe intellectual work of their craft. Not surprisingly, top-down professional develop-ment (PD) that similarly emphasizes implementation without active participation inknowledge construction has been roundly criticized by teachers.

Professional development for in-service teachers can, however, be pivotal to thesuccess of efforts to improve schools (Sprinthall et al. 1996, Borko 2004), and can

*Corresponding author. Email: jcarpenter13@elon.edu

© 2014 International Professional Development Association (IPDA)

Professional Development in Education, 2015Vol. 41, No. 4, 707–728, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2014.939294

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Elo

n U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

44 1

7 Ju

ly 2

015

also be more driven by teachers themselves (Stigler and Hiebert 1999). Althoughtraditional PD approaches have a somewhat discouraging history (Sprinthall et al.1996), the rise of Web 2.0 and social media sites over the last decade has inspiredoptimism among some educators regarding their potential to enhance various facetsof the field. When used well, new media have made it easier and cheaper for peopleto meaningfully shape public dialogues, ‘and thus have paved the way for morevoices to be heard’ (Clinton et al. 2013, p. 8). For educators, social media appearsto have the potential to facilitate PD that is more participatory, grassroots and sup-portive of teachers’ roles as professionals and intellectuals. In this paper, we aim tocontribute to understanding of the role of social media in PD by examining how andwhy 494 educators reported using the microblogging service Twitter for PD.

Background

The historical failings of traditional PD approaches are well chronicled in the litera-ture (Sprinthall et al. 1996, Hawley and Valli 2007). While high-quality PD hasshown the capacity to enhance teacher practice and student learning (Stigler andHiebert 1999, Borko 2004, Yoon et al. 2007), access to it often remains insufficient(for example, Wei et al. 2009). One survey of 70,000 educators in 23 countriesfound that more than one-half of respondents wanted more PD than they received(OECD 2009). Furthermore, the US National Commission on Teaching andAmerica’s Future (1996, 2003) identified poor PD as contributing to high rates ofteacher attrition and the underperformance of schools.

Traditional PD approaches tend to mirror the ethos of the standardization move-ment by treating teachers as objects who must implement the ideas and strategiesmandated by purported experts. Critics assert that much of this type of PD is oftennot just ineffective, but is harmful, as it regularly engenders bitterness and passivityin teachers (Sparks 2004). Traditional PD has also been critiqued for regularly pro-ducing a ‘knowing–doing gap’ that results in teachers who ‘know’ about a newpractice at a surface level, but lack the deep knowledge and support needed to ‘do’the new practice successfully in their classrooms (DuFour et al. 2005). In contrast,PD that engages teachers as active participants and knowers with experience andexpertise shows more signs of success (Stigler and Hiebert 1999). For example, con-necting to issues of teachers’ own practice has been identified as an important PDcomponent (Wilson 2013, Moon et al. 2014). Garet and colleagues’ (2001) findingssuggested that effective PD is characterized by a holistic focus on content knowl-edge, active teacher learning, coherence with other school initiatives and collectiveparticipation of teachers from schools.

Literature review

Educator professional development via social media

In light of the high levels of dissatisfaction with traditional approaches, interest innew, online PD methods is robust (Dede et al. 2009). Historically, computers haveoften failed to live up to promises that they might transform education (Cuban2003), and some PD has simply transferred traditional, instructor-centered courses toonline formats (Vrasidas and Zemblyas 2004). There is considerable researchconcerning formally organized online PD, with intentional design, direction andfacilitation, and numerous studies have suggested that comparable content delivered

708 J.P. Carpenter and D.G. Krutka

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Elo

n U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

44 1

7 Ju

ly 2

015

via online and face-to-face PD modalities does not yield significantly differentresults (for example, Sujo de Montes and Gonzales 2000, Russell et al. 2009, Dashet al. 2012, Fishman et al. 2013), including quality of participant dialogue (Schlageret al. 2009). Research has also identified cases in which teachers have sustained pro-fessional learning in formal online environments without outside facilitation (Careyet al. 2008). However, there is far less scholarship about the more organic,web-based, informal PD in which educators choose to engage (Lieberman and Mace2010, Seo 2013, Wesely 2013).

The characteristics of interactive web-based tools such as social media align wellwith social constructivist approaches to learning (Vygotsky 1978) because they canfoster spaces rich in discussion and with diffuse leadership where those with knowl-edge of a topic can help others as needed (Gee 2004, Jenkins et al. 2009). Gee con-tended that the Internet offers affinity spaces where people can affiliate aroundshared interests. Such spaces differ from traditional settings limited by hierarchiesand bureaucracies, and potentially encourage those with varying levels of knowledgeto contribute ideas and mentor each other. Social media sites serve as platforms forcontent creation and participation that are fundamentally different from static web-sites or linear, step-by-step webinars. Social media services can be used to harnessthe Web’s interactive and collaborative potential to foster more learner-centeredexperiences, and may therefore hold potential to transform educational processes(Roberts and Butler 2014). Educator access to informal learning opportunities hashistorically been limited (Garet et al. 2001), but social media services present moreavenues for informal PD activities.

Educators tend to have diverse motivations for participating in voluntary onlineprofessional activities. The research of Hur and Brush (2009) on self-generated pro-fessional online communities suggested that teachers participated for five principalreasons: to share emotions, to combat teacher isolation, to experience camaraderie, toexplore ideas and to take advantage of online environments’ affordances. Onlinespaces can offer a degree of anonymity or distance for educators seeking resourcesand support (Hur and Brush 2009). Duncan-Howell’s (2010) survey of participants inthree voluntary online communities indicated sustained interaction and activities thatthe participants considered meaningful PD. Because participation is voluntary andcan occur asynchronously, educators need not worry that they are imposing upon busycolleagues. Participants may also be motivated by opportunities to contribute to theirprofessions through sharing resources and virtually mentoring colleagues (Seo 2013).Furthermore, educators can often appropriate and adapt technologies for their ownprofessional learning purposes. In social media spaces, collective social interaction –rather than elite expertise – is understood to be the source of learning.

While Mason and Metzger (2012) contend that online environments can consistof atomized individuals who seek only to meet personal needs, other research indi-cates that communities can thrive in online spaces. Several studies (for example,Schlager et al. 2002, Ranieri et al. 2012, Lee and Brett 2013, Seo 2013) havedescribed online and social media teacher communities through the lens of Wenger’s(1998) definition of a ‘community of practice.’ Such communities are informalgroups that learn as a collective and feature three key components: a shared interest;sustained community in the form of regular interactions and activities; and a sharedpractice.

Despite the potential for communities of practice to develop online, the literatureincludes descriptions of failed attempts at community-building (for example,

Professional Development in Education 709

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Elo

n U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

44 1

7 Ju

ly 2

015

Karagiorgi and Lymbouridou 2009) and concerns regarding the tendency to romanti-cize online communities (Kreijns et al. 2003, Selwyn and Grant 2009). Additionalconcerns are that online spaces involve too many observers, often referred to as‘lurkers,’ who fail to contribute (Nonnecke and Preece 2003). In sum, the nature ofdifferent online voluntary professional communities and the quality of learning thatemerges from these spaces remain uncertain and varied.

