Twitter Paper

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/311843077
Using Twitter for education: Beneficial or simply a waste of time?
Article in Computers & Education · March 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.004
CITATIONS READS
20 1,494
2 authors:
Ying Tang Khe Foon Hew

The University of Hong Kong The University of Hong Kong
6 PUBLICATIONS 29 CITATIONS 132 PUBLICATIONS 3,444 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Use of ICT in Singapore kindergartens View project
The Educational Use of Social Media View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Ying Tang on 23 February 2018.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Computers & Education 106 (2017) 97e118
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Computers & Education

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compedu
Using Twitter for education: Beneficial or simply a waste of

time?
Ying Tang*, Khe Foon Hew
Division of Information & Technology Studies, Faculty of Education, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: Twitter, a popular microblogging social networking site, allows individuals to communi-
Received 27 July 2016 cate by sending short messages of up to 140 characters. Although it enables people to be in
Received in revised form 8 December 2016 constant contact, its value in educational context is less clear. This paper is the first to
Accepted 11 December 2016
examine empirical studies of using Twitter in teaching and learning over 10 years from
Available online 12 December 2016
2006 to 2015, with the aim of understanding whether its implementation would benefit
students or not. We identified a total of 51 eligible publications, and reported the analysis
Keywords:
in four major categories: (a) the profile of studies, (b) the specific ways in which Twitter
Social media
Education
was employed in education, (c) the impacts on interactions, and (d) the impacts on stu-
Interaction dents' learning outcomes. The findings reveal that Twitter was most commonly used for
Learning communication and assessment purposes. Although Twitter shows promise in improving
Twitter interactions among learners and teachers, causality between Twitter use and learning
performance remains to be conclusively established. Currently, the most beneficial use of
Twitter is probably that of a “push” technology e such as the instructor sending important
course information, homework assignments and test deadlines to students, as well as that
of a platform for peer interaction. Many challenges still exist in using Twitter for teaching
and learning. Based on our review of the literature, we proposed five guidelines that could
help promote the educational value of Twitter use. We also identified several limitations of
previous studies, and offered suggestions for future work.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
Since its inception in 2006, Twitter has opened up a new channel of information dissemination, and has seen tremendous
user growth (Java, Song, Finin, & Tseng, 2007). It is one of microblog services that allow users to send and receive information
real-time, on the website, from mobile applications, or via SMS messages. Individuals only need a valid email address to sign
up for an account and set up personal profiles as directed by the system. On its main page, Twitter invites users to share
“what's happening?” with pictures or videos, and limits the message, or so called “tweet”, within 140 characters. Apart from
large-scale public communication, private messaging is also available. Users can subscribe to others' posts by “following” the
particular individuals, re-share tweets by simply clicking on “retweet” (Kwak, Lee, Park, & Moon, 2010), and “like” a particular
tweet as what they do on Facebook. Users can also specifically address other users by adding @ in front of other's username,
and to generate a thematically focused discussion topic led by a “#”. As of 2015, Twitter has attracted more than 320 million
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: yingtang@connect.hku.hk (Y. Tang), kfhew@hku.hk (K.F. Hew).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.12.004
0360-1315/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
98 Y. Tang, K.F. Hew / Computers & Education 106 (2017) 97e118
active users per month (Twitter, 2015). Twitter's simple interactivity has made it one of the major social network sites in the
world.
Teachers have exploited Twitter use in classrooms in various studies, in terms of durations, disciplines, and activities. As
Haythornthwaite (2016) presented in a case study of social media tools in higher education, Twitter is among the top two
tools which educators have expressed inclination to use in their future classrooms, ranked before other popular SNS tools
such as Facebook. To date, many articles reviewing the use of Facebook in education have been published. Scarce attention,
however, has been paid to the review of Twitter use. Many published articles reported empirical studies of Twitter; but very
few provided a comprehensive review of Twitter use.
In order to meaningfully incorporate Twitter in teaching and learning, it is imperative that we know what has been done
successfully and what can be further improved. However, no up-to-date empirical literature review has been done in this
regard over the recent ten years since Twitter went into market. Hence, a comprehensive and critical review in this regard
would be timely to provide a panoramic picture of the current situation and to discuss the role of Twitter in teaching and
learning.
1.1. Previous reviews of Twitter in education contexts
For our corpus of empirical studies, we focused on peer-reviewed journal articles. Searching for peer-reviewed publica-
tions is a useful criterion for selecting studies of sufficient quality (Korpershoek, Harms, de Boer, van Kuijk, & Doolaard, 2016).
Please see the Method section for more information the data collection process. However, published review articles of Twitter
from conference proceedings or book chapters were read. The information from these review articles was used as background
information in our study.
Four relevant prior reviews of Twitter are summarized in this section. Shabgahi, Shah, and Cox (2013) compared micro-
blogging practices in organizational and educational settings. However, the authors did not provide in-depth analysis of its
educational practices and impact. For example, the authors merely listed the various themes of Twitter use in higher edu-
cation (e.g., learning community, sustained interaction, collaborative learning) but did not explain how these uses were
actually carried out in practice.
Alias et al. (2013) analyzed studies published in seven selected journals from 2007 to 2012. They reported that the main
issue discussed in these journals was the user's perceptions on using Twitter. However, the sample of studies in Alias et al.
(2013) was very small; only four. Furthermore, the authors did not provide any description of how Twitter was employed
in actual practice. Buettner (2013) examined a total of 17 journal articles and classified them according to the types of research
methods (e.g., case study, experiment), and subject disciplines (e.g., engineering, information sciences). However, no sys-
tematic review on the impact of Twitter on student outcomes was conducted.
Gao, Luo, and Zhang (2012) examined 21 articles published in 2008e2011. The authors identified multiple contextual
characteristics of educational microblogging practices, and reviewed how educators and researchers integrated micro-
blogging to achieve different educational goals. They reported Twitter is beneficial to expand learning communities, and to
increase participation and engagement. While this review is more comprehensive than the other reviews (Alias et al., 2013;
Buettner, 2013; Shabgahi et al., 2013), it lacked a systematic review on how Twitter may impact the various aspects of in-
teractions (e.g., learner-content interaction, learner-learner interaction, learner-instructor interaction). Only one experi-
mental study was found that examined the effect of Twitter-based activities on student learning outcomes, which limits our
understanding of whether the use of Twitter may benefit or harm student learning.
1.2. The present study
In our present study, we address all the aforementioned limitations. First, this paper is the first to examine empirical
studies of using Twitter in teaching and learning over 10 years from 2006 to 2015, with the aim of understanding whether its
implementation would benefit students or not. We identified a total of 51 eligible publications, and displayed the analysis in
four major categories: (a) the profile of studies, (b) the specific ways in which Twitter was employed in education, (c) the
impacts on various aspects of interactions, and (d) the impacts on students' learning outcomes. Second, we discussed several
emerging trends of Twitter use in education over the last 10 years, and highlighted one unresolved issue related to using
Twitter. Third, we proposed five guidelines of using Twitter in educational contexts based on the empirical findings of
participants' experiences and suggestions for improvements.
We believe that this review will enable educators to better understand how Twitter is being used in teaching and learning,
and its benefits (if any). This review also helps educators to see what others have recently done with Twitter successfully; this
would subsequently enable educators to critically transfer the positive elements. Examining the actual use of a certain tool in
practice is always more inspiring than imagining their potential use (Selwyn & Grant, 2009). Finally, this review provides a
critique of previous studies which would help educators and researchers define future research directions pertaining to
Twitter use in teaching and learning.
2. Research questions
This review sought to address the following research questions:

