Administrators’ professional learning via Twitter: the dissonance between beliefs and actions
| Date | 03 May 2016 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-03-2015-0024 |
| Published date | 03 May 2016 |
| Author | Vincent Cho |
| Subject Matter | School administration/policy,Education |
Professional learning via Twitter 1
On the subject of technologies in education, hopes can run high. Terms like connected
learner, connected educator, and Personal Learning Network (PLN) fill the air. The belief is that
Web 2.0 technologies (e.g., wikis, blogs, social networking sites) will revolutionize teaching and
learning by changing how people share information (Greenhow et al., 2009; Hughes and
Narayan, 2009). The argument goes that these technologies will help educators exchange
knowledge, reflect about work, and thus improve practices. Proponents can be found among
researchers (Burden, 2010; Forte et al., 2012; Hung, 2002) as well as popular authors (Flanigan,
2011; Nussbaum-Beach and Hall, 2012; Richardson and Mancabelli, 2011).
In such arguments, the platform known as Twitter has played a starring role. For
example, Couros and Jarrett (2012) describe Twitter as where the “best and brightest” educators
convene to “share resources, ask and answer questions, and debate and discuss education issues
of the day” (p. 149). Similarly, Forte et al. (2012) describe Twitter as “grassroots professional
development” for teachers. Indeed, when surveyed about their Twitter use, educators have
reported professional learning to be a top use (Carpenter and Krutka, 2014a). For school
administrators, these kinds of claims can make Twitter seem to be a viable option for improving
one’s practice. However, it is also important to note that these claims have been derived from
teacher self-reports, without examining the educators’ tweets themselves. Thus, questions remain
about whether administrators might experience similar benefits, as well as whether their tweets
and school practices confirm claims about Twitter’s merit.
Accordingly, the purpose of this qualitative case study is to explore school
administrators’ use of Twitter for professional learning. It draws upon interview and Twitter data
(i.e. “tweets”) from school administrators in the United States and Canada. This study is guided
by three research questions:
Professional learning via Twitter 2
1. What are the perceived benefits of participating on Twitter?
2. What information do administrators share via Twitter?
3. To what extent (if any) does information from Twitter contribute to administrator
practice?
Conceptual Framework
Proponents for Twitter argue that school-based professional communities benefit
educator practices, and that Twitter is able to serve as an online platform for such interactions.
The first section below provides background about Twitter. The second section reviews concepts
relating to school-based professional communities. The third section connects those concepts to
Twitter use.
Background about Twitter
Others have provided detailed descriptions of Twitter’s unique features (Cho et al., 2013;
Barkley and Becker, 2013). However, a brief review of relevant terms may be in order. Messages
on Twitter are known as tweets. These are broadcast in real time and limited to 140 characters.
Unlike other platforms (e.g., Facebook), Twitter is relatively open. Tweets are public. Thus, it
may be useful to imagine each individual user as a radio tower, broadcasting information.
Other users can choose to tune in to other users (i.e. follow) regardless of whether they are
“friends” in real life.
Users can incorporate hashtags in their tweets by including the “#” symbol before a
word or phrase (e.g., #edtech, #AERA2015). Hashtags serve as search terms or subject markers,
thus allowing uses to monitor particular topics or events. Hashtags provide a way for people to
connect, regardless of whether they already know each other. Thus, hashtags may also serve as
public forums around certain topics of interest. For example, twitter chats occur when users
Professional learning via Twitter 3
convene at a predetermined time to post to a particular hashtag topic. In their review of Twitter
chat practices, Carpenter and Krutka (2014b) counted more than 150 education-related chat
hashtags.
Professional Communities in Schools
Professional communities are vital to school improvement efforts (Coburn, 2001;
Hargreaves and Fullan, 2012; Little, 2005) and have been popularized among practitioners by the
Professional Learning Community (PLC) movement (DuFour et al., 2005; Van Lare and Brazer,
2013). Professional communities provide educators with opportunities to pool their knowledge,
share resources, and offer each other interpersonal support (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, 1999;
Louis et al., 1996). These kinds of interactions may be especially beneficial if they connect to
everyday challenges and provide space for multiple perspectives to interact (Putnam and Borko,
2000; Smylie, 1995). For example, educators might collectively interpret new policies and
curricula (Coburn, 2001) or develop shared practices involving the use of student data (Wayman
et al., 2012).
One way to understand the benefits of professional communities is to recognize that there
are different kinds of knowledge. For example, Brown