Twitter for professional development

The microblogging service Twitter offers a social media platform for voluntary,online teacher professional activity. As of March 2014, there were approximately230 million Twitter users (Twitter n.d.), making it one of the world’s largest socialnetworking services. Twitter users send ‘short bursts of information,’ known as‘tweets,’ to other users of the service (Twitter n.d.). In addition to text, tweets caninclude images, videos and hyperlinks. Many educators have moved beyond answer-ing Twitter’s original prompt of ‘What are you doing?’ to richer activities (VanDijck 2011), and the education press and various blogs frequently report on educatoremployment of Twitter for professional purposes (for example, Davis 2011).

Theoretically, Twitter offers PD opportunities that differ from traditionalapproaches because of its immediacy, personalization and support of networks thatare less temporally or spatially limited. To date, there has been more research con-cerning Twitter use in higher education than at the K–12 level. For example, whilethere are no published data on rates of Twitter usage among K–12 educators, severalsurveys have gathered data regarding higher education faculty use (for example,Seaman and Tinti-Kane 2013) and found that respondents were more likely to useTwitter for PD than in classroom teaching.

Three studies have been published that specifically analyze the use of Twitter forPD by K–16 educators. Forte and colleagues (2012) used survey (n = 37), interview(n = 8) and content analysis (2000 tweets) techniques to explore educators’ uses ofTwitter. They reported that microblogging offered educators grassroots PD that sup-ported and extended local dialogue, boosted networking and collaboration, andhelped teachers bring new ideas into their schools (Forte et al. 2012). The majorityof teachers surveyed used Twitter to follow educators from outside their school ordistrict, and the authors concluded that these connections created potential for theseusers ‘to be powerful fomenters and enactors of reform in educational communities’(Forte et al. 2012, p. 106). Belying stereotypes that Twitter is dominated by over-sharing of inconsequential personal information, only 2.5% of the analyzed tweetsincluded personal updates.

Wesely’s (2013) research focused on World Language teachers using Twitter forPD. The researcher reported that a democratic and non-hierarchical community ofpractice existed among tweeting World Language teachers, and that this communityserved as a ‘supportive, friendly, knowledgeable, and ever-present network’ (2013,p. 311). Among the participants, feelings of isolation in their school environmentswere important in motivating them to use Twitter. Participants provided examples ofways in which Twitter PD resulted in concrete changes in their teaching and alsodescribed cases of Twitter connections leading to interactions with colleagues in avariety of other formats, such as video-conferencing and face-to-face meetings.

Finally, Risser (2013) analyzed the case of a first-year mathematics teacher whoused Twitter to create an informal professional mentoring network to support her

710 J.P. Carpenter and D.G. Krutka

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Elo

n U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

44 1

7 Ju

ly 2

015

transition into the profession. In contrast to Forte and colleagues (2012), who foundthat resource sharing was the most common Twitter activity for their sample, theteacher accessed her Twitter network mainly to seek information. As a novice, theteacher may not have felt qualified to share and recommend resources, and was, per-haps logically, more motivated to find ideas and materials that would help her estab-lish herself as a competent educator (Risser 2013). Twitter thus appears to have thecapacity to support different PD needs and activities.

While many of the findings on the use of Twitter in education are positive, obsta-cles and challenges have also been noted. Educators are sometimes initially skepticalregarding Twitter’s merits (Chamberlin and Lehman 2011, Seaman and Tinti-Kane2013). The use of Twitter by educators for PD is arguably not consistent with theo-ries and research that suggest PD should be school based and situated within thecontext of the classroom (for example, Hawley and Valli 2007). Although a varietyof pieces explore, advocate for or critique specific uses of Twitter for teaching andstudent learning (for example, Junco et al. 2011), its use for educator PD is lessresearched. Moon and colleagues assert that little is known about how, ‘social mediacapacities interact with teacher learning and whether or how they are in line withestablished ideas about professional learning in general’ (2014, p. 175).

Our research thus seeks to offer insights into how educators are using the socialmedia service Twitter to further their PD. We hope that shedding light on our largesample’s motivations, uses, trends and opportunities might help educators, teachereducators and others involved in educator PD (re)consider how Twitter mightcultivate PD opportunities. We sought to answer the following research question:How and why do educators use Twitter for PD?

Methods

We designed a survey to collect both qualitative and quantitative data about educa-tors’ (e.g. K–12 teachers, administrators and professors in higher education, amongothers) uses and perceptions of Twitter (see Appendix 1). Our own experiences withTwitter, and existing information on educators’ uses of Twitter, informed our initialsurvey draft. We sought feedback on this draft from four educators known to usbecause of their active professional use of Twitter. Based on their feedback, minorrefinements were made. The survey had three parts: informed consent information;demographic items; and items eliciting Twitter usage information. Carpenter andKrutka (2014b) report and analyze the general results of the survey. The surveyincluded one open-ended prompt, which asked respondents to ‘Please explain whataspects of Twitter you find most valuable, and why.’ Although 755 individuals com-pleted the survey, this paper focuses on the 494 responses to this prompt that relatedto PD.

Soliciting respondents

We tweeted an invitation and link to the survey for five weeks in the spring of2013; our sample is thus one of convenience. In our invitation tweets, we includededucation-related hashtags such as #edchat and #edtech. Hashtags are used by edu-cators on Twitter to mark tweets as pertaining to certain topics. Using a variety ofhashtags provided the survey with visibility across a broad range of educators wellbeyond just our followers. We tweeted the invitation at various times of day and on

Professional Development in Education 711

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Elo

n U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

44 1

7 Ju

ly 2

015

each day of the week. We asked several prominent educators on Twitter to retweetthe link to the survey to their followers. Invitations to complete the survey were alsoposted to several other online collaboration spaces for educators, including profes-sional social networks associated with social studies and English. We closed thesurvey after the response rate slowed.

Sample

In total, 755 educators responded to the survey. The sample is non-random; we donot claim that it represents all educators who use Twitter. Data regarding the overallprofile of educators using Twitter are unavailable, making it impossible to determinehow representative our sample is. The sample was approximately two-thirds womenand 92% White. As Table 1 shows, respondents were in the vast majority from theUnited States, with smaller numbers of participants from Canada, the United King-dom and Australia and a smattering of respondents from another 22 countries. Interms of content areas, the largest numbers of respondents identified themselves withsocial studies, English, mathematics or science. Teachers and administrators togethercomprised more than two-thirds of respondents, with teacher educators andlibrarian/media specialists also well represented in the sample (see Table 2).

In some ways, our sample did not reflect general trends in Twitter usage. In theUnited States, Twitter is more commonly used by people under 30 years old(Duggan and Smith 2013), but this trend was not apparent in the sample. Seventypercent of respondents were in their 30s and 40s, with smaller percentages at theyounger and older extremes (see Table 3). Also, the respondents reported higherusage rates of social media than is the norm among the general adult population inthe United States (see Duggan and Smith 2013), with 84% using Facebook, 59%Pinterest, 43% Linkedin and 33% Instagram.

Table 1. Respondents’ countries of residence.

Country of residence Percentage of respondents

United States 86Canada 6United Kingdom 3Australia 2

Note: Venezuela, France, Indonesia, Ireland, Korea, Mexico, Poland, Portugal, Austria, China, Finland,Lithuania, Spain, Turkey, New Zealand, Norway, Philippines, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Singapore and SouthAfrica all less than 1%, cumulatively 3%.