Y. Tang, K.F. Hew / Computers & Education 106 (2017) 97e118 99
1) How was Twitter used for teaching and learning between 2006 and 2015?
2) What are the impacts (if any) of using Twitter on learner-interface, learner-content, learner-instructor, and learner-learner
interactions?
3) What are the impacts (if any) of using Twitter on learning outcomes?
4) What guidelines for implementing Twitter use in education can be drawn from the literature?
3. Methods
3.1. Eligibility criteria and data collection
Guided by the research questions, the following inclusion criteria were applied:
1) The empirical research must be conducted with Twitter, or Twiducate (www.twiducate) a close variation of Twitter that
provides a more secure interaction space for K-12 students as the major technology used in instruction. Studies that deal
with other tools, such as Facebook, blogs, Wikipedia, were excluded.
2) The empirical research must be conducted in educational settings. Articles that deal with cultural, library or political
studies were excluded.
3) The empirical research must clearly describe how instructors or students used Twitter, or how Twitter may affect in-
struction and learning. Articles that merely described the analyses of posts' content were excluded.
4) The empirical research must include empirical findings with actual data. Articles that present personal opinions and
theoretical argumentations were excluded.
5) The empirical research must be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Books, book chapters and conference proceedings
were excluded. However, review articles on Twitter from conference proceedings or book chapters were read. The in-
formation from these review articles was used as background information in our study.
The search for eligible articles was managed in two stages. First we searched with keywords “Twitter or microblog*” in the
following six databases: Web of Science, Academic Search Complete, Academic Search Premier, Communication and Mass
Media Complete, ERIC, and MEDLINE. The preliminary search yielded 7168 results, of which 42 being identified eligible for
review. At the second stage, a snowball sampling was conducted by inspecting the reference sections of the 42 articles, and 9
more were identified. Therefore, a total of 51 papers were reviewed and analyzed. An overview of selected studies is pre-
sented in Table 1.
3.2. Data analysis
Each of the selected papers was read completely by the first author and the relevant information was extracted using a
table consisting of the following sections:
1) General information e author, publication year, country of study, education setting (e.g. higher education, secondary
school), subject discipline, and data source.
2) Research population e number of participants, and duration of the study.
3) Use of Twitter e description of how Twitter was used.
4) Major findings of each study.
We found that a majority of studies were descriptive in nature. Only six studies utilized an experimental design approach
that compared the use of Twitter versus non-Twitter use, and that employed objective learning outcomes measures such as
test scores or semester GPAs. Because of the lack of experimental studies, a meta-analysis was not conducted. Instead a
narrative review was carried out to synthesize the previous studies.
In order to address the first question regarding the various ways of Twitter use in education, we referred to three studies to
guide our initial coding. They are: (a) Cheung and Hew's (2009) categorization of using mobile technology in education, (b)
Veletsianos' (2012) classification of scholarly practices on Twitter, and (c) Haythornthwaite's (2016) interpretation of social
media use in higher education from teachers' perspective. We referred to these three studies for the following considerations.
First, one driving force of Twitter's popularity is the development of mobile technology and devices, which makes Cheung and
Hew's (2009) study highly relevant to our analysis. Second, both Veletsianos (2012) and Haythornthwaite (2016) conducted
their research on either Twitter or social media tools in general in the context of higher education, and concluded several
analytical outcomes related to educational practices of Twitter use. Referring to these three studies would benefit us to
summarize, reflect on and critically conduct our current work. Although these studies were referred, they were not over-
arching frameworks to be followed rigidly and forcefully. Adopting a qualitative design of grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss,
1967), we made constant comparisons (Lincoln & Guba, 1985) to develop relevant themes from the data. We recorded
educational activities when reading each article, compared activities to those in the three reference studies, and cross
Table 1
Overview of 51 selected studies.
Nr General information Research population
First author and publication year Countrya Edu Subject Data Research Sample Duration
settingb sourced typec size
1 Andrade, Castro, and Ferreira (2012). PT HE Mixed QS D 122 n/a
2 Bahner et al. (2012) US HE Medicine QS D 27 10 months
3 Bista (2015) US HE Education CA, RF, QS D 40 15 weeks
4 Blessing, Blessing, and Fleck (2012) US HE Psychology AS, QS C 63 1 semester
5 Cacchione (2015) ES HE Language QS D 62 1 term
6 Carpenter and Krutka (2014) US HE Mixed QS D 755 40 days
7 Charitonos, Blake, Scanlon, and Jones (2012) GB SE History FN, RF, IN, D 29 1 day
CA
8 Chen and Chen (2012) TW HE Research methods FN, CA, IN D 39 12 weeks
9 Cronin (2011) US HE Business QS, CA D 69 1 semester
10 Domizi (2013) US HE Education CA, RF, QS D 16 16 weeks
11 Dunlap and Lowenthal (2009) US HE Instructional technology CA, RF D n/a 1 semester
12 Ebner (2009) AT HE Electrical Engineering and CA, IN D 23 2 class units
Informatics
13 Ebner, Lienhardt, Rohs, and Meyer (2010) AT HE New media CA, QS D 34 6 weeks
14 Elavsky, Mislan, and Elavsky (2011) US HE New media CA, QS D 240 1 semester
15 Evans (2014) GB HE Business QS D 252 12 weeks
16 Feliz, Ricoy, and Feliz (2013) ES HE Social Media and Digital FN, CA D 39 6 weeks
Learning
17 Gunuc, Misirli, and Odabasi (2013) TR PE n/a QS, IN, CA D 51 1 week
18 Hsu and Ching (2012) US HE Mixed CA D 16 9 weeks
19 Johnson (2011) US HE Mixed QS C 120 n/a
20 Junco, Heiberger, and Loken (2011) GB HE Pre-health CA, QS. AS C 125 14 weeks
21 Junco, Elavsky, and Heiberger (2013) GB HE Biology and Microbiology QS, CA C 118/135 1 semester
22 Kassens (2014) US HE Economy AS D 51 1 semester
23 Kassens-Noor (2012) US HE Mixed QS, CA, RF, C 15 4 months
AS
24 Kim et al. (2015) KR HE Engineering AS, QS C 81, 96, 1 term
80
25 Kop (2011) Online HE Instructional technology CA D 377 1 semester
26 Kop, Fournier, and Mak (2011) Online HE Instructional technology CA, QS D 1641 1 semester
27 Lin, Hoffman, and Borengasser (2013) US HE Education QS, CA D 44 1 semester
28 Lomicka and Lord (2012) US HE Language QS, CA D 13 9 weeks
29 Lowe and Laffey (2011) GB HE Business QS, IN D 123 8 weeks
30 Luo (2015) US HE Education CA, RF, QS D 63 15 weeks
31 Luo and Gao (2012) US HE Education CA, QS, IT D 10 1 class unit
32 McArthur and Bostedo-Conway (2012) US HE n/a QS D 144 1 term
33 McKenzie (2014) IE HE History CA D n/a n/a
34 Munoz, Pellegrini-Lafont, and Cramer (2014) US HE Education CA, QS C 56 6 and 16
weeks
35 Perifanou (2009) GR HE Language QS, IN D 10 n/a
36 Pollard (2014) US HE History CA, QS D 370 n/a
37 Prestridge (2014) AU HE Education CA D 180 13 weeks
38 Preston, Jakubiec, Jones, and Earl (2015) CA HE Education QS, IN D 8 1 semester
39 Rinaldo, Tapp, and Laverie (2011) US HE Business CA, QS, IN D 146 2 semesters
40 Rohr and Costello (2015) CA HE Physical education QS D 226 2 semesters
41 Skrypnyk, Joksimovi c, Kovanovi
c, Gasevi
c, and Online HE Education CA D >800 12 weeks
Dawson (2015)
42 Tur and Marin (2015) ES HE Education QS, CA D 153 3 months
43 Van Vooren and Bess (2013) US SE Science AS C 86 4 weeks
44 Vazquez Cano (2012) ES SE Multiple QS, IN, FN, D 280 5 months
RF
45 Veletsianos (2012) Online HE n/a CA D 45 9 months
46 De Waard et al. (2011) Online HE Instructional technology CA D 556 6 weeks
47 Waller (2010) GB PE n/a FN, CA D n/a n/a
48 Welch and Bonnan-White (2012) US HE Sociology & Anthropology QS C 205 1 semester
49 West, Moore, and Barry (2015) CA HE Marketing RF, QS, AS D 411 1 semester
50 Wright (2010) NZ HE Education CA, IN D 8 7 weeks
51 Yakin and Tinmaz (2013) TR HE Computer Application in QS, CA D 48 14 weeks
Social Science
Note. ‘n/a’ indicates information was not unavailable in the cited studies.
a
Country codes according to ISO: Portugal (PT), United states of America (US), Taiwan (TW), United Kingdom (GB), Spain (ES), Turkey (TR), Australia (AU),
Ireland (IE), Canada (CA), New Zealand (NZ), China (CN), Austria (AT), Greece (GR), South Korea (KR).
b
Higher Education (HE), Primary Education (PE), Secondary Education (SE).
c
Descriptive(D), Comparison-based (C) such as experiment, quasi-experiment, historical cohort control.
d
Questionnaire survey (QS), Content Analysis (CA), Reflection (RF), Field Notes (FN), Interviews (IN), Assessment (AS), Class Interaction Transcript (IT).
compared them against each other. If one particular activity was repeatedly identified, we summarized it as one category. Any
new emerging data was compared to previous categories. If it could fit into previous categories, we put them in accordingly. If
otherwise, we listed it as a separate new category. All data was analyzed in this way by the first author exhaustively. Ten
studies were randomly selected and analyzed by the second author to confirm the reliability of the coding process. This
resulted in an agreement rate of 90%. Discrepancies were resolved through discussion until consent was reached.
To answer the second question on how Twitter has impacted interactions, we used Moore (1989) and Hillman, Willis, and
Gunawardena (1994)'s model of interaction to arrange and categorize previous studies in order to understand the possible
impacts (positive or negative) of using Twitter on learner-interface interaction, learner-content interaction, learner-instructor
interaction, and learner-learner interaction. No prior assumptions were generated before the analysis. The results emerged
inductively from inspecting and interacting with real data. Subsequently, based on the findings of previous studies, and
considering possible solutions to challenges of using Twitter, we propose five guidelines to help improve the implementation
of Twitter in education.
4. Results
The topics covered in the 51 studies are categorized into four topics: (a) profile of studies, (b) ways of Twitter use in
education, (c) impacts on instructional interactions, and (d) impacts on learning outcomes. Table 2 shows the summary of
each category and sub-categories.
4.1. Profile of studies
Previous studies demonstrated a great variety from all aspects, such as data types and research durations. Only 9 of the 51
(18%) studies were experimental, and the rest of the studies were descriptive in nature. Therefore, we can hardly draw any
definite causal relationships based on studies that are mainly descriptive. However, some useful characteristics are noticeable,
as discussed respectively below.
First, most of the studies (25/51) were conducted in North America, especially in the United States, followed by European
countries (14/51). This may indicate a possible research gap that Asian countries (4/51) are less sufficiently examined in terms
of educational microblogging practices (see Table 3). Regarding educational levels, 46 out of 51 studies were conducted in
higher education, suggesting that tertiary education has long been the frontline of microblogging integration. Noticeably,
instructors from K-12 education have also begun to embrace this technology, especially after 2012.
Regarding the disciplinary areas, social sciences, especially education, represents the largest body of the literature.
4.2. How Twitter was used
Our analysis revealed six specific ways in which Twitter was used in education: (a) capture and representation, (b)
communication, (c) collaboration, (d) class organization and administration, (e) reflection, and (f) assessment, as shown in
Table 4 with representative examples of activities, as well as representative examples of relevant empirical studies.
Table 2
Summary of major research topics and main findings.
Topics Main findings

Profile of studies - Only 9/51 (18%) studies were comparison-based (e.g., quasi-experiment). The others were qualitative descriptive studies e
e.g. exploratory case studies. These descriptive studies mainly focused on using qualitative self-reported data such as
questionnaires or interviews to examine issues such as students' self-reported perceptions of using Twitter.
- 25/51 (49%) studies were conducted in North America. 46/51 (90%) studies were in higher education.
Ways of twitter use - Six ways of using Twitter in education were found: 1) capture and representation, 2) communication, 3) collaboration, 4)
class organization and management, 5) reflection and 6) assessment.
- Communication and assessment represented the two major ways.
Impacts on interactions
Learner-interface - Overall, the majority of studies reported positive learner responses towards Twitter as a tool. Only 10/51 studies explicitly
expressed concerns over increased workload, privacy, message length limitation, and possible distraction.
Learner-content - A common way in which students engaged with the course content was by paraphrasing key points. Another way in which
students interacted with the content was by stating the key points, and then describing how the content can be applied.
Learner-instructor - Limited evidence suggesting Twitter can foster learner-instructor interaction, but Twitter can possibly facilitate instructor
credibility. Revealing personal instructor information on Twitter can help increase an instructor's perceived credibility by
students.
Learner-learner - Twitter can positively facilitate learner-learner interaction, especially when it attracts outside participants to expand
classroom learning.
Impacts on learning - Twitter could foster positive learning outcomes when it was used as a “push” technology (e.g., sending students useful
outcomes course-content items once a day on average), or a platform for collaboration or for question-and-answer (e.g., as a classroom
response system).
Table 3
Geographic distribution of studies.
Geographic Area Number of studies Percentage

Asian 4 8%
Australian 3 6%
European 14 27%
North American 25 49%
Online 5 10%
4.2.1. Capture and representation

This function refers to learners using Twitter to record media and other sources of data, and showcasing their ideas and
activities. This function mainly utilized Twitter-app on mobile devices. For example, secondary school students in a history
class visited the Museum of London in groups of threes or fours (Charitonos et al., 2012). Each group followed a pre-defined
trail across the Galleries of Modern London and used Twitter to capture objects from museum galleries, answered related
inquiries, and eventually created a presentation (Charitonos et al., 2012). In another study, instructional message design
students were asked to use Twitter to capture real-life graphic designs (Hsu & Ching, 2012). The primary aim of this Twitter-
enabled activity was to extend students' learning context from the classroom to authentic real-world settings. More spe-
cifically, students captured design examples from their daily-life contexts using the on-device camera, concisely commented
on design examples, and shared those examples with the class via Twitter mobile apps. The real-life design examples were
related to the particular week's design topic, such as typography, color, or shape. In both the original and response tweets, the
students were instructed to include a hashtag followed by a designated course-related keyword so their tweets could be
searched and located on Twitter by their peers. The students were also asked to reply to at least two peers' course-related
tweets each week.
4.2.2. Communication
This category includes sharing, discovering, reaching outside, and fostering learning community facilitated by Twitter.
Four specific activities were identified in this category.
Table 4
Ways of Twitter use.
Categories Freq. Subcategories Examples of activities Representative studies

Capture and 2 Using Twitter to capture and present Students capture and post graphic design Cacchione (2015); Hsu and Ching
representation objects and scenes examples collected from real-life environment (2012),
Communication 29 Using Twitter to send subject-related Instructor sends one post every morning with Bahner et al. (2012); Blessing et al.
(information materials (instructor communication additional course materials. (2012); Lowe and Laffey (2011);
sharing about to students) McArthur and Bostedo-Conway
subject-related (2012)
materials) Using Twitter to interact with Students enrolled in a MOOC course can tweet Bista (2015); Cronin (2011);
instructor or peer students freely using a common hashtag. Evans (2014); Kop (2011);
McKenzie (2014); Skrypnyk et al.
(2015)
Using Twitter to interact with outside Students tweet with outside native speakers to Carpenter and Krutka (2014);
people (i.e. people not enrolled in the practice French. Lomicka and Lord (2012);
course) McKenzie (2014)
Collaboration 4 Using Twitter to build on each other's Students each wrote a line and jointly created a Kassens-Noor (2012); Vazquez
efforts common log/diary. Cano (2012)
Using Twitter to negotiate time and Students coordinated time in a volunteer project. Junco et al. (2011), Junco et al.
groups (2013)
Class organization 6 Using Twitter for announcement Instructor sends class announcement, or Junco et al. (2011); Pollard (2014);
and administration (e.g., class administrative matters) assignment/event reminders. Van Vooren and Bess (2013)
Reflection 7 Using Twitter to do self-reflection on Student teachers reflect upon their teaching Domizi (2013); Munoz et al.
practicum practices, field trips, practices. (2014)
course content.
Assessment 17 Using Twitter to conduct in-class Students create tweets using specific contents Cacchione (2015); Luo (2015)
formative assessment activities to learnt during class time; these tweets were
monitor student understanding of projected on the classroom screen and corrected
subject matter by the teacher in real time
Instructor posts surprise questions in-class on Kim et al. (2015)
Twitter.
Students debate and discuss on Twitter Tur and Marin (2015)
Using Twitter to conduct after-class Students answer questions via direct message Chen and Chen (2012)
assessment activities after class (formative assessment).
Students tweet their answers in response to Rohr and Costello (2015)
summative assessment questions which were
worth 5% of the overall course grade
1) Using Twitter to send subject-related materials (instructor communication)
For example, the instructor in Bahner et al.'s (2012) study developed a curriculum of ultrasound concepts and pushed the
content to Twitter@EDUltrasound every morning, with a concentration on a new topic each month. Followers received tweets
“pushed” directly to their mobile devices. Over 80% of students rated the practice and information useful. The instructors in
Lowe and Laffey's (2011) study used Twitter to disseminate further information related to contemporary marketing issues,
alert students to recent marketing events, or send examples of key concepts discussed in class. Students were asked to follow
the tweets of the course. Blessing et al. (2012) sent students course-content items once a day on average over the learning
period, and found that this practice helped students' recall information better. The instructors in McArthur and Bostedo-
Conway (2012) tweeted multiple times a week (usually several time every day) about professional information about his
or her field of study and personal anecdotes. Students were not required to follow. However, most students who had
experienced using Twitter for class purposes were excited about following and corresponding with the instructor on the
microblogging tool.
2) Using Twitter to interact (share information) with instructor or peers
Twitter served as a communicational platform for people to connect and share information either in face-to-face settings
or in online courses. For example, students were encouraged to communicate with their instructor or classmates using
Twitter voluntarily during a 12-week course (Evans, 2014). Students in Bista's (2015) study were asked to log into Twitter
twice a week for 15 weeks to tweet about course-related information such as video links, news related data and research, and
questions related to assignment. Cronin (2011) allowed students to engage in backchannel discourse using Twitter. Back-
channeling via Twitter is an activity that allows students to maintain a dialogue while a class is in progress (Carpenter &
Krutka, 2014). Most of the tweets were related to the class lectures and activities such as students sharing information
about assignment matters (Cronin, 2011). In Kop's (2011) study, students who registered the same MOOC course used Twitter
to connect information from various platforms using a same hashtag. Similarly, Skrypnyk et al. (2015) examined how students
in a MOOC interacted with each other using Twitter. The course instructors initially played a major role in disseminating
course content, but as the course progressed over time course participants were interacting more often with one another
around topics of common interest. The nature of student contribution ranged from sharing information about the weekly
activities, to giving their own opinions or challenging new opinions about the topics being discussed.
3) Using Twitter to interact with outside people (i.e. people not enrolled in the course)
Twitter expanded the spatial limit of classrooms and brought external resources to classroom. For example, McKenzie
(2014) asked history students to use Twitter to interact in class, but the activity ended up attracting external participants
to follow and share content related information, and thus brought back more value to the local learning environment. In
another study, 13 students enrolled in an intermediate level French course at a university in the USA (Lomicka & Lord, 2012).
Over nine weeks of a semester, these students tweeted twice a week with 12 native French speakers in France. Students'
attitude toward the activity was favorable and they were enthusiastic about the opportunity to communicate with native
French speakers in France outside the classroom to continue improving their language study (Lomicka & Lord, 2012). In
perhaps the only study that examined educators' use of Twitter, Carpenter and Krutka (2014) survey of 755 K-16 teachers
found that most respondents (96%) accessed Twitter for professional development purposes. Respondents reported they
mostly shared educational resources with other outside teachers via Twitter. Hashtags appeared to be a unique feature of
Twitter that facilitated these connections among educators with shared interests (Carpenter & Krutka, 2014).
4.2.3. Collaboration
Twitter provided students a means of working together to solve a common problem, or build a common project
(Haythornthwaite, 2016). We categorized collaboration into two clusters: students built on each other's work on a Twitter
project; or they coordinated collaborative details on Twitter, such as time management. In Vazquez Cano's (2012) study,
teachers asked their students to collaboratively write about topics shown in class. Students would each write a piece of text,
build on each other's work and together keep a common history of their learning progress. Students in Kassens-Noor's (2012)
study were required to find and tweet about unsustainable practices in their communities (e.g., buying a paper cup) and
suggest remedies (e.g., bring their own reusable cup to buy coffee). Each answer or response to a tweet had to build upon the
previous tweet by either adding an additional remedy or refuting that the previous tweet contained an unsustainable
practice. Students in Junco et al. (2011) actively negotiated their plan on a voluntary project, as well as formed study groups on
Twitter.
4.2.4. Class administration

This category refers to instructors used Twitter to organize instructional activities, such as sending events reminder. We
separate this function from communication because this category emphasizes more on the purpose of “reminding”, than
“sharing”. Examples can be found in studies of Pollard (2014) and Van Vooren and Bess (2013), in which instructors sent
tweets to remind students of class announcements, assignments, or other learning opportunities. The teachers in Junco et al.'s
(2011) study similarly posted tweets information about assignment due dates, examination reminders, and campus event
reminders.
4.2.5. Reflection
As a part of self-assessment, reflective learning is critically important for students to reflect on their work, and make
decisions to facilitate progress. Twitter encourages learners accomplish this process in a concise way. Domizi (2013), for
example, asked graduate student teachers to tweet at least once a week, to reflect upon course content and their teaching
practices. Most of these graduate student teachers were teaching undergraduate students at the same time; thus they had
frequent opportunities to reflect on and apply the course content to their own teaching and learning situations. The student
teachers were required to post at least one “connection” to Twitter, whereby a connection was a reflection how the course
content relates to the students' practice as an instructor, or how the course content relates to the students' ideas about
teaching and learning in general. Students in Munoz et al. (2014) study had to complete 10 h of lesson observations in a
general education inclusion class where a general education teacher and a special education teacher worked together to
provide educational services to students with or without disabilities. These pre-service teacher students were required to
post at least three original comments about their field experience on Twitter each week and also reply to at least three
comments posted by their peers. Students in Preston, et al. (2015) study were required to tweet at least three times per week
throughout their nine-week Bachelor of Education course. The content of the tweets was to reflect students' personal learning
and ideas relating to each week's course materials. Students found the reflection assignment useful in helping them engaged
with the course material. In addition, reading their peers' self-reflections helped students pick up key points that they had
missed out (Preston et al., 2015).
4.2.6. Assessment
This category refers to evaluation activities conducted between the instructor and students, and among students them-
selves. This is another popular way of using Twitter use in education. Participants used such assessment in different ways. We
grouped these activities into two major clusters as presented below.
1) Using Twitter to conduct in-class assessment activities
Twitter was used to conduct in-class formative assessment, such as the instructor asking questions, or students conducting
debate and discussion. For example, to understand students' real-time level of understanding, the instructor in Kim et al.
(2015) posted surprise questions in-class for students in the form of a quiz on an overhead screen at unexpected moments
during a lecture. Students were asked to submit their answers through a smart phone response system using Twitter. This in-
class assessment activity enabled the instructor to monitor the students' learning, as well as motivated students to pay
attention during lecture. Instead of the instructor asking questions, students in Cacchione's (2015) study were given the
opportunity during a two-hour Italian language lesson to create tweets using specific language contents learnt in the
classroom. The students' tweets, labeled with the class hashtag, were projected on the classroom screen and corrected by the
teacher in real time. Students could also conduct debate and discussion using Twitter (Tur & Marin, 2015) to externalize their
level of comprehension and enable instructors to better monitor their learning process. Students were highly engaged, and
responded positively to such activity.
2) Using Twitter to conduct after-class assessment activities
Another way to use Twitter as an assessment tool is to ask questions after class for students to answer. For example, Chen
and Chen (2012) asked students to answer questions via private direct message after each lecture as a form of formative
assessment. Examples of these questions include what points were most interesting, what points were most confusing, and
what did you want to tell or ask about this session. The questions were sent via “Direct Messages”; thus making them visible
only to the instructor and the individual students who answered the questions on Twitter. Immediate and customized
feedback was provided. Rohr and Costello (2015) employed summative assessment based on assigned course reading and
video on healthy eating. Students were required to tweet their answers in response to questions such as what did you learn
about the nutritional value of food that you maybe did not know before, and what did you learn about the role that vitamins
and vitamin supplements can/do play in a healthy diet. Students' tweets were marked and graded as part of a summative
assessment worth 5% of the overall course grade.
It should be noted that learning is a dynamic and integral process, that sometimes the boundaries of different activities are
not clear-cut. Here we define an activity as assessment-related if it involved monitoring the learning process either in a
formative or summative way. We define an activity as communication-related if it involved information sharing and message
delivery. Reflection is specifically listed as a form of self-assessment where students evaluate their own learning without
others' participation. It is also possible that researchers in one study used Twitter in more than one type of activities. We
treated such cases according to separate activities, meaning the studies were put into different categories as many times as
necessary. That said, further analysis suggested that the two most common ways are using Twitter for communication and
assessment purposes (See Fig. 1).
4.3. Impacts of Twitter use on interactions
Interaction has often been viewed as a core process of teaching and learning since Vygotsky (1978) proposed the view that
learning is an active process of constant interaction in socio-cultural situations. In exploring the role of interaction in course
delivery, Moore (1989) proposed a framework that defined interaction from three dimensions, namely learner-content,
learner-instructor, and learner-learner. This framework has been widely used in educational studies since its conception,
especially in online or distant education over the recent years. Hillman et al. (1994) further developed the framework by
introducing a learner-interface dimension, which emphasized learners' interaction with tools as equally essential in making
content accessible and enjoyable. This framework (Fig. 2) is used to arrange and categorize studies in this review, with the
purpose of understanding possible impacts (if any) of using Twitter.
4.3.1. Learner-interface interaction

The learner-interface interaction is defined as “a process of manipulating tools to accomplish a task” (Hillman et al. p. 34).
It requires a learner to work with the tool interface.
4.3.1.1. Positive responses. Overall, although some concerns were expressed, the majority of studies reported positive learner
comments towards interacting with Twitter. For example, Ebner (2009) reported that all participants loved the new way and
no technical problems were encountered. Participants in Mckenzie's (2014) study reported that interaction with new media
tools such as Twitter could equip them with better future vocational advantages. 84% of participants in Andrade et al. (2012)
study and 81.5% from Bahner et al. (2012) found Twitter user-friendly.
Some studies reported a change of perceptions towards learner-interface interaction. Researchers observed a decrease of
concern and a shift from discomfort to fun (Bista, 2015; Preston et al., 2015; Yakin & Tinmaz, 2013) and an attention-shift from
technological aspects to actual learning elements, as students got familiar with the procedural operation of the technological
platform (Feliz et al., 2013). Skrypnyk et al. (2015) conducted a two-phase comparative analysis, and found that learners who
produced the most number of tweets in the second half of the course were quiet in the first phase. Such a shift indicates
learners' increased digital competencies, as they grew more adept in interacting with Twitter as the semester progressed.
4.3.1.2. Negative responses. Despite the overall positive comments, there were several negative sentiments towards interacting
with Twitter reported in previous studies. These mainly include increased teacher workload, privacy concerns, limited
message length, and possible distractions.
1) Increased workload. Despite the fact that Twitter provided a more individualized channel of providing feedback, the
trainer and trainees had to cope with an increased workload to maintain the flow and spontaneity of interaction (Chen &
Chen, 2012; Ebner et al., 2010). This concern would become more significant if the instructors planned to use Twitter in a
large-size classroom with a huge volume of tweetsdteasing out specific tweets to be addressed would pose a serious
challenge to instructors' time (Luo & Gao, 2012).
2) Privacy. Younger learners want to chat with their friends privately (Gunuc et al., 2013). That is why some learners
expressed preference of Facebook over Twitter. Teachers were also concerned about putting their students out there on
the open space of internet (Preston et al., 2015). Therefore, educators have to model and teach their students what
appropriate behaviors are in the digital world. Similar worries were also expressed by adult learners. They intentionally
separated their personal Twitter account from school Twitter account. These learners purposely reserved their own
Twitter accounts to share personal information, and used the school Twitter account only for academic-related matters.
Fig. 1. Categories of Twitter use in literature from 2006 to 2015.