Table 2. Respondents’ current professional roles.

Professional role Percentage of respondents

Teacher 55School-level administrator 10Teacher educator 10District-level administrator 6Librarian/media specialist 5Education consultant 3Other 11

712 J.P. Carpenter and D.G. Krutka

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Elo

n U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

44 1

7 Ju

ly 2

015

Our sample reported involvement in a variety of PD activities. On average, theyindicated participation in 5.8 different types of PD. This included more traditionalPD such as district-provided or school-provided workshops and education confer-ences, as well as newer PD modalities such as professional learning communities(Table 4). The sample showed strong signs of self-motivation, with 40% indicatinghaving taken part in voluntary, non-traditional types of participant-driven PD suchas ‘Edcamp’ and ‘TeachMeet,’ and 38% reporting independent study.

Data analysis

Sixty-nine percent of survey respondents answered the optional open-ended prompt‘Explain what aspects of Twitter you find most valuable, and why.’ We began withinitial coding of these responses, and 96% of the responses were tagged with one ormore code related to PD. The remaining responses only addressed uses of Twitterwith students and/or families, and were not analyzed for this paper. PD-codedresponses were moved into a separate spreadsheet, and we then engaged in morefocused coding as data were compared and categories refined using the constantcomparative method (Charmaz 2006). We discussed emerging themes and graduallydeveloped a tentative set of codes. We checked our dataset again based on theseemergent categories, before confirming our final codes (see Table 5) and doing onefinal re-coding of data.

Table 3. Ages of respondents.

Age range Percentage of respondents

18–22 123–30 1531–40 3841–50 3251–60 1261 or above 2

Table 4. Responses to question about professional development participation: ‘In what typesof PD do you participate? (Check all that apply).’

Type of PDPercentage ofrespondents

District-provided or school-provided workshops or trainings 86Workshops or trainings outside district or school 80Professional learning community (PLC) 68State or national-level conferences 61Teacher collaboration other than PLC (e.g. lesson study, criticalfriends group)

40

Edcamp, TeachMeet, other types of unconferences 40Independent study 38Online or blended coursework through university 27Online, blended or face-to-face courses not through university 22Face-to-face coursework at university 20

Professional Development in Education 713

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Elo

n U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

44 1

7 Ju

ly 2

015

Limitations

Studying social media such as Twitter can be challenging due to the persistentlyshifting social media landscape; both technical features and users’ habits can changein short order. This research thus presents a snapshot of educators’ perceptions ofTwitter PD at a particular time. Our research is also limited by reliance upon a self-report survey and non-random sampling. The respondents’ actual tweets were notanalyzed. Those who responded to the survey were possibly among the moreenthusiastic users of Twitter, and thus may not fully represent the larger populationof microblogging educators. Our sampling method was unlikely to capture theperspectives of educators who have tried using Twitter for professional purposes anddecided it was not beneficial. While survey respondents were overwhelmingly fromprimarily English-speaking countries, Twitter is widely used in many countrieswhere English is not the first language. Educators in some of those countries maypossibly be using Twitter for PD in ways, or for reasons, that this paper did notcapture.

Results

Educators reported utilizing Twitter for PD in diverse ways and for a variety ofreasons, but several themes emerged from our data. Our sample prized Twitter forits personalized, immediate and interactive nature, and many respondents conveyedthat interactions via the platform offered superior PD to traditional approaches.Respondents valued how Twitter provided access to others who shared worthwhileinformation and knowledge, as well as relationships and even community. Thereappeared to be an overlap at times between respondents using Twitter to seek andshare information/knowledge and relationships/community. A number of respon-dents highlighted how connections via Twitter eased various forms of isolation andhelped connect them with valued colleagues and education leaders. Fellow Twitterusers were also credited with providing information of education trends, particularlyin the area of technology. Educators expressed appreciation for Twitter connections

Table 5. Code set and examples.

Code Example data

Affordances ‘Instant access to amazing minds for almost any conceivable classroomneed’

Chats ‘Weekly chats make me reflect on my own practice and search out newideas’

Knowledge and informationResources ‘Twitter is an invaluable source of accessing and sharing resources’Ideas ‘I have had the chance to bounce ideas off of others I respect’Current ‘I feel it keeps my teaching practice current’Technology ‘It is the main place I go for technology ideas and information’

Relationships and communityIsolation ‘Administration can be lonely … Twitter has eased that feeling of isolation’Connection ‘A great way to connect and expand my thinking on various ed topics’Positive ‘I have found an outstanding, passionate group of educators who inspires me’Similar ‘I have networked with like-minded professionals’Different ‘I can access many different viewpoints rapidly’

714 J.P. Carpenter and D.G. Krutka

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Elo

n U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

44 1

7 Ju

ly 2

015

with educators from beyond their own schools and districts, both those who werelike-minded and those with different points of view.

How and why educators use Twitter for professional development

Carpenter and Krutka (2014b) reported the quantitative data from the surveydescribing how respondents indicated they used Twitter for professional purposes ingeneral; we summarize a few key points here to provide context for further explora-tion of how and why they used Twitter for PD. Respondents accessed Twitter fre-quently and for a variety of purposes. A combined 84% of respondents reportedprofessional use daily or multiple times per day. Participants’ levels of experiencewith Twitter varied widely, with the modal time using Twitter being one or twoyears (see Table 6). Many educators indicated using Twitter for personal purposesbefore initiating professional use.

Respondents stated that they employed Twitter for an average of 4.7 differentprofessional purposes. Most popular were uses related to PD, including resourcesharing and/or acquiring (96%), collaboration with other educators (86%), network-ing (79%) and participation in Twitter chats (73%). Other uses such as communica-tion with students (23%) and parents (18%), and in-class (17%) and out-of-class(16%) activities with or for students, were relatively less common (Table 7). Datatherefore indicated that for our sample PD uses were by far the most popularprofessional application of Twitter. These PD activities included both synchronous(e.g. Twitter chats) and asynchronous uses. They also included information-focusedactivities (e.g. sharing and/or acquiring resources), relationship-focused activities(e.g. networking) and activities that potentially combine these two elements(e.g. collaboration with other educators, Twitter chats).

Table 6. Length of time using Twitter for professional purposes.

Length of time Percentage of respondents

Less than 6 months 23Less than 1 year 23Less than 2 years 25Less than 3 years 143 years or more 16

Note: Rounding led to a sum of 101% for the percentages in this table.

Table 7. Types of professional use of Twitter.

Professional purpose Percentage indicating use for given purpose

Resource sharing/acquiring 96Collaboration with other educators 86Networking 79Participate in Twitter chats 73Backchanneling 30Emotional support 25Communication with students 23Communication with parents 18In-class activities for students 17Out-of-class activities for students 16

Professional Development in Education 715

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Elo

n U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

44 1

7 Ju

ly 2

015

Sixty-nine percent of the 755 survey respondents provided responses to theopen-ended prompt ‘Please explain what aspects of Twitter you find most valuable,and why,’ and 96% of those comments addressed PD in some way (n = 494). Thefollowing sections address themes that emerged from these data.