Fig. 2. The framework of interactions, adapted from Hillman et al. (1994).
3) Message length limitation. Twitter limits every message to no more than 140 characters. Some participants complained
that this short message restricts in-depth thinking (Kassens-Noor, 2012), as well as causes misunderstanding between
people. For example, in Prestridge's (2014) study, a dialogue between the instructor and a student was misinterpreted
because the instructor did not fully elaborate on the question in her earlier post due to the 140 character limit.
4) Possible distraction. Some participants expressed their concern over the possible distractions that Twitter brings into
the classroom (Rinaldo et al., 2011). Over 55% participants in Andrade et al.'s (2012) study worried that Twitter would
increase the occurrence of side conversation and interrupt class norms. Another complaint is about the large volume of
information transmission, especially when tweets were not professionally related (Lin et al., 2013), although having fun
can help motivate learners' participation (Luo & Gao, 2012). Therefore, how to balance “having fun” and maintaining the
professionalism of educational use of social media is and will continue to be a challenge to researchers and educators.
We also found that primary school students' responses were not as positive compared to university students. For example,
among 51 primary school students (13 years old) who participated in the study, 67% found Twitter not interesting at all
(Gunuc et al., 2013). This finding contradicts with the responses from higher education participants, who normally gave
positive feedback to the use of Twitter. Reasons for the poor uptake of Twitter among primary school students include the
following: Twitter is uncommon among early adolescents, it lacks a chat option, it lacks audiovisual properties, and it is
restrictive for communication due to its message length (Gunuc et al., 2013).
4.3.2. Learner-content interaction

Learner-content interaction here is defined as the cognitive engagement with course content (Moore, 1989), measured by
students' time and effort in educational activities (Kuh, 2009) such as time on task and involvement in academic events. The
two common methods for examining how or whether student engage with the course content are by content analyzing the
students' tweets, and by analyzing the students' self-reported questionnaire or interview data. For example, in a study
involving 180 students in an undergraduate Education course, Prestridge (2014) content analyzed students' posts, and found
that the most common way in which students engaged with the course content was by paraphrasing key points (i.e., restating
the course content in their own words) during a lecture. Holmberg (1986) described paraphrasing as an internal didactic
conversation where students talk to themselves about the information they encounter. Paraphrasing helps makes students
thinking explicit, as well as builds their metacognitive skills (Prestridge, 2014). Another way in which students interacted
with the content was by applying the key points mentioned in the lecture e students first stating the key points, and then
describing how the content can be applied (Prestridge, 2014). Learning processes such as analyzing how course content can be
applied represent higher levels of learning cognition (Jonassen, Howland, Moore, & Marra, 2003).
Junco et al. (2011) and Junco et al. (2013) examined the use of Twitter for various types of academic and co-curricular
activities with the experimental group, such as continuing in-class discussions after classes, allowing students to ask ques-
tions, and reminding students with campus events like concerts or volunteer opportunities. The researchers employed the
NSSE (national survey of student engagement) (Kuh, 2009) instrument to measure learners' engagement in pre- and post-
tests. Their studies showed that when using Twitter was a requirement, students' engagement levels increased signifi-
cantly and students yielded higher semester grade point averages than students who used Ning or did not use any social tool.
Welch and Bonnan-White (2012), however, rejected the assumed positive contribution of Twitter to learner-content
interaction. They asked the Twitter group to post responses to seven writing assignments to course Twitter backchannels,
while the control group did the assignments in class. The Twitter-group could also ask questions and seek help from the
instructor on Twitter. The researchers used the First Year Experience Questionnaire (FYEQ) developed by Krause and Coates
(2008) to measure students' engagement. No significant effect was found on students' engagement when results were
compared examining Twitter-group and non-Twitter group. Two possible explanations were discussed. First, students
experienced a lack of familiarity with Twitter. Second, students were reluctant to adopt unfamiliar tools to class activities, and
adjust their expectations towards the new classroom routine (Welch & Bonnan-White, 2012).
4.3.3. Learner-instructor interaction

Can Twitter facilitate learner-instructor interactions? Answer to this question is currently limited. So far, only one study
(Prestridge, 2014) explicitly examined this issue; while many others tended to focus on learner-learner interaction (see the
following section). The instructor in Prestridge's study employed the use of participatory pedagogies to initiate and support
discussions. More specifically, participatory pedagogies can be defined as teaching that recognizes students as knowledgeable
agents (Askins, 2008), where the instructor avoids projecting his or her position on a topic and encourages the student to
voice their opinions. Substantive interaction between students and the instructor was found when students initiated a
dialogue by tweeting a question, and the instructor responded by questions to extend students' thinking (Prestridge, 2014).
This finding, although limited to only one study, suggested that Twitter can foster learner-instructor interaction via the use of
participatory pedagogies.
Instead of directly examining whether Twitter facilitates learner-instructor interaction, other researchers were keen to
determine if the micro-blogging SNS can promote instructor credibility or instructor immediacy. For example, Johnson (2011)
investigated whether tweeting social, scholarly, or a combination of social and scholarly information had an impact on the
instructor's perceived credibility. Social information was defined as tweets about the instructor's family and activities outside
the classroom, while scholarly information consisted of tweets pertaining to the instructor's teaching and research activities.
Teacher's perceived credibility was measured using a three-item scale that measured competence, trustworthiness, and
caring (McCroskey & Teven, 1999). Results showed a significant difference between students who saw only the social tweets
and students who saw only the scholarly tweet; but no significant differences between students who saw a combination of
social and scholarly tweets and the other groups. These results suggested that revealing personal information on Twitter can
help increase an instructor's perceived credibility.
McArthur and Bostedo-Conway (2012) examined the possible relationship between instructor use of Twitter and
immediacy. Teacher immediacy was defined as the perceived intensity and interaction between the teacher and the students
(Mehrabian, 1967). It was measured using the Nonverbal Immediacy in College Classroom Instruction scale developed by
Smythe and Hess (2005). More specifically, this scale measured student perceptions of the teacher's non-verbal behaviors in
classroom such as instructor smiling and gesturing. Interestingly, the results revealed that students perceived more instructor
demonstrations of non-verbal actions in the classroom if the instructor interacted with them on Twitter. Reasons for this
relationship are currently unclear as no explanations were furnished by the authors.
4.3.4. Learner-learner interaction

Interaction among learners themselves is becoming more and more evident in digitally mediated learning environments
today. Students are no longer passive recipients of the instruction, but also active scaffolders of each other's learning. The
presence of the instructor is not always necessary for students to exchange ideas within groups constructed by themselves. By
and large, previous studies found that Twitter can positively facilitate learner-learner interaction within the course (e.g.
Domizi, 2013; Dunlap & Lowenthal, 2009; Ebner, 2009; Hsu & Ching, 2012; Perifanou, 2009; Rohr & Costello, 2015; West et al.,
2015).
A surprising consequence of using Twitter is that the technology may sometimes attract outside people (i.e., individuals
not enrolled in the particular course) to participate in the class discussion through the use of hashtags. People would search
for hashtags they are interested in, and joined the discussion. For example, when McKenzie (2014) did a historical simulation
on Twitter with college students, the hashtags #pariscommune and #stalinsim had attracted outside users to follow and
participate in the discussion within 24 h. The hashtags successfully coordinated class as well as outside participants into a
focused discussion. In another study, after the course instructor tweeted about current events concerning certain products or
brands, the companies of these products began following the professor's tweets (Rinaldo et al., 2011). Subsequently, after
students began following these outside people or companies, the students began sharing the information gained from those
tweets with the professor and the class. Students learned from the experience how marketing professionals used social media
to monitor customer reactions in real world.
4.4. Impacts on learning outcomes
The possible causal effects between Twitter use and students' learning will be drawn from the nine studies with
comparative analysis of learning outcomes with and without Twitter intervention. However, in order to generate conclusion
with adequate rigor, we only included studies that assessed learning outcomes using objective measures, such as assessment
scores in quizzes and tests, semester GPAs, or task completion and quality. Studies that relied on students' self-reported data
using questionnaire on learning outcomes were excluded. Such criteria being applied, only six out of the nine experimental
studies utilized objective measures. Therefore, these six will be reviewed and discussed in this section. A summary of Twitter-
supported educational activities and learning outcomes can be found in Table 5. Overall, these six studies suggested that
Twitter has the potential to promote positive learning outcomes.
First, using Twitter as a form of “push” technology appears to engender positive student learning. Specifically, in this
approach, an instructor used Twitter to send important course content, homework assignments and test deadlines to stu-
dents. This not only helps deter memory loss of essential learning content, but also urges students to meticulously plan and
study for the coming tests ewhich probably explain the superior learning outcomes. One such study was conducted by Van
Vooren and Bess (2013) in K-12 settings. 86 eighth grade science students were grouped into Twitter and non-Twitter group.
Table 5
Twitter impact on learning outcomes (results from comparison-based studies).
Nr Study Did Twitter group achieve better than non-Twitter group? (Yes/ Twitter-supported educational activities
No)
1 Blessing Yes The experimental group received both informative and humorous
et al. (2012) Students remembered tweeted topics significantly better. course-related tweets once per day on average. The control group
received humorous tweets that were not course-related once a day
on average. Students were asked to recall content in tasks later.
Students received an informative tweet related to course content
once per day on average.
2 Junco et al. Yes The experimental group used Twitter, and the control group did
(2011) GPAs of experimental group were significantly higher than those not. Twitter was used in various activities, such as:
of the control group. - Support in/after class discussions
- Ask and answer questions
- Send class/event reminders
- Connect and collaborate in projects
3 Junco et al. Yes The experimental group used Twitter, and the control group used
(2013) GPAs of the Twitter group were significantly higher than those of Ning. Twitter was used in various activities. Such as:
the Ning group. - Support in/after class discussions
- Ask and answer questions
- Send class/event reminders
- Connect and collaborate in projects
4 Kassens- Yes Twitter group was asked to post tweets about unsustainable
Noor (2012) The Twitter group found more unsustainable practices and more practices and suggest remedies (communicate on Twitter), while
remedies per practice. the non-Twitter group kept daily diaries, and discussed for 30 min
period during class time.
5 Kim et al. Yes This study used a historical cohort control design. Twitter used as a
(2015) Students who were involved in Twitter activity this year achieved class response system in 2012. During the lecture, the professor
higher exam scores than those of the previous year who did not poses surprise questions via twitter, and students would answer
adopt the method. these questions. The previous year (2011) cohort had the same
instructor and lecture curriculum but did not use Twitter.
6 Van Vooren Yes Students received tweets four to five times per week after school
and Bess Twitter group outperformed the control group in two tests by 6% hours to be reminded about homework assignments and test
(2013) and 8%. deadlines. The control group did not use Twitter.
The Twitter group would receive five tweets per week from their instructor, about course information, assignment de-
scriptions and test deadlines. The tweets content would be orally transmitted in class and written on the board, but the non-
Twitter group would not receive any such reminders. Students took two standardized tests during the four-week inter-
vention. Test grades showed significant correlation between Twitter use and students' test performancedthe Twitter group
outperformed the control group in two tests by 6% and 8% respectively.
Blessing et al. (2012) randomly assigned psychology students to two different Twitter feeds. The researchers also used
Twitter as a pushing device to remind students of course concepts. More specifically, the experimental group received hu-
morous but course-related tweets while the control group received just humorous tweets. At four points during the semester,
students completed a cued recall task based on the previous three to four chapters of course material. The researchers used
the information provided on the cued recall activity to assess if the students who received the course-related tweets were
more likely to think about the concepts contained within those tweets than the students who received just the joke tweets.
Results found that students in the Twitter group significantly remembered key course concepts better than the control group.
Second, using Twitter as a platform for peer collaboration or for question-and-answer appears beneficial for student
learning. As Twitter is able to support continuous conversations among participants, students can get peer support anytime
anywhere as they choose to. As well, such continuous communication allows students to generate reciprocal learning ses-
sions. In other words, they can actively utilize the feedback and build on original ideas, thus potentially produce deeper
thinking. According to the tweets analysis by Junco et al. (2011, 2013), a group of students set up study groups via Twitter and
worked on their projects collaboratively with Twitter feeds. They also encouraged each other with as needed emotional
support. Both studies reported that when faculty required students to use Twitter and actively interact with students, the
semester GPAs of experimental group were significantly higher than those of the control group. Additionally, Kassens-Noor
(2012) asked students to find unsustainable practices in real life, and come up with remedies in groups. The results show
students in the Twitter group generated more team-created solutions to problems than the control group.
5. Discussion
To recap the highlights of this synthetic analysis, we conclude that the contexts of using Twitter for education are
increasingly broadened and diversified; and educators mainly used Twitter for purposes of assessment and communication.
In the following sections, we discuss several pertinent issues or questions concerning the use of Twitter. These include: (a)
The emerging trends of Twitter use in education over 10 years from 2006 to 2015; (b) Impacts of using Twitter, and (c)
Guidelines for educational use of Twitter.
5.1. Emerging trends of Twitter use in education over the last 10 years
It has been 10 years since Twitter was first launched in 2006. Educators seem to be increasingly enthusiastic about
embracing this technological tool and applying it in teaching and learningdfor example, 35 of the 51 (69%) studies were
published between 2012 and 2015. We identified several trends as well as one unresolved issue of using Twitter according to
studies reviewed.
1) Educational setting.
Although traditional face-to-face teaching and learning represents the largest portion, more cases of Twitter use are
situated outside formal higher education contexts. In particular, the expansion of online education and blooming of Massive
Open Online Courses (MOOCs) encouraged educators to use Twitter more actively, as suggested by the several distance
education cases, mostly after the year of 2011. Tertiary education is still the major arena for the utilization of instructional
technologies, but more educators in primary and secondary school levels appeared to embrace Twitter in their instruction,
especially in the year of 2012 and 2013. We noticed that of the 5 studies conducted in primary and secondary school settings, 4
were published in 2012e13. In contrast, there was only one study examining Twitter in the primary and secondary school
setting prior to 2012 (i.e., in 2010).
2) Subject disciplines.
The utilization of Twitter in education started and grew in the field of social sciences and humanities throughout the last
ten years. However, with the increasing familiarity of Twitter with educators and researchers, more disciplines outside of
social science and humanities began the exploration. For example, medical teachers are also showing positive attempt to use
Twitter, in order to supplement classroom instruction and to build a professional community among practitioners and
medical students. Bahner et al. (2012), for instance, chose one particular medical topic each month and sent relevant tweets to
students every morning. All studies conducted with the STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) disci-
plines were after the year of 2011.
3) Research design.
Descriptive studies were mainly conducted in the earlier years. These studies largely focused on examining students' or
teachers' self-reported perceptions of using Twitter. Since user perception towards Twitter can decide their attitudes and
subsequent use of Twitter, early researchers felt it was worth studying user perception of the microblogging tool. Moreover,
the use of descriptive research in the early years of Twitter was expected as researchers were only beginning to understand
how Twitter was employed in education; an area of study one in which important variables and processes have yet to be fully
developed and understood. The use of descriptive research can help highlight the important variables that will eventually be
used to measure cause and effect. However, there were more studies in recent years that utilized the experimental research
design to assess the effectiveness of using Twitter on student learning outcomedall experimental studies were published
after 2011.
4) Ways of using Twitter.
Even though by nature Twitter is a social media tool, instructors in recent years not only paid attention to its commu-
nicative and participative properties, but also utilized it for other varied purposes, such as conducting assessment. The
function of Twitter was therefore not limited to disseminating information or sharing resources. As earlier mentioned in the
previous section, instructors used Twitter as a formative assessment platform to gather students' instant feedback and re-
action towards teaching and learning. They also designed assessment practices, such as pop quiz, after-class responses, which
were more summative in nature.
5) Challenges and concerns of using Twitter.
Some challenges had been identified from the early stage of Twitter implementation, such as participants' unfamiliarity
with the tool, the information overload, and the imbalance of contribution among users. However, more questions emerged
as the research on Twitter progressed over recent years. For example, as Twitter is no longer a novel technological tool for
communication, questions were raised about whether it is actually utilized by students as a learning tool. If yes, to what
extent should the instructor be involved in Twitter interactions, what types of interactions occurred, and how to sustain the
interactions to better facilitate learning? Is Twitter merely a supplementary means of interaction, or does it have the potential
to replace learning management systems such as Blackboards or Moodle?
6) Unresolved issue related to using Twitter
Over the years, one issue remains unresolved concerning the use of Twitter in educational contexts. This issue is related to
Twitter's restriction of each post to a maximum of 140 characters. This limit is among the most debatable topics of Twitter use.
Among those who favor the limit, Gunuc et al. (2013) purported that although some students expressed distress with the
limit, it actually propelled them to think critically and creatively. The same idea was also suggested by Kassens (2014),
indicating that the brevity of tweets forced students to think and express in a concise way, thus developed their reflection and
writing skills. For instructors, they also had to think how to give feedback and simply and directly (Pollard, 2014). Therefore,
the 140 characters limit prevented long-winded comments and encouraged concise expression. It also reduced the time and
effort people would have to spend on following up conversations, thus alleviated the pressure of getting tiredly involved.
However, according to those who opposed the limit, it restricted in-depth thinking and could cause misundertanding among
participants (Kassens-Noor, 2012; Prestridge, 2014). It is, of course, possible for an instructor to include hyperlinks in her or
his tweets in order to give more information about the content of the tweets. Nevertheless, this may cause inconvenience to
the participants as clicking on the hyperlinks will bring them out of Twitter to other sites. As of now, there is no definite
conclusion whether the 140 character limit benefits or impairs students' thinking and interaction. Perhaps it is profitable for
future research to examine the specific conditions (e.g., what types of activities) that could best be supported by the short
length of Twitter messages.
5.2. Impact of using Twitter
Most studies reported positive results regarding learners' interaction with the Twitter interface, and the ability of Twitter
to promote learner-content and learner-learner interactions. We also found that a majority of the studies reported positive
results in terms of students' attitude towards using Twitter in class. However, these results should be treated with cau-
tionddo participants really perceive Twitter use positively? Or do participants rate it well because their instructor chose to
use it in classroom? The problem is that the inferred data were mainly self-reported, as gathered from questionnaire surveys
or interviews. Self-reported data have two major limitations. First, according to Cook, Campbell, and Day (1979), subjects
usually tend to report what can positively reflect their ability or beliefs, or what they believe what can make the research
results look good. Second, people may not be able to recall their memory accurately, and thus its reliability is weak (Hancock
& Flowers, 2001).
Previous studies also suggested that Twitter could foster positive learning outcomes when it was used as a “push”
technology (e.g., sending students useful course-content items once a day on average), or a platform for collaboration or
question-and-answer (e.g., as a classroom response system). This finding, although interesting and helpful, should be viewed
with some caution. First, there was only a very small number of rigorous comparison-based studies (n ¼ 6) such as quasi-
experiment or randomized experiment that assessed actual learning outcomes using objective measures (e.g., test scores),
instead of using student self-reported perceptual data.
Second, the duration of these six studies were short, usually not more than one semester long. Short-term studies are more
prone to suffer from novelty effect (Hew, 2009). Novelty effects with newer media such as Twitter can be a confounding
variable because of the tendency of participants to pay increased attention to technology new to them (Clark, 1983). Such a
possibility has been surfaced by Junco et al. (2013) who suggested that novelty effects could explain students' increased
enthusiasm to use Twitter compared to their counterparts who did not use the platform.
Third, several studies that reported positive learning effects provided the Twitter groups with additional content or ac-
tivity which were not made available to the control groups. For example, in Kim et al.'s (2015) study, Twitter was used by the
instructor as a class response system to test students' understanding of course contents. Of the students sending the correct
answer, a few were awarded points, on a first-comeefirst-served basis. These points accounted for about 13% of the final
grade. The use of a Twitter-mediated response system motivated students to concentrate on the lecture contents. The pre-
vious year's class had the same instructor and lecture contents, but did not use any class response system. The use of the class
response system provided an advantage to students who had access to it, compared to those who had not. Therefore, the
positive learning outcomes might not necessarily be attributed to the use of Twitter per se. Still, despite the cautionary note,
empirical findings so far suggest that the using Twitter is a boon rather than a bane for learning. None of the studies reported a
detrimental effect on learning.
5.3. Guidelines for educational use of Twitter
Based on the previous research findings on the participants' (students and instructors) qualitative comments, suggestions
for improvements, as well as solutions to challenges, we propose a set of guidelines for using Twitter in educational contexts.
Our goal is not to provide an exhaustive list of guidelines or to conclusively establish the effectiveness of these guidelines.
Rather our aim is to offer a set of “take-aways” that reflect current conceptions of what could maximize the learning op-
portunities afforded by Twitter.
1) Provide information and technological training sessions, as well as interaction opportunities prior to class.
In spite of the growing interest, Twitter does not seem to have a comparable level of prevalence in academic settings as
compared to Facebook. For instance, prior to their study, Bahner et al. (2012) found more than 55.6% of participants had not
used Twitter before, and Chen and Chen (2012) reported only 18 out of 39 had prior experience using microblogging services.
In Kassens-Noor's (2012) study, the ratio of inexperienced users was 10/15. In Rohr and Corstello's (2015) study, although 79
participants had accounts prior to the course, 94% of them never used it as a learning tool.
Only when participants realize its potentials in educational use and proactively utilize it in class activities, can Twitter be
proven to be an effective learning tool. However, current studies show that neither instructors nor learners are automatically
adept to use Twitterdthey have to be more prepared with basic operational skills and interactive features (e.g., mechanism to
follow other people, understanding the use of hashtags) before they can fully exploit the resources channeled through
Twitter. Basic information and training sessions are still needed in most cases. By doing this, students who are not familiar
with Twitter will be less intimidated, and be more ready to use it. In addition, instructing students to display their images in
the Twitter feed would help students recognize each other and see each other as real (Rohr & Corstello's 2015). This could
enhance the social presence in the Twitter environment.
2) Provide clear description of Twitter-related educational activities.
Previous research has indicated that participants tended to rate Twitter more positively once they got familiar with the
interface, and were able to shift the attention from using this technology to actual knowledge building. However, participants
also expressed concerns, primarily related to distraction issues. It is therefore critical for instructors to use Twitter with clear
educational purposes (Junco et al., 2013). In other words, Twitter tends to be more useful, if both students and instructors
choose to be more involved, with clearer expectations of using Twitter for educational purposes. With a clear understanding
of what is expected, students will be more ready to participate in the Twitter-related activities, and achieve the expected
learning outcomes. In Table 4, we categorized and listed examples of educational activities of using Twitter in classroom,
which can suggest ideas to teachers who are considering using Twitter. Teachers can modify or apply these activities directly
in their future practices. In addition, it is advisable to define a hashtag for the course and use this hashtag in every tweet. The
use of a hashtag not only allows students to follow the tweets easily, but also helps the instructors to search for the hashtag on
Twitter to see and monitor what is being tweeted (Lowe & Laffey, 2011).
3) Consider making Twitter mandatory.
When the instructor made tweeting mandatory, or assigned marks for tweeting that counted towards students' final
grades, participants expressed fewer complaints and negative comments, and tended to rate Twitter positively and use it
more frequently. For example, Rohr and Costello (2015) assigned two tasks to be done with Twitter over two semesters in
2014 and found 73% learners tweeted more than the minimal requirement. Similarly, Yakin and Tinmaz (2013) asked four
students to tweet a topic about course content each week, and the rest to comment on the topic. The researchers found a rise
in Twitter use frequency along the semester, as well as students' perception about Twitter as a learning tool to increase course
effectiveness. However, student participation would be less satisfactory if tweeting was voluntary. For example, Pollard (2014)
used Twitter to interact with students about course announcements and resources. Only 40% of students chose to follow the
class Twitter account voluntarily.
Although giving course credits for Twitter usage may be a useful way to motivate students to tweet, some students may
merely contribute superficial or surface-level posts. Some students might merely play the game of assessment by tweeting
comments that are simply a rehash of some other students' contributions in order to get the marks. To alleviate this problem,
giving additional marks for tweet quality would help. For example, students in Rohr and Costello's (2015) study needed to
demonstrate their thoughts about the topic for the quality component. For instance, tweeting “68% of our class gets enough
sleep” would not get full marks but tweeting “68% of our class gets enough sleep which can help people focus and be more
alert all day” would get a better mark. Also, tweets that are simply a rehash of other students' comments might be awarded a
zero, but tweets that build on what others have said be awarded higher marks.
4) Provide regular academic and personal support.
Instructors still play a central role in classroom activities, as faculty engagement is essential in ensuring students feel
connected to the course instructors. When instructors regularly posted information on Twitter about academic enrichment
opportunities on campus (e.g., location and hours of tutoring center) in response to students' requests for help, or gave
encouragement on the platform when students reported feeling stressed out, there is an increase in student engagement and
grades that was not seen when faculty rarely interacted with students on the platform (Junco et al., 2013). Instructors can also
provide regular academic support by tweeting about contemporary examples or issues related to the course content to help
arouse and stimulate student interest in using Twitter (Lowe & Laffey, 2011). However, to avoid information overload due to
over tweeting, Lowe and Laffey (2011) suggested that instructors post these contemporary examples of issues around three to
five times per week. Students also expect that their tweets be recognized and evaluated by their instructors. Timely feedback
will encourage students to be more engaged. Rohr, Costello, and Hawkins (2015) suggested breaking up large classes (e.g.,
400) into groups of 80 students, and assigning each group to specific teaching assistants. This first point-of-contact provided
students with clearer guidance to course content and helped to ensure consistent feedback throughout the term.
5) Provide access to broader learning communities.
It will be beneficial for students to receive more related information and broader knowledge span, if instructors can
provide information of getting access to other learning communities. For example, instructors at different colleges and
universities could coordinate their use of Twitter, thereby creating a larger virtual community (Wessner, 2014). For instance, if
Introduction Chemistry were offered at institution A and institution B during the same semester, then the professors teaching
the courses could arrange the use the same hashtag. Students and professors could then participate in a common discussion
throughout the semester. Separate classes, at separate institutions, could partner to form a larger virtual community via
Twitter, thereby providing students with a richer educational experience (Wessner, 2014). Some of the tweets contributed
from these larger virtual communities can be brought back into the regular class for further discussion. This would help
supplement the regular classroom teaching and encourage class involvement in using Twitter (Lowe & Laffey, 2011).
5.4. Suggestions for future research
We offer the following suggestions for future research. First of all, as noted most studies were conducted in North America
especially the United States. Since other socio-culturally diverse settings were much less explored, Twitter's educational
potentials are therefore, incompletely discussed. Considering the diverse educational settings, instructional traditions, and
different classroom dynamics, other settings such as Asia, are also worthy of careful investigation. We therefore need to
broaden the cultural contexts within which research on Twitter is conducted in order to make more direct comparisons of the
microblogging tool across different cultures.
Second, longitudinal studies are rare. A longitudinal study is any study where “information is repeatedly collected,
overtime, on the same sample of individuals” (Goldstein, 1968, p. 65). As mentioned previously, current study periods range
from several days to at most two semesters. As SNS tools have become an inseparable part of students' daily life nowadays, a
longitudinal study can make available the long-term effects of using Twitter. It is necessary to identify any possible detri-
mental consequences before it is utilized massively in the long run. As Hew (2011) suggested, future studies should be
extended to at least more than 2 years.
Third, most studies focused on the general evidence of using Twitter on class level, yet fewer examined students' indi-
vidual changes over time. How their personal learning experience, academic performance, and cognitive levels change along
with the incorporation of Twitter, is still unclear to us. In this regard, researchers may conduct a qualitative content analysis
on individual students' posts, such as their social interactive communication and scholarly posts. An examination of how their
networked relationship developed over time would help as well.
Fourth, little is currently known about how different students experience Twitter and are engaged by it. Preliminary
findings from a study over one semester suggest that using Twitter requires a certain level of educational maturity and is
more appropriate to upper-class and graduate courses (Cronin, 2011). We need more research that identifies distinct
behavioral and performance patterns of participants taking a Twitter-supported course over a long period of time. A cluster
analysis using different performance and behavioral measures can be conducted. This will help us understand how different
students behaved in their Twitter experience according to their daily performance. Such a long-term study can also explain
how each student cluster evolve and derive meaningful lessons to design appropriate Twitter activity to engage different
students.
Fifth, we need more research that examines the perspectives of course instructors' use of Twitter. Almost all previous
studies that we reviewed focused exclusively on students' use of Twitter. Hitherto, the perspectives and experiences of in-
structors' use of Twitter are underrepresented in the literature (Carpenter & Krutka, 2014). So far, only one study conducted
by Carpenter and Krutka (2014) specifically examined the question on how and why educators used Twitter. Future research
can explore how teachers' use of Twitter for professional development affect (or not affect) their actual teaching. Future
research can also examine why some teachers who see value in using Twitter for their own learning choose not to use the
microblogging tool with their students (Carpenter & Krutka, 2014).
6. Conclusion
In this paper, we examined empirical studies related to Twitter use in educational contexts over the last 10 years from
2006 to 2015. Although the number of empirical studies included in this review was deemed sufficient for a thematic analysis
of Twitter use in education, we would like to stress that the results be interpreted with some caution. As with all literature
reviews, the current review does not claim to be comprehensive, but summarizes the research on Twitter in educational
contexts based on the search terms used, the databases included, and the time period of the review. We focused on peer-
reviewed journal articles to select our corpus of empirical studies. Hence, articles in dissertations, book chapters, and con-
ferences were excluded. Although our search criterion has the potential of neglecting some studies, we advocate that it is a
useful criterion for selecting studies of sufficient quality (Korpershoek et al., 2016). Regardless of this limitation, we believed
we have accomplished our aim of helping teachers and researchers understand how Twitter was actually utilized in teaching
and learning, as well describe its benefits, challenges, and potential impacts on learning outcomes. Based on our review of the
literature, we also proposed several guidelines for using Twitter, and offered suggestions for future work. We hope that this
review will promote further research among scholars interested in using Twitter for teaching and learning purposes.
Appendix
Summary of design and findings of reviewed studies
# Study Use of Twitter Major findings