Twitter’s affordances

Seventeen percent of the respondents indicated that they used Twitter in part becauseof affordances that make it efficient, accessible and/or user friendly. Given thedemands on their time, Twitter’s short format and continuous stream of activityseemed important to many respondents:

Twitter gives me quick access to resources that would take me hours to find andanalyze. (Social studies teacher)

I like the short format with links. It is a quick way to review a lot of potential ideas.(Science teacher)

Twitter is 24-7 PD which I can do from home, school, public transport – anywhere!(Elementary teacher)

Different respondents characterized Twitter as ‘real-time’ and ‘on-demand,’ with‘instant access,’ ‘any time of day, any day of week.’ Twitter was praised for provid-ing ‘constant opportunities for learning’ that educators can take advantage of‘quickly and on the go.’

In addition to affordances related to efficiency, a number of respondents alsonoted how they valued Twitter as a means of ‘filtering’ or ‘vetting’ web content. Forexample, one respondent explained that Twitter was ‘better than Google for findingmaterial and resources relevant to my needs,’ because content was recommended byfellow educators whose curation of content she had grown to trust.

Twitter’s interactive features also appeared to be important to many respondents.One teacher educator liked how Twitter allowed her to ‘question and react’ to peopleand ideas. Other respondents mentioned that, ‘It is easy to toss out a problem andget a quick response or crowd source opinions,’ and ‘When I have a question, it getsanswered. Sometimes, I don’t even need to ask the question and I get an answer!’One English teacher gave a specific example of asking a question via Twitter: ‘Mystudents wanted to create video content one day. They needed resources for multipleplatforms … I tweeted a request for recommendations and we had tons within 5minutes.’ Twitter thus appears capable of supporting interactions that facilitateprofessional learning.

Advantages of Twitter professional development

Many respondents appreciated the personalization and differentiation afforded byPD on Twitter. While traditional PD frequently features one-size-fits-all methodswith pre-determined foci, one teacher explained that Twitter offered the ‘most per-sonalized form of PD I have ever had.’ Rather than being beholden to set programsand schedules, Twitter allows for participation ‘as often/much as I want’ and ‘whenthe situation calls for it.’ A respondent commented ‘It’s empowering,’ and anotherpraised Twitter as providing access to a ‘continuous stream of relevant professionalconversations that I can tweet my way into, if I choose.’ Eight participants explicitlystated that Twitter provided the best PD they had experienced in their careers,

716 J.P. Carpenter and D.G. Krutka

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Elo

n U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

44 1

7 Ju

ly 2

015

making comments such as ‘Twitter is the best PD for educators’ and, ‘It hascompletely changed my outlook and knowledge base like no other medium I haveencountered.’

Among the respondents who were enthusiastic about Twitter PD, many comparedit favorably with other PD modalities. For example, one respondent described Twitteras being ‘far superior, with respect to improving as a professional, to school and dis-trict “traditional” PD offerings.’ Other teacher comments included the following:

I have learned more in the last 6 months from #4thchat, than any other training.(Elementary teacher)

I can differentiate my own PD when school and district PD seems to be tailored forthe lowest common denominator. (Science teacher)

A number of the respondents in our survey thus saw clear benefits to Twitter PDwhen compared with other options available to them.

Eight percent of respondents explained ways in which Twitter allowed them toprovide what they perceived as meaningful support to colleagues and/or contribu-tions to their profession. For example, a science teacher commented that she appre-ciated how, via Twitter, ‘I can find resources to aid my colleagues,’ and a Music &Arts teacher wrote ‘I like to help others out when they have questions.’ A numberof respondents made similar comments about feeling that using Twitter to shareresources with other educators was meaningful, with one special education teacherexplaining that ‘I get a great sense of satisfaction out of sharing ideas.’

Twitter can thus serve not only as a means to find information, but also to giveback, and as one teacher wrote, ‘feel useful.’

Twitter chats

Synchronous chats were mentioned in 19% of responses as one of the most interac-tive elements of Twitter (see Carpenter and Krutka [2014a] for a full explanation ofTwitter chats). Various respondents praised chats, using phrases such as ‘fabulous,’‘outstanding,’ ‘highly engaging,’ ‘fast moving,’ ‘on the cutting edge of education’strends’ and ‘the most helpful professional resources I have.’ Chats were described asa ‘sounding board,’ featuring ‘a wealth of information’ and involving ‘lots of shar-ing by all participants.’ One elementary teacher commented, ‘I recently discoveredTwitter chats and am not sure how I got along without them,’ while a social studiesteacher stated, ‘The chats that are held weekly have revolutionized my teaching.’Respondents noted the camaraderie associated with chats, with several also laudingthe caliber of educators participating. For example, one English teacher said chatsfeatured ‘the positive, change agents of education.’ Chats seemed to serve multiplepurposes for some participants, with one respondent explaining that chats ‘combinethe elements of resource sharing, networking, and emotional support.’ Participantsmay thus be motivated by, and benefit from, the information and/or community thatcan be derived from chats.

Twitter for information and knowledge sharing

The most common type of code, referenced in 51% of responses, was sharing and/oracquiring of information and/or knowledge. Within this larger category, 32%mentioned ‘resources,’ 10% ‘ideas’ and 9% both resources and ideas. In the case of

Professional Development in Education 717

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Elo

n U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

44 1

7 Ju

ly 2

015

resources, multiple participants noted that Twitter served as a conduit for informa-tion found elsewhere on the Internet. For example, one teacher wrote, ‘EssentiallyTwitter is the median between us and other resources.’ Respondents appreciated thedifferent content they found through Twitter, particularly articles and blogs(mentioned in 6% and 5% of comments, respectively). Four percent of commentsdescribed how ideas or resources accessed via Twitter influenced lessons orplanning. For example, one social studies teacher valued, ‘Using Twitter to crowdsource units or lessons and share resources for use in class.’ Nine respondents notedhow Twitter facilitated access to information which they would not otherwise havecome upon, making comments including the following:

[Twitter] gives me access to people and resources I may not come in contact with dueto limitations of professional development money.

I am exposed to ideas I may not be otherwise because they come up in my Twitterfeed.

Respondent comments also emphasized how Twitter provided access to particularkinds of information and knowledge. Sixteen percent of respondents valued Twitteras a source of the latest educational information, particularly regarding educationaltechnology. Comments included descriptions of Twitter as providing ‘current,’‘fresh’ and ‘cutting edge’ information. Two administrators made related comments:

I find it useful to hear the ‘zeitgeist’ – what is it that people are talking about.

Twitter keeps me up-to-date on what is happening in education locally, in my state,and nationwide.

Teachers also reported using Twitter for ‘keeping abreast of educational trends’ and‘to make sure that I know what the buzz is.’

Twenty-six respondents credited Twitter with providing opportunities to learnabout educational technology, making comments such as ‘It is the main place Igo for technology ideas and information’ and ‘Almost all of the new techresources I now use I learned on Twitter.’ A number of comments suggested thatparticipants’ involvement with Twitter contributed not just to knowledge ofeducational technology, but also to increased use of technology. For example,different teachers noted how their Twitter activity contributed to ‘helping me tobetter use technology with my students’ and ‘becoming inspired to use moretechnology in the classroom.’