1 Andrade et al. The instructor embedded Twitter into PowerPoint slides of Positive: Most participants rated the practice positively about
(2012). lectures when students could comment and debate in real time. pedagogy, 84% about technology, 82% cognition, and 70%
interaction and positive behaviors.
Negative: 8% didn't think Twitter facilitated note-taking, 48%
did not know classmates better, and 55% worried it
increased the possibility of side conversations.
More males thought Twitter had negative effects.
2 Bahner et al. One tweet was pushed by the instructor every morning, with a 88.9% found Twitter user-friendly, 81.5% rated the information
(2012) concentration on a new topic each month. useful and 59.2% wanted to follow more users.
Students (29.4%) were less likely to use Twitter than non-
students (70%).
Followers were from 6 countries with 3 languages.
3 Bista (2015) Every participant was required to post at least once a week. The Attitude changed from discomfort to fun.
interaction was counted into grades. More than 90% used Twitter to receive quick replies. 80%
wanted to use it in the future. 92.4% viewed it as a learning
tool.
Themes emerged from tweets included questions, discussion,
assessment, and updates.
4 Blessing et al. The experimental group received humorous but course-related The experimental group significantly outperformed the con-
(2012) tweets and the control group received just humorous tweets. trol group by 7%.
Students were asked to recall content in tasks later. Those who monitored tweets at least once a week performed
even better by 11%.
Twitter is an effective tool for memory retention.
5 Cacchione Students tweeted pieces of targeted language to practice content Over 70% students reacted positively about whether they liked
(2015) learned in classroom. it and considered it useful.
The major reason that student did not like it was because they
did not have an account and were not familiar with it.
Students' proficiency levels were increased compared with
previous years.
6 Carpenter and An online survey was administered for 40 days to collect both Respondents reported intense and multifaceted utilization of
Krutka (2014) qualitative and quantitative data about educators' uses of Twitter. the service.
Professional development (PD) uses were more common than
interactions with students or families.
7 Charitonos et al. Students were required to capture objects from museum galleries The content of tweets suggested students were engaged in the
(2012) and tweet to address inquiries (assignments), and create a visit.
presentation. The interactions helped students negotiate and exchange
opinions and improved overall collective learning experience.
A post-visit activity will be in need to mediate learning in
different contexts, and bridge formal and informal learning
settings.
8 Chen and Chen The trainees were asked to answer specific evaluation questions Immediate and customized feedback was provided, but the
(2012) via direct messages after each lecture. The messages were only maintenance of updates required a heavy workload.
visible to the instructor and the student involved. The course content was always accessible and could be
modified constantly.
Participants were engaged in and out of the classroom.
Formative evaluation in this form is more private, recordable
and cooperative.
9 Cronin (2011) Students tweeted backchannel on various topics while the The backchannel can provide insights and feedback in upper
instruction was going on over a semester. level and graduate courses that is not otherwise obtainable.
10 Domizi (2013) Students were required to post at least once a week, to reflect Students' posting frequencies ranged between 9 and 71.
upon their teaching practices and course content.
(continued on next page)
(continued )

47% posts were relevant to the content, and 59% were about
connecting to other students.
67% students felt more connected to content and peers.
11 Dunlap and Students were invited to ask questions, collaborate, share Twitter increased learners' social interactions, enabled stu-
Lowenthal information and etc. On Twitter. dent issues to be addressed in time, encouraged students to
(2009) write concisely and for an audience. It also connected students
with a professional community, supported informal learning
and maintained on-going relationships.
12 Ebner (2009) Students used microblogging to interact with others during the Much more interaction happened between lecturer-students
class. and students-students compared to a usual lecture.
13 Ebner et al. Microblogging was used for documentation and communication. Microblogging fostered informal learning and established a
(2010) process-oriented learning environment.
14 Elavsky et al. Students tweeted freely in a large-lecture course. Twitter encouraged students' engagement and improved
(2011) students' impressions and enthusiasm toward the course and
learning.
15 Evans (2014) Students were encouraged to use Twitter to communicate with A positive correlation existed between the usage of Twitter
tutors and classmates. and students' engagement.
Course related tweets were not related to students' interper-
sonal relations.
Twitter usage did not reduce class attendance.
16 Feliz et al. The instructors designed 5 sets of Twitter activities with 7 per day Students actively participated but had problems in interaction.
(2013) over the 6 weeks. The activities were conducted from Monday to They needed extra guidance and encouragement.
Wednesday, and a web conference would be held every Thursday Students' responses changed from being surprised to being
to review the activities carried out and plan for the next round. adapted naturally.
Students generated more posts than professors, and males
slightly more than females. Older students and students with
lower academic records were less active.
Different devices provided different interfaces and possibil-
ities thus might result in content loss.
The 140-word limit was not a problem in authentic
implementation.
17 Gunuc et al. Students were encouraged to use Twitter for communication. Only 32 tweeted.
(2013) 67% fount Twitter not interesting, and most of students
quitted Twitter after the study.
Students said they would use Twitter if their friends did so.
Students worried about privacy.
Twitter is not as favored by adolescents as Facebook.
18 Hsu and Ching Students were required to tweet at least once per week, with The 140-word limit made tweet less overwhelming.
(2012) graphic designs in real life and personal comments. 78% posts were assignment related.
Twitter promoted authentic connection between students,
and helped build a sense of community.
19 Johnson (2011) Students were divided into three groups to view instructors' Participants who viewed only the social tweets rated the
tweets: one viewed social tweets only, one view scholarly tweets instructor significantly higher in perceived credibility than the
only, and one that view a combination of social and scholarly group that viewed only the scholarly tweets.
tweets. No other significant differences were found among the groups.
20 Junco et al. Students in the experimental activities were involved in multiple The experimental group had a significantly greater engage-
(2011) learning activities. ment than the control group, and higher GPAs.
21 Junco et al. S1: compulsory In S1, Twitter groups' engagement score increased signifi-
(2013) The experimental group used Twitter and the control group used cantly more than the control group.
Ning. In S1, Twitter group had higher overall semester GPAs than
S2: voluntary the control group.
Students could choose to use Twitter or not. In S2, no difference was found in terms of engagement and
Activities were designed by instructors. grades.
Faculty who were more involved would better facilitate
learning outcomes.
Pedagogy had to be guided by theories in order to maximize
the benefits.
22 Kassens (2014) Students were required to accomplish several assignments The word limit forced students to express ideas in a concise
designed with Twitter, including giving reflective comments and way.
answering assessment questions. Twitter use expanded the learning community.
23 Kassens-Noor Students were required to find unsustainable practices in their The control group found less unsustainable practices but
(2012) communities and provide remedies. The experimental group created more remedies (possible reasons: no word limit).
used Twitter to share information and the control group used In the pop quiz, the experimental group reported more team-
traditional diaries. created solutions.
24 Kim et al. (2015) During the lecture, the professor poses surprise questions via Students who were involved in Twitter activity this year
twitter, and students would answer these questions. achieved higher exam scores were higher than those of the
previous year who did adopt the method.
Students rated the Twitter method positively for under-
standing and practicing content.
The activity helped students stay concentrate in a large lecture
setting.
(continued )