Relationships and community

In addition to valuing the ideas and resources they accessed via Twitter, participantsidentified a number of ways in which the relationships and community it facilitatedwere important to them. Forty-four percent of narrative comments made reference topositive experiences with community, collaboration and/or personal connectionsafforded by Twitter. For example, one teacher explained that Twitter ‘expands thefaculty room’ and a second educator wrote that it had created ‘professional contactsbeyond what I ever could have made face-to-face.’ Nine respondents spoke ofTwitter colleagues becoming ‘friends.’ For example, a humanities teacher explained,‘I have met my close collaborators on Twitter, and they have now become myclosest friends.’

718 J.P. Carpenter and D.G. Krutka

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Elo

n U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

44 1

7 Ju

ly 2

015

One respondent at a newer school noted how Twitter offered access to theperspectives of veteran teachers who were lacking at her school: ‘All 13 of us havebeen teaching less than three years – so it is good to be able to talk to people whohave been around a little longer.’ Other comments on the benefits of Twitter relation-ships included the following:

My best teaching ideas are from connections I have made through Twitter.

I have connected with so many educators through Twitter. Teaching is so much betterpost Twitter.

It’s been great to find people to help me push my thinking about changing my teachingmethods.

Types of educators on Twitter

Another theme in respondent comments was interest in interacting specifically withthe type of educators they reported encountering via Twitter. These educators werecharacterized as ‘generous,’ ‘forward-thinking’ and ‘energetic.’ Multiple respondentsdescribed the environment among tweeting educators as ‘positive’ and ‘optimistic.’For example, one teacher said ‘I like the positive vibe … no complaining or griping,just people working together to learn,’ and another, echoing this sentiment,explained ‘It’s so refreshing to connect to enthusiastic, talented teachers who don’tspend time pissing and moaning about how challenging their situation is.’ Two edu-cators also credited Twitter with helping find a community of educators that ‘lovesteaching,’ while a third respondent wrote, ‘I work in a school in which many teach-ers are just trying to get through the day. Twitter helps me find other teachers whoalso love learning.’

Twitter participants were described as ‘innovative’ by multiple respondents, withone respondent saying, ‘I feel like Twitter helps me connect with people who like toquestion and push boundaries and ideas.’ The word ‘passionate’ was also used bysix respondents to describe others with whom they connected on Twitter. OneEnglish teacher explained that he valued how Twitter helped him find, ‘similarteachers who are driven and passionate and constant risk takers and get things done’(respondent’s emphasis). Additional praise of educators users encountered on Twitterincluded the following comments:

It’s reassuring after a long day of doing what I love, to check in with others who areequally as engaged!

Although I work with some great teachers at my school, I feel not challenged to thinkoutside of the box. Twitter has exposed me to other teachers who are creative andwilling to try new things.

Twelve percent of respondents’ comments referenced valuing the connectionsand conversations Twitter facilitated with educators beyond their school buildings.Interacting with this larger community of educators enabled users to expand andcontextualize their thinking about education. According to one World Language tea-cher, Twitter provided access to ‘new ideas and strategies that I would not havelearned about in my own school,’ and another teacher said it gave her ‘the ability toshare, connect, collaborate, and learn from colleagues I would otherwise not be ableto.’ A science teacher asserted that her Twitter connections outside her district

Professional Development in Education 719

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Elo

n U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

44 1

7 Ju

ly 2

015

‘brings a fresh perspective to what I do in the classroom.’ Respondents mentionedvaluing connections with educators both in other countries (43 comments) and inother regions of their own countries (17 comments). For example, a music teacherwrote, ‘It’s great that I am able to chat with all kinds of educators from all cornersof the world,’ while a teacher in Australia explained that:

I’ve made many connections for Daily 5 Literacy and Numeracy programmes; we’llprobably never have ‘official’ training down here and so I connect with Canadian andUS teachers who are trained and can offer tips/class ideas that support my reading.

Like-minded colleagues and diverse perspectives

Eight percent of comments mentioned the benefits of how Twitter enabled connec-tions to educators who shared similar philosophies and/or interests. In particular,respondents used the phrase ‘like-minded’ 13 times. Representative commentsincluded the following:

I have been introduced to many educators with similar passions as myself and havelearned from their experiences.

It feels like you are part of a network of like-minded people, rather than shouting intothe wind.

Respondents did not, however, only see Twitter as a means to connect withkindred spirits, as 7% of comments also highlighted how Twitter provided accessto a diversity of opinions and perspectives. For example, different respondentsasserted that ‘My thinking is challenged on a regular basis’ and ‘People’s ques-tions/comments provoke rethinking of my positions and practices.’ An instruc-tional coach explained, ‘I even follow people who think very differently from mein the area of education policy just so I can be aware.’ One special educationteacher perhaps summarized Twitter’s capacity to facilitate connections betweenboth like-minded and different-minded educators best, saying: ‘[Twitter] allowsme to connect with educators who not only value education and think like I do,but who also challenge my thinking.’

Twitter: antidote to isolation

Thirty-eight responses (8%) addressed how Twitter helped combat isolation. OneEnglish teacher explained that Twitter, ‘allowed me to communicate with other practi-tioners, which in itself is rare due to the isolating nature of teaching.’ A social studiesteacher noted that collaboration, ‘does not exist in my school, so if I don’t find a PLN[personal learning network] through Twitter on my own, I am isolated,’ and amathematics teacher commented that, ‘Teaching is often done in isolation – we arethe only adult in the room for much of the day. Twitter offers the interaction I needwith adults who understand my experiences.’

Eight respondents who taught in small and/or rural schools or districts commentedthat Twitter helped them overcome isolation associated with such environments, andas one administrator wrote, ‘[Twitter] widens my perspective beyond the silo of mylittle district.’ A teacher commented, ‘The collaboration aspect of Twitter is importantto me … Our staff is very isolated and Twitter has allowed me to collaborate withpeople that I otherwise would not have.’ And a humanities teacher specifically valued

720 J.P. Carpenter and D.G. Krutka

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Elo

n U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

44 1

7 Ju

ly 2

015

how Twitter provided connections to, ‘those who have access to and are using moretechnology than I have access to in a rural setting.’

Nine respondents shared how Twitter enabled them to escape isolation related totheir educational philosophy or methods. For example, one mathematics teacher –who at the time was the only teacher in his district trying a particular pedagogicalinnovation – explained, ‘Twitter is an invaluable source for working/collaboratingwith others who are doing the same.’ A second respondent wrote that Twitter helpedher deal with a lack of openness to change in her school: ‘I work in a schoolwhere’s there’s zero innovation … [Twitter] keeps me on top of my game regardlessof the place I’m in.’ A third respondent described a similar situation:

We have a small staff, and an even smaller pool of educators who are pushing theboundaries of the traditional schooling system. I need engaged, confident, and optimis-tic educators who have tested their lesson plans on students and are willing to share.

Finally, a teacher commented that, unlike at his workplace, ‘I have friends [onTwitter] that “get me” as an educator.’

Twitter helped several respondents combat isolation associated with their contentareas and professional roles. For example, teachers of elective subjects such asClassics, world languages and psychology made comments regarding how Twitterconnected them to content-area colleagues who simply did not exist in their build-ings. Several administrators and librarians who were the only individuals in theirroles in their schools or districts explained that opportunities to network and com-municate with peers via Twitter decreased their feelings of isolation. Two noviceteachers credited Twitter with helping them manage their transition into the profes-sion, one saying that ‘the networking and emotional support were pretty critical as abeginning teacher going through tough times.’ Twitter thus potentially providesaccess to knowledge and/or community for otherwise isolated teachers.

Limitations of Twitter

Given our survey questions and our sample’s voluntary use of Twitter, strong criti-cisms were rare. Three teachers mentioned struggling with the time commitmentthey perceived Twitter to entail. Five respondents identified limitations of contentshared on Twitter, describing it as sometimes being ‘too opinion based,’ ‘not new’and ‘lacking evidence.’ Three educators noted how the tweets’ 140-character limitsometimes compromised the complexity of ideas discussed. One respondent com-mented, ‘[Twitter] doesn’t replace a good day of inservice or a rigorous graduatecourse. Twitter lets me listen in on conversations and sometimes participate in thembut doesn’t have the depth and rigor.’ Respondents were therefore not universallyenthusiastic about every aspect of Twitter.

Discussion

Considering the less than positive reception that much PD receives from educators,the respondents’ enthusiastic reviews for an organic and participatory platform likeTwitter should cause those in the field to take notice. The perspectives of respon-dents suggest not only that Twitter, and technologies like it, have a potentially mean-ingful role to play in educator PD, but so do educators themselves. Care should betaken in generalizing from the data given the non-random sample and the limitations

Professional Development in Education 721

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Elo

n U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

44 1

7 Ju

ly 2

015

of self-report surveys, but our results still yield significant findings in a number ofareas. Many in our sample valued opportunities to engage with colleagues, a factthat seems particularly important given the teaching profession’s historical problemswith isolation (Lortie 1975, Labaree 2004, Dodor et al. 2010). The results of thisstudy are consistent with what scholars have argued about online affinity spaceswhere participatory cultures thrive (Gee 2004, Jenkins et al. 2009). Moreover, whilecritics have questioned whether such online spaces are characterized by limitedcommitments from atomized individuals (Mason and Metzger 2012), our respon-dents frequently referenced sustained relationships, collaboration and communityfacilitated by Twitter.

In a field where burnout, de-skilling and isolation can impair educational pro-cesses, respondents often described Twitter as a space of enthusiasm, invigoration,empowerment and connection. Given the numerous demands placed upon educators,it also seems noteworthy that they voluntarily participate in Twitter PD. In particu-lar, users’ enthusiasm for PD on Twitter contrasts with the all-too-common cynicismregarding traditional PD. Our sample valued the encouraging environment theyencountered on Twitter, which echoed Wesely’s (2013) finding regarding the posi-tive vibe among world language educators on Twitter. Wesely’s non-random samplewas also similar in that there was a common pattern of initial personal use of Twitterpreceding professional use. Consistent with Forte and colleagues’ (2012) findings,many of our respondents were interested in connecting with educators outside theirschools and districts, and were motivated by what they perceived as the qualities ofother educators using Twitter professionally.

There are concerns that social media such as Twitter may exacerbate homophily,the tendency of interpersonal interactions to occur among similar people in waysthat can limit growth (Thelwall 2009). Friesen and Lowe (2012) have suggested thatsocial media often suffers from a lack of the debate and disagreement that can fosterthe dissonance conducive to growth. Although a number of respondents commentedthat Twitter enabled them to connect to like-minded educators, an almost equal num-ber mentioned ways in which Twitter provided them with access to diverse, contra-dictory and challenging perspectives and opinions. Kop (2012) has argued thatsocial media can actually add an element of serendipity to learning, as users may beexposed to unexpected ideas. Because of the open nature of Twitter, and the respon-dents’ references to how Twitter connected them to ideas and people to which theywould not have otherwise had access, it appears that Twitter offers at least somepotential for creating moments of serendipitous learning.

Twitter also seems to support PD that helps educators develop as autonomousprofessionals engaged in continuous learning and improvement (Franke et al. 2001).Yoon and colleagues (2009) found that a substantial time investment is required forPD to affect student learning, and the respondents’ intensive use of Twitter wouldseem to qualify. Respondents were able to point to concrete examples of the impactof Twitter PD on their classroom practices, and referenced cases in which profes-sional connections established on Twitter led to interactions outside that domain, asoccurred in Wesely’s (2013) research. That a number of respondents credited theircolleagues on Twitter with ‘transforming’ and ‘inspiring’ their teaching or providingthe community needed to combat feelings of isolation suggests the medium’s worth.

Rather than seeing PD as something done to them, our sample described PD inwhich they were active, autonomous professionals, in charge of their own learning.

722 J.P. Carpenter and D.G. Krutka

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Elo

n U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

44 1

7 Ju

ly 2

015

Implications for policy and practice

Despite the limitations of our survey, we believe our findings have implications forteachers, administrators, districts and professional developers. Some teachers appearto find alternative forms of PD such as Twitter useful, and administrators couldaffirm such PD by those teachers. Districts and building-level administrators couldcontemplate ways to learn from voluntary teacher professional activity in online set-tings. Twitter PD might count toward teachers’ required hours of PD, and/or becomean optional part of formalized PD plans or processes. This may present significantchallenges given the bureaucratic structures that often dominate PD. It is unclearwhat the place of Twitter PD activity is in the common, formalized recertificationsystems that require participation in recognized programs to maintain licensure.Balancing the needs of such systems with the nature of educators’ informal, volun-tary activity on Twitter may require creative thinking and new approaches. Schools,educators and students, however, may well benefit from school policies and culturesthat encourage positive and professional use of social media.

For teachers unsatisfied with the PD available to them through their school, dis-trict or other conventional avenues, Twitter may offer an efficient and personalizedalternative means of professional learning. If provided with the opportunities to doso, educators could share with colleagues at their school sites some of what theylearn via Twitter (for example, Forte et al. 2012). Leaders and professional develop-ers could also consider ways in which other forms of PD might capture some of thequalities of Twitter PD. Many of those qualities valued by our respondents – effi-ciency, interactivity, personalization, differentiation, community and so forth – maybe transferable to face-to-face situations. For example, the newly popular Edcampand TeachMeet ‘unconference’ models mirror Twitter use in many ways, such astheir informal and participant-driven natures.

Recommendations for research

Much remains to be understood regarding PD via social media such as Twitter.Although this study revealed enthusiasm for Twitter PD among our respondents, evi-dence beyond self-reports of the quality of PD supported by Twitter is scarce.Research on the nature of information shared via Twitter, including its grounding inempirical research, would be beneficial. Many of our respondents may have pre-ferred Twitter PD to other options available to them, but to what degree does thispreference correlate with educator and student learning? Measuring the effects ofPD is a notoriously difficult proposition (Guskey 2000), only further complicated bythe voluntary nature of participation in Twitter PD. Nonetheless, the PD field couldbenefit greatly from research that studies the impact of educator Twitter PD on edu-cator and student learning. In addition, because our survey, like previous research onTwitter PD, only addressed those who used Twitter, there is still much to learn abouthow others will or will not take to the varied uses of the medium. The perspectivesof educators who may have dabbled in Twitter use before giving it up could helpilluminate barriers and limitations of the medium. Finally, given its relatively lowcost, PD via social media such as Twitter could have an important role to play indeveloping countries where budgets for educator PD may be more limited; researchin such contexts could prove beneficial.