25 Kop (2011) Students registered for a MOOC course used Twitter to share Under a common hashtag, Twitter connected different infor-
information. mation shared on various platforms about the course.
26 Kop et al. (2011) Students registered for a MOOC course used Twitter to share Twitter connected different learning tools, and aggregated
information and backchannel class discussion. learning resources.
27 Lin et al. (2013) Tweeting was an extra credit assignment. Students were asked to 16/44 had prior experience with Twitter.
tweet at least 75 times over the semester. The instructor tweeted Students enjoyed Twitter use.
a lot with class-related news, information and announcements. 13 tweeted less than 10 times and 4 contributed more than
100 each.
Students seldom got personal replies. Interaction was not
sustained, meaning no collaboration existed.
Information retweets were common.
Participants concerned about unfamiliarity with the tool, non-
class related distraction, and privacy.
28 Lomicka and Students were required to tweet with native speakers weekly. A sense of community was built on through Twitter
Lord (2012) interactions.
Twitter provided an authentic forum for communication.
29 Lowe and Laffey The instructor used twitter to share with students about events, 65% students voluntarily followed course tweets.
(2011) examples of key course concepts, and issues for introspection. Students did not interact a lot.
Twitter brought authentic learning resources to classroom.
30 Luo (2015) Case 1: Students posted questions and comments anytime during In guided environments, students achieved higher levels of
the lecture. (with guidance) learning, especially with respect to focusing on task and depth
Case 2: Students commented on each other's mock teaching on of thinking.
Twitter. (with guidance) Instructional guidance should always be provided with
Case 3: Students used Twitter for comments and feedback on a salience, explicitness and consistency.
final course project. (without guidance)
31 Luo and Gao The instructor designed 5 activities using Twiducate, a Twitter Twitter responses were more focused and reflective than
(2012) tool, to discuss the use of web 2.0 tools in classroom. Instruction verbal ones.
and questions were provided for students to tweet. Twitter was effective in promoting engagement, interactivity,
informal learning and collaboration.
Students were more positive towards Twitter use in education
after the class.
Students expressed concerns over dealing with potential
distraction, difficulty in teasing out useful posts, balance be-
tween having fun and learning, and designing learning
activities.
32 McArthur and The instructors would tweet several times a week about Teachers' credibility was only improved unless students used
Bostedo- professional matters and personal anecdotes. Students were not Twitter.
Conway (2012) required to read and participate T impact content relevance positively, even if students didn't
use it.
Content relevance and teacher immediacy were positively
correlated with students' perception of Twitter as an interac-
tive learning tool.
Twitter use increased instructor's non-verbal behaviors,
which indicated learner-instructor closeness.
33 McKenzie The instructor used Twitter to simulate two historical events. Twitter resulted an immediate increase in quality and quan-
(2014) Students were asked to tweet twice a day. tity, because of its visible and instantaneous nature.
Students increased time and effort put into the activity since
day one.
The activity immediately attracted outside participants
because of hashtags.
34 Munoz et al. Group 1: Online-Blackboard (OB) Participants tended to interact with people they knew in real
(2014) Group 2: Online-T (OT) life in FT. No real conversation existed between participants in
Group 3: Face-to-face-T (FT) OB. Participants were more involved in OT.
Students were asked to make at least 3 original posts about their The OT group felt the least connected with each other and
field experience, and at least 3 comments each week. satisfied, contradicting results of previous studies.
35 Perifanou Students used microblog to ask for help, share ideas and 90% students expressed enjoyment over the experience.
(2009) information in an Italian language learning class. 60% students said they would come back to the sites after
lesson.
Twitter increased motivation, participation and collaboration.
36 Pollard (2014) The instructor used Twitter to contact students outside of class Only 40% students followed class tweets.
with announcements and additional learning resources. Twitter use was extended later after classes.
Participation was voluntary. Twitter provided better access to both instructors and
students
The word limit encouraged succinct inquiry and response.
37 Prestridge Twitter was used as a pedagogical tool to support interaction and Learner-instructor interaction was the major type. Twitter
(2014) learning. Participation was voluntary. didn't evidently support learner-learner interaction
Twitter was not perceived as a note-taking tool.
The word-limit increased the possibility of misinterpreting
information.
Paraphrasing was the main form of tweets.
(continued on next page)
(continued )