Professional Development in Education 723

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Elo

n U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

44 1

7 Ju

ly 2

015

Conclusion

Our large and diverse sample provided a wealth of qualitative data regarding educa-tors’ use of Twitter for PD. Even if Twitter loses its popularity, the need for thetypes of interactions and experiences in PD that participatory social media supportswill probably endure. Although some of those involved in education still dismissTwitter, a body of teacher-tested uses and formal research attests to its educationpotential. In many places, educators have been cut off from the collective wisdom oftheir professional colleagues, but new technologies such as Twitter appear to havethe potential to change this professional isolation. It is unlikely Giroux (1985) couldhave envisioned a medium with a 140-character limit as a possible remedy to themarginalization of teachers over a quarter century ago, but social media platformsmay offer spaces where teachers’ ideas, not hierarchies, are what matter. Outside thenormal PD realm of formal institutions, policies and ‘experts,’ Twitter offersevidence that at least some teachers are not content to simply carry out the objec-tives of others, but instead seek to be intellectuals and leaders in their fields. We arehopeful that the traditional school leadership might take notice and find appropriateways to empower their teachers.

ReferencesBorko, H., 2004. Professional development and teacher learning: mapping the terrain. Educa-

tional researcher, 33 (8), 3–15.Carey, R., et al., 2008. Online courses for math teachers: comparing self-paced and facilitated

cohort approaches [online]. Journal of technology, learning, and assessment, 7 (3).Available from: http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/jtla/article/view/1630 [Accessed 11August 2014].

Carpenter, J.P. and Krutka, D.G., 2014a. Chat it up: everything you wanted to know aboutTwitter chats but were afraid to ask. Learning and leading with technology, 41 (5), 10–15.

Carpenter, J.P. and Krutka, D.G., 2014b. How and why educators use Twitter: a survey of thefield. Journal of research on technology in education, 46 (4), 414–434.

Chamberlin, L. and Lehman, K., 2011. Twitter in higher education. In: C. Wankel, ed. Edu-cating educators with social media. Bingley: Emerald Group, 375–391.

Charmaz, K., 2006. Constructing grounded theory: a practical guide through qualitativeanalysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Clinton, K., Jenkins, H., and McWilliams, J., 2013. New literacies in an age of participatoryculture. In: H. Jenkins and W. Kelley, eds. Reading in a participatory culture: remixingMoby-Dick in the English classroom. New York: Teachers College Press, 3–23.

Cuban, L., 2003. Oversold and underused: computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.

Dash, S., et al., 2012. Impact of online professional development on teacher quality andstudent achievement in fifth grade mathematics. Journal of research on technology ineducation, 45 (1), 1–26.

Davis, M.R., 2011. Social media feeds freewheeling professional development. Educationweek, 31 (9), s13–s14.

Dede, C., et al., 2009. A research agenda for online teacher professional development.Journal of teacher education, 60 (1), 8–19.

Dodor, B.A., Sira, N., and Hausafus, C.O., 2010. Breaking down the walls of teacher isola-tion. Journal of family & consumer sciences education, 28 (1), 1–12.

DuFour, R., Eaker, R., and DuFour, R., 2005. On common ground: the power of professionallearning communities. Bloomington, IN: National Educational Service.

Duggan, M. and Smith, A., 2013. Social media update 2013 [online]. Pew Research Center’sInternet & American Life Project. Available from: http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2013/Social%20Networking%202013_P [Accessed 2 January 2014].

724 J.P. Carpenter and D.G. Krutka

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Elo

n U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

44 1

7 Ju

ly 2

015

Duncan-Howell, J., 2010. Teachers making connections: online communities as sources ofprofessional learning. British journal of educational technology, 41 (2), 324–340.

Fishman, B., et al., 2013. Comparing the impact of online and face-to-face professionaldevelopment in the context of curriculum implementation. Journal of teacher education,64 (5), 426–438.

Forte, A., Humphreys, M., and Park, T., 2012. Grassroots professional development: howteachers use Twitter [online]. In: Proceedings of the 6th international AAAI conference onweblogs and social media, 5–7 June, Dublin, Ireland, 106–113. Available from: http://www.aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM12/paper/view/4585/4973 [Accessed 15 June 2013].

Franke, M.L., et al., 2001. Capturing teachers’ generative change: a follow-up study of pro-fessional development in mathematics. American educational research journal, 38 (3),653–689.

Friesen, N. and Lowe, S., 2012. The questionable promise of social media for education: con-nective learning and the commercial imperative. Journal of computer assisted learning,28 (3), 183–194. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00426.x.

Garet, M.S., et al., 2001. What makes professional development effective? Results from anational sample of teachers. American educational research journal, 38 (4), 915–945.

Gee, J.P., 2004. Situated language and learning: a critique of traditional schooling. NewYork: Routledge.

Giroux, H., 1985. Teachers as transformative intellectuals. Social education, 49 (5), 376–379.Guskey, T.R., 2000. Evaluating professional development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin

Press.Hawley, W.D. and Valli, L., 2007. Design principles for learner-centered professional devel-

opment. In: W.D. Hawley and D.L. Rollie, eds. The keys to effective schools: educationalreform as continuous improvement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press, 117–137.

Hur, J.W. and Brush, T.A., 2009. Teacher participation in online communities: why do teach-ers want to participate in self-generated online communities of K-12 teachers? Journal ofresearch on technology in education, 41 (3), 279–303.

Jenkins, H., et al., 2009. Confronting the challenges of participatory culture: media educa-tion for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Junco, R., Heiberger, G., and Loken, E., 2011. The effect of Twitter on college studentengagement and grades. Journal of computer assisted learning, 27 (2), 119–132.

Karagiorgi, Y. and Lymbouridou, C., 2009. The story of an online teacher community inCyprus. Professional development in education, 35 (1), 119–138.

Kop, R., 2012. The unexpected connection: serendipity and human mediation in networkedlearning. Educational technology & society, 15 (2), 2–11.

Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P.A., and Jochems, W., 2003. Identifying pitfalls for social interactionin computer-supported collaborative learning environments: a review of the research.Computers in human behavior, 19 (3), 335–353.

Labaree, D.F., 2004. The trouble with ed schools. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Lee, K. and Brett, C., 2013. What are student inservice teachers talking about in their online

communities of practice? Investigating student inservice teachers’ experiences in adouble-layered CoP. Journal of technology and teacher education, 21 (1), 89–118.

Lieberman, A. and Mace, D.P., 2010. Making practice public: teacher learning in the 21stcentury. Journal of teacher education, 61 (1–2), 77–88. doi:10.1177/0022487109347319.

Lortie, D., 1975. Schoolteacher: a sociological study. Chicago, IL: University of ChicagoPress.

Mason, L. and Metzger, S.A., 2012. Reconceptualizing media literacy in the social studies: apragmatist critique of the NCSS position statement on media literacy. Theory andresearch in social education, 40 (4), 436–455.

Moon, J., et al., 2014. Beyond comparisons of online versus face-to-face PD: commentary inresponse to Fishman et al. ‘Comparing the impact of online and face-to-face professionaldevelopment in the context of curriculum implementation’. Journal of teacher education,65 (2), 172–176.

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 1996. What matters most: teachingfor America’s future [online]. New York: Teachers College Press. Available from: http://nctaf.org/wp-content/uploads/WhatMattersMost.pdf [Accessed 24 January 2014].

Professional Development in Education 725

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Elo

n U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

44 1

7 Ju

ly 2

015

National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, 2003. No dream denied: a pledgeto America’s children [online]. Washington, DC: Author. Available from: http://nctaf.org/wp-content/uploads/no-dream-denied_summary_report.pdf [Accessed 24 January 2014].

Nonnecke, N. and Preece, J., 2003. Silent participants: getting to know lurkers better. In:D. Fisher and C. Lueg, eds. From usernet to co webs: interacting with social informationspaces. New York: Springer, 110–132.

OECD, 2009. Creating effective teaching and learning environments: first results from teach-ing and learning international survey (TALIS) [online]. Available from: http://www.oecd.org/document/54/0,3343,en_2649_39263231_42980662_1_1_1_1,00.html [Accessed 25January 2014].

Ranieri, M., Manca, S., and Fini, A., 2012. Why (and how) do teachers engage in social net-works? An exploratory study of professional use of Facebook and its implications forlifelong learning. British journal of educational technology, 43 (5), 754–769.

Risser, H.S., 2013. Virtual induction: a novice teacher’s use of Twitter to form an informalmentoring network. Teaching & teacher education, 35, 25–33.

Roberts, S.L. and Butler, B.M., 2014. Consumers and producers in the social studiesclassroom: how Web 2.0 technology can break the cycle of ‘teachers and machines’. In:W.B. Russell, ed. Digital social studies. Charlotte, NC: Information Age, 147–166.

Russell, M., et al., 2009. Face-to-face and online professional development for mathematicsteachers: a comparative study. Journal of asynchronous learning networks, 13 (2), 71–87.

Schlager, M.S., Fusco, J., and Shank, P., 2002. Evolution of an online education communityof practice. In: K.A. Renninger and W. Shumar, eds. Building virtual communities. NewYork, NY: Cambridge University Press, 129–158.

Schlager, M.S., et al., 2009. Analyzing online teacher networks: cyber networks requirecyber research tools. Journal of teacher education, 40 (1), 86–100.

Seaman, J. and Tinti-Kane, H., 2013. Social media for teaching and learning [online].Pearson Learning Solutions and Babson Survey Research Group. Available from: http://www.pearsonlearningsolutions.com/assets/downloads/reports/social-media-for-teaching-and-learning-2013-report.pdf#view=FitH,0 [Accessed 15 January 2014].

Selwyn, N. and Grant, L., 2009. Researching the realities of social software use – anintroduction. Learning, media and technology, 34 (2), 79–86.

Seo, K., 2013. Professional learning of observers, collaborators, and contributors in ateacher-created online community in Korea. Asia pacific journal of education [online].doi: 10.1080/02188791.2013.860004.

Sparks, D., 2004. The looming danger of a two-tiered professional development system. Phidelta kappan, 86 (4), 304–306.

Sprinthall, N.A., Reiman, A.J., and Thies-Sprinthall, L., 1996. Teacher professional develop-ment. In: J.P. Sikula, T.J. Buttery, and E. Guyton, eds. Handbook of research on teachereducation. 2nd ed. New York: Macmillan, 666–703.

Stigler, J.W. and Hiebert, J., 1999. The teaching gap. New York: The Free Press.Sujo de Montes, L.E. and Gonzales, C.L., 2000. Been there, done that: reaching teachers

through distance education. Journal of technology and teacher education, 8 (4), 351–371.Thelwall, M., 2009. Homophily in MySpace. Journal of the American society for information

science and technology, 60 (2), 219–231.Twitter, n.d. About [online]. Available from: https://twitter.com/about [Accessed 15 March 2014].Van Dijck, J., 2011. Tracing Twitter: the rise of a microblogging platform. International jour-

nal of media and cultural politics, 7 (3), 333–348. doi:10.1386/macp.7.3.333_1.Vrasidas, C. and Zembylas, M., 2004. Online professional development: lessons from the

field. Education and training, 46 (6/7), 326–334.Vygotsky, L., 1978. Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Wei, R.C., et al., 2009. Professional learning in the learning profession: a status report on

teacher development in the US & abroad (Technical report). Oxford, OH: LearningForward; Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.

Wenger, E., 1998. Communities of practice: learning, meaning, and identity. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Wesely, P.M., 2013. Investigating the community of practice of world language educators onTwitter. Journal of teacher education, 64 (4), 305–318.

726 J.P. Carpenter and D.G. Krutka

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Elo

n U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

44 1

7 Ju

ly 2

015

Wilson, S.M., 2013. Professional development for science teachers. Science, 340 (6130),310–313.

Yoon, K.S., et al., 2007. Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional developmentaffects student achievement (Issues & Answers Report, REL 2007, No. 033) [online].Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, NationalCenter for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Labora-tory Southwest. Available from: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/southwest/pdf/rel_2007033.pdf [Accessed 2 February 2014].

Appendix 1. Survey items

How long have you been using Twitter?

(1) Less than 6 months(2) Less than 1 year(3) Less than 2 years(4) Less than 3 years(5) 3 years or more

How long have you been using Twitter professionally?

(1) Less than 6 months(2) Less than 1 year(3) Less than 2 years(4) Less than 3 years(5) 3 years or more

Typically, how frequently do you use Twitter?

(1) Multiple times per day(2) Daily(3) Weekly(4) Monthly(5) Frequency of use varies

Professional vs. personal use of Twitter

(1) I use Twitter for professional purposes(2) I use Twitter for personal purposes(3) I use Twitter for professional and personal purposes

For what professional purposes do you use Twitter? *Check all of the reasons that apply.

(1) Resource sharing / acquiring(2) Collaboration with other educators(3) Networking(4) Emotional support(5) Communication with students(6) Communication with parents(7) In-class activities for students(8) Out-of-class activities for students(9) Participate in Twitter chats(10) Backchanneling(11) Other

Professional Development in Education 727

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Elo

n U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

44 1

7 Ju

ly 2

015

If you teach in a school district, what is your district policy on Twitter?

(1) Allowed for teachers(2) Allowed for teachers and students(3) Blocked for everyone(4) Other

Aside from Twitter, what other social media services do you use?

(1) Facebook(2) Pinterest(3) LinkedIn(4) Scoop.It(5) Tumblr(6) Ning(7) Foursquare(8) Instagram(9) Paper.li(10) Course-management system tools (Edmodo, Gaggle, Schoology, MyBigCampus,

Moodle, etc.)(11) Other

Which hashtags do you regularly use, or search for, to connect with other educators?Please use the ‘other’ box to include any other hashtags that you regularly use. Include

multiple hashtags in the ‘other’ box if appropriate.

(1) #edchat(2) #sschat(3) #engchat(4) #scichat(5) #mathchat(6) #ntchat(7) #elemchat(8) #cpchat(9) #satchat(10) #21stedchat(11) #tlchat(12) #mschat(13) #edreform(14) #edpolicy(15) #ccss(16) #gtchat

Please list the hashtags (e.g., #edchat) for any moderated weekly/monthly chats in whichyou regularly participate:

Please explain what aspects of Twitter you find most valuable, and why.

728 J.P. Carpenter and D.G. Krutka

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Elo

n U

nive

rsity

] at

17:

44 1

7 Ju

ly 2

015