38 Preston et al. Students were required to tweet at least 3 times per week over 9 Most students' attitude changed from being hesitant (word-
(2015) weeks. The Twitter assignments include reflection, analysis on limit and privacy) to positive.
course content, and questions. Students felt more engaged, and developed digital identities
and digital literacy.
39 Rinaldo et al. Twitter was used to send class announcement and course related Students felt more prepared for future careers.
(2011) information. Twitter facilitated class interactions and discussions.
Many students were not familiar with Twitter.
40 Rohr and Two assignments were required to be finished with Twitter. The 79% had prior experience with Twitter.
Costello (2015) assignments were discussions related to course content 73% tweeted more than minimal requirement.
60% didn't feel closer to classmates, but 30% felt closer to
content.
82% rated Twitter use positively
41 Skrypnyk et al. Participants used Twitter as the platform of interactions for an Learners' experiences changed from being overwhelming to
(2015) online course. becoming active.
Hashtags were firstly used to share information, then
extended to form a community.
New authorities emerged, yet the instructor remained
influential.
42 Tur and Marin Students conducted debate activities on Twitter. Students have been highly engaged.
(2015) This activity expanded students learning opportunities with
technological tools.
Students positively responded to the possibility of using
Twitter as a learning tool.
43 Van Vooren and The instructor sent tweets to remind students of assignment and Significant correlation was found between the use of Twitter
Bess (2013) other course information. and student performance. (77% vs. 71%; 75% vs. 67%)
44 Vazquez Cano Multiple activities were designed with Twitter to promote Twitter activities promoted substantial improvement of
(2012) linguistic competence, such as reading assignment summaries reading and writing skills.
with 140 words, create a common history of progress together,
and etc.
45 Velestsianos The study reviewed posts from scholars working in academia, Seven themes were identified: sharing info and resources,
(2012) who used Twitter regularly. expanding learning opportunities, requesting assistance and
offering suggestions, living social public lives, digital identity
management, connecting and networking, and presence
across different SNS.
46 de Waard et al. Students registered for a MOOC course can tweet freely using a Twitter enhanced interaction and communication.
(2011) common hashtag for the course.
47 Waller (2010) Year 2 students used Twitter to evaluate and reflect upon their Students were engaged in authentic writing.
learning. Students developed their digital literacy skills.
48 Welch and Students in experimental group would accomplish 7 writing No significant effect of Twitter on student engagement had
Bonnan-White assignment backchannel with Twitter, while those in the control been found.
(2012) group did the writing traditionally in class. Experimental group Students who enjoyed Twitter reported higher level of
could also used Twitter to live communicate, and instructor also engagement.
posted course related information on Twitter. Problems of implementation included students' lack of fa-
miliarity towards Twitter, and their reluctance to adopt it in
classroom.
49 West et al. Students were required to actively tweet at least 10 times over Students felt more connected to their professor and
(2015) the semester. classmates.
Prior Twitter literacy of female students is positively influ-
enced their Twitter use experience.
Males' tweeting frequency is significantly related to their final
grades.
50 Wright (2010) Students reflect upon their practicum experiences on Twitter The word-limit honed participants' reflective thinking.
platform. Twitter built a sense of community among students and
supported peer learning. Students can learn from others'
experience.
51 Yakin and 4 students were responsible to tweet a topic every week, and More students used Twitter as the assignment were carrying
Tinmaz (2013) other students would comment. out.
More students believed Twitter as a learning tool.
Students agreed that Twitter increased course effectiveness
Less students concerned about distraction as the assignment
were carrying out.
References
Alias, N., Sabdan, M. S., Aziz, K. A., Mohammed, M., Hamidon, I. S., & Jomhari, N. (2013). Research trends and issues in the studies of Twitter: A content
analysis of publications in selected journals (2007e2012). Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 103, 773e780.
Andrade, A., Castro, C., & Ferreira, S. A. (2012). Cognitive communication 2.0 in higher Education: To tweet or not to tweet? Electronic Journal of E-Learning,
10(3), 293e305.
Askins, K. (2008). In and beyond the classroom: Research ethics and participatory pedagogies. Area, 40(4), 500e509.
Bahner, D. P., Adkins, E., Patel, N., Donley, C., Nagel, R., & Kman, N. E. (2012). How we use social media to supplement a novel curriculum in medical
education. Medical Teacher, 34(6), 439e444. http://doi.org/10.3109/0142159X.2012.668245.
Bista, K. (2015). Is Twitter a pedagogical tool in higher Education? Perspectives of education graduate students. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and
Learning, 15(2), 83. http://doi.org/10.14434/josotl.v15i2.12825.
Blessing, S. B., Blessing, J. S., & Fleck, B. K. B. (2012). Using Twitter to reinforce classroom concepts. Teaching of Psychology, 39(4), 268e271. http://doi.org/10.
1177/0098628312461484.
Buettner, R. (2013). The utilization of Twitter in lectures. GI-Jahrestagung, 244e254.
Cacchione, A. (2015). Creative use of Twitter for dynamic assessment in language learning classroom at the university. Interaction Design and Architecture(s)
Journal, 24, 145e161. Retrieved from http://www.mifav.uniroma2.it/inevent/events/idea2010/doc/24_9.pdf.
Carpenter, J. P., & Krutka, D. G. (2014). How and why educators use Twitter: A survey of the field. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(4),
414e434.
Charitonos, K., Blake, C., Scanlon, E., & Jones, A. (2012). Museum learning via social and mobile technologies: (How) can online interactions enhance the
visitor experience? Museum learning via social and mobile technologies. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43(5), 802e819. http://doi.org/10.
1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01360.x.
Chen, L., & Chen, T. L. (2012). Use of Twitter for formative evaluation: Reflections on trainer and trainees' experiences: Colloquium. British Journal of
Educational Technology, 43(2), E49eE52. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2011.01251.x.
Cheung, W. S., & Hew, K. F. (2009). A review of research methodologies used in studies on mobile handheld devices in K-12 and higher education settings.
Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(2), 153e183.
Clark, R. E. (1983). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53(4), 445e459.
Cook, T. D., Campbell, D. T., & Day, A. (1979). Quasi-experimentation: Design & analysis issues for field settings (Vol. 351). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Cronin, J. J. (2011). The classroom as a virtual community: An experience with student backchannel discourse. Business Education Innovation Journal, 3(2),
56e65.
De Waard, I., Abajian, S., Gallagher, M. S., Hogue, R., Keskin, N., Koutropoulos, A., & Rodriguez, O. C. (2011). Using mLearning and MOOCs to understand
chaos, emergence, and complexity in education. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 12(7), 94e115.
Domizi, D. P. (2013). Microblogging to foster connections and community in a weekly graduate seminar course. TechTrends, 57(1), 43e51.
Dunlap, J. C., & Lowenthal, P. R. (2009). Tweeting the night away: Using Twitter to enhance social presence. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20(2),
129.
Ebner, M. (2009). Interactive lecturing by integrating mobile devices and micro-blogging in higher education. CIT. Journal of Computing and Information
Technology, 17(4), 371e381.
Ebner, M., Lienhardt, C., Rohs, M., & Meyer, I. (2010). Microblogs in Higher Education e a chance to facilitate informal and process-oriented learning?
Computers & Education, 55(1), 92e100. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.12.006.
Elavsky, C. M., Mislan, C., & Elavsky, S. (2011). When talking less is more: Exploring outcomes of Twitter usage in the large-lecture hall. Learning, Media and
Technology, 36(3), 215e233. http://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2010.549828.
Evans, C. (2014). Twitter for teaching: Can social media be used to enhance the process of learning?: Twitter for teaching. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 45(5), 902e915. http://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12099.
Feliz, T., Ricoy, C., & Feliz, S. (2013). Analysis of the use of Twitter as a learning strategy in master's studies. Open Learning: The Journal of Open, Distance and
E-Learning, 28(3), 201e215. http://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2013.870029.
Gao, F., Luo, T., & Zhang, K. (2012). Tweeting for learning: A critical analysis of research on microblogging in education published in 2008-2011. British
Journal of Educational Technology, 43(5), 783e801.
Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded Theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Goldstein, H. (1968). Longitudinal studies and the measurement of change. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 18(2), 93e117.
Gunuc, S., Misirli, O., & Odabasi, H. F. (2013). Primary school Children's communication experiences with Twitter: A case study from Turkey. Cyberp-
sychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 16(6), 448e453. http://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0343.
Hancock, D. R., & Flowers, C. P. (2001). Comparing social desirability responding on World Wide Web and paper-administered surveys. Educational tech-
nology research and development, 49(1), 5e13.
Haythornthwaite, C. (2016). E-learning and new learning cultures and case: Social media in higher education [PowerPoint slides]. The University of Hong Kong.
Retrieved from.
Hew, K. F. (2009). Use of audio podcast in K-12 and higher education: A review of research topics and methodology. Educational Technology Research &
Development, 57, 333e357.
Hew, K. F. (2011). Students' and teachers' use of Facebook. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(2), 662e676. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.11.020.
Hillman, D. C., Willis, D. J., & Gunawardena, C. N. (1994). Learner-interface interaction in distance education: An extension of contemporary models and
strategies for practitioners. The American Journal of Distance Education, 8(2), 30e43.
Holmberg, B. (1986). Growth and structure of distance education. London: Croom Helm.
Hsu, Y.-C., & Ching, Y.-H. (2012). Mobile microblogging: Using Twitter and mobile devices in an online course to promote learning in authentic contexts. The
International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 13(4), 211e227.
Java, A., Song, X., Finin, T., & Tseng, B. (2007, August). Why we Twitter: Understanding microblogging usage and communities. In In Proceedings of the 9th
WebKDD and 1st SNA-KDD 2007 workshop on Web mining and social network analysis (pp. 56e65). ACM.
Johnson, K. A. (2011). The effect of Twitter posts on students' perceptions of instructor credibility. Learning, Media and Technology, 36(1), 21e38. http://doi.
org/10.1080/17439884.2010.534798.
Jonassen, D., Howland, J., Moore, J., & Marra, R. (2003). Learning to solve problems with technology: A constructivist perspective. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Education Inc.
Junco, R., Elavsky, C. M., & Heiberger, G. (2013). Putting Twitter to the test: Assessing outcomes for student collaboration, engagement and success: Twitter
collaboration & engagement. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44(2), 273e287. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2012.01284.x.
Junco, R., Heiberger, G., & Loken, E. (2011). The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades: Twitter and student engagement. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 27(2), 119e132. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00387.x.
Kassens, A. L. (2014). Tweeting your way to improved #writing, #Reflection, and #community. The Journal of Economic Education, 45(2), 101e109. http://doi.
org/10.1080/00220485.2014.889937.
Kassens-Noor, E. (2012). Twitter as a teaching practice to enhance active and informal learning in higher education: The case of sustainable tweets. Active
Learning in Higher Education, 13(1), 9e21.
Kim, Y., Jeong, S., Ji, Y., Lee, S., Kwon, K. H., & Jeon, J. W. (2015). Smartphone response system using Twitter to enable effective interaction and improve
engagement in large classrooms. IEEE Transactions on Education, 58(2), 98e103. http://doi.org/10.1109/TE.2014.2329651.
Kop, R. (2011). The challenges to connectivist learning on open online networks: Learning experiences during a massive open online course. The Inter-
national Review Of Research In Open And Distributed Learning, 12(3), 19e38.
Kop, R., Fournier, H., & Mak, J. S. F. (2011). A pedagogy of abundance or a pedagogy to support human beings? Participant support on massive open online
courses. The International Review of Research. Open And Distributed Learning, 12(7), 74e93.
Korpershoek, H., Harms, T., de Boer, H., van Kuijk, M., & Doolaard, S. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of classroom management strategies and
classroom management programs on students' academic, behavioral, emotional, and motivational outcomes. Review of Educational Research, 86(3),
643e680, 0034654315626799.
Krause, K. L., & Coates, H. (2008). Students' in first-year university. Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(5), 493e505.
Kuh, G. D. (2009). The national survey of student engagement: Conceptual and empirical foundations. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2009(141),
5e20.
Kwak, H., Lee, C., Park, H., & Moon, S. (2010, April). What is Twitter, a social network or a news media?. In In proceedings of the 19th international conference
on World Wide Web (pp. 591e600). ACM.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
Lin, M. F. G., Hoffman, E. S., & Borengasser, C. (2013). Is social media too social for class? A case study of Twitter use. TechTrends, 57(2), 39e45.
Lomicka, L., & Lord, G. (2012). A tale of tweets: Analyzing microblogging among language learners. System, 40(1), 48e63. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.
2011.11.001.
Lowe, B., & Laffey, D. (2011). Is Twitter for the birds? Using Twitter to enhance student learning in a marketing course. Journal of Marketing Education, 33(2),
183e192, 273475311410851.
Luo, T. (2015). Instructional guidance in microblogging-supported learning: Insights from a multiple case study. Journal of Computing in Higher Education,
27(3), 173e194.
Luo, T., & Gao, F. (2012). Enhancing classroom learning experience by providing structures to microblogging-based activities. Journal of Information Tech-
nology Education: Innovations in Practice, 11(1), 199e211.
McArthur, J. A., & Bostedo-Conway, K. (2012). Exploring the relationship between student-instructor interaction on Twitter and student perceptions of
teacher behaviors. International Journal of Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 24(3), 286e292.
McCroskey, J. C., & Teven, J. J. (1999). Goodwill: A reexamination of the construct and its measurement. Communication Monographs, 66(1), 90e103.
McKenzie, B. A. (2014). Teaching Twitter: Re-enacting the paris commune and the battle of stalingrad. The History Teacher, 47(3). Retrieved from http://
www.societyforhistoryeducation.org/pdfs/M14_McKenzie.pdf.
Mehrabian, A. (1967). Attitudes inferred from neutral verbal communications. Journal of consulting psychology, 31(4), 414.
Moore, M. G. (1989). Editorial: Three types of interaction. The American Journal of Distance Education, 3(2), 1e6.
Munoz, L.,R., Pellegrini-Lafont, C., & Cramer, E. (2014). Using social media in teacher preparation Programs: Twitter as a means to create social presence.
PennGSE Perspectives on Urban Education, 11(2). Retrieved from https://www.urbanedjournal.org/archive/volume-11-issue-2-summer-2014/using-so-
cial-media-teacher-preparation-programs-Twitter-means-.
Perifanou, M. A. (2009). Language micro-gaming: Fun and informal microblogging activities for language learning. In Best practices for the knowledge society.
Knowledge, learning, development and technology for all (pp. 1e14). Springer. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-04757-
21.
Pollard, E. A. (2014). Tweeting on the backchannel of a Jumbo-sized lecture Hall: Maximizing collective learning in a world history survey. The History
Teacher, 47(3). Retrieved from http://www.societyforhistoryeducation.org/pdfs/M14_Pollard.pdf.
Preston, J. P., Jakubiec, B. A., Jones, J., & Earl, R. (2015). Twitter in a bachelor of education Course: Student experiences. LEARNing Landscapes, 8(2), 301.
Retrieved from http://www.learninglandscapes.ca/images/documents/ll-no16/ll-no16-final-lr.pdf#page¼6.
Prestridge, S. (2014). A focus on students' use of Twitteretheir interactions with each other, content and interface. Active Learning in Higher Education, 15(2),
101e115, 1469787414527394.
Rinaldo, S. B., Tapp, S., & Laverie, D. A. (2011). Learning by Tweeting: Using Twitter as a pedagogical tool. Journal of Marketing Education, 33(2), 193e203.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0273475311410852.
Rohr, L. E., & Costello, J. (2015). Student perceptions of Twitters' effectiveness for assessment in a large enrollment online course. Online Learning Journal,
19(4). Retrieved from http://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/540.
Rohr, L. E., Costello, J., & Hawkins, T. (2015). Design considerations for integrating Twitter into an online course. The International Review of Research in Open
and Distributed Learning, 16(4).
Selwyn, N., & Grant, L. (2009). Researching the realities of social software use-an introduction. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(2), 79e86.
Shabgahi, S. L., Shah, N. A. K., & Cox, A. M. (2013, July). A comparative review of research literature on microblogging use and risk in organizational and
educational settings. In International conference on online communities and social computing (pp. 174e181). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
Skrypnyk, O., Joksimovi c, S., Kovanovi
c, V., Gasevi
c, D., & Dawson, S. (2015). Roles of course facilitators, learners, and technology in the flow of information
of a cMOOC. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 16(3), 188e217.
Smythe, M. J., & Hess, J. A. (2005). Are student self- reports a valid method for measuring teacher nonverbal immediacy? Communication Education, 54(2),
170e179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03634520500213389.
Tur, G., & Marin, V. I. (2015). Enhancing learning with the social media: Student teachers' perceptions on Twitter in a debate activity. Journal of New Ap-
proaches in Educational Research, 4(1), 46e43 http://doi.org/10.7821/naer.2015.1.102.
Twitter. (2015, December 31). Twitter usage/company facts. Retrieved from https://about.Twitter.com/company.
Van Vooren, C., & Bess, C. (2013). Teacher tweets improve achievement for eighth grade science students. Journal of Education, Informatics & Cybernetics,
11(1). Retrieved from http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct¼true&profile¼ehost&scope¼site&authtype¼crawler&jrnl¼19437978&AN¼9050
6452&h¼3wtaSNEWZbpPfIaC7rO0%2FV50xnAFS%2Bgl6k8F3fMjHT%2FONvFg%2FoOi%2BUslpfs6VGDv8Fb%2Bo7NBbmXqkjz4BB03qA%3D%3D&crl¼c.
Vazquez Cano, E. (2012). Mobile Learning with Twitter to improve linguistic competence at secondary schools. New Educational Review, 29(3), 134e147.
Veletsianos, G. (2012). Higher education scholars' participation and practices on Twitter: Scholars' participation and practices on Twitter. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 28(4), 336e349. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00449.x.
Vygotsky, Lev (1978). Mind in society. London: Harvard University Press.
Waller, M. (2010). Using Twitter in the primary classroom. English Four to Eleven, 39, 14e16.
Welch, B. K., & Bonnan-White, J. (2012). Twittering to increase student engagement in the university classroom. Knowledge Management & E-Learning: An
International Journal (KM&EL), 4(3), 325e345.
Wessner, D. R. (2014). Teaching with Twitter: Extending the conversation beyond the classroom walls. Retrieved on October 26, 2016 from http://www.
academiccommons.org/2014/07/21/teaching-with-twitter-extending-the-conversation-beyond-the-classroom-walls/.
West, B., Moore, H., & Barry, B. (2015). Beyond the tweet using Twitter to enhance engagement, learning, and success among first-year students. Journal of
Marketing Education, 37(3), 160e170, 273475315586061.
Wright, N. (2010). Twittering in teacher education: Reflecting on practicum experiences. Open Learning: The Journal of Open and Distance Learning, 25(3),
259e265. http://doi.org/10.1080/02680513.2010.512102.
Yakin, I., & Tinmaz, H. (2013). Using Twitter as an instructional tool: A case study in higher education. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational
Technology, 12(4). Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/openview/2aab3296cb324cac744b415327c47aba/1?pq-origsite¼gscholar.
View publication stats

Twitter Paper

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Twitter Paper

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

See discussions, stats, and author proﬁles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Using Twitter for education: Beneﬁcial or simply a waste of time?

Article in Computers & Education · March 2017

Ying Tang Khe Foon Hew

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Use of ICT in Singapore kindergartens View project

The Educational Use of Social Media View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded ﬁle.

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers & Education

Using Twitter for education: Beneﬁcial or simply a waste of

1.1. Previous reviews of Twitter in education contexts

1.2. The present study

This review sought to address the following research questions:

3.1. Eligibility criteria and data collection

3.2. Data analysis

Nr General information Research population

4.1. Proﬁle of studies

4.2. How Twitter was used

Topics Main ﬁndings

Geographic Area Number of studies Percentage

4.2.1. Capture and representation

Categories Freq. Subcategories Examples of activities Representative studies

1) Using Twitter to send subject-related materials (instructor communication)

2) Using Twitter to interact (share information) with instructor or peers

4.2.4. Class administration

1) Using Twitter to conduct in-class assessment activities

2) Using Twitter to conduct after-class assessment activities

4.3. Impacts of Twitter use on interactions

4.3.1. Learner-interface interaction

Fig. 1. Categories of Twitter use in literature from 2006 to 2015.

Fig. 2. The framework of interactions, adapted from Hillman et al. (1994).

4.3.2. Learner-content interaction

4.3.3. Learner-instructor interaction

4.3.4. Learner-learner interaction

4.4. Impacts on learning outcomes

4) Ways of using Twitter.

5) Challenges and concerns of using Twitter.

6) Unresolved issue related to using Twitter

5.2. Impact of using Twitter

5.3. Guidelines for educational use of Twitter

2) Provide clear description of Twitter-related educational activities.

3) Consider making Twitter mandatory.

4) Provide regular academic and personal support.

5) Provide access to broader learning communities.

5.4. Suggestions for future research

Summary of design and ﬁndings of reviewed studies

# Study Use of Twitter Major ﬁndings

# Study Use of Twitter Major ﬁndings

# Study Use of Twitter Major ﬁndings

# Study Use of Twitter Major ﬁndings

View publication stats

Potrebbero piacerti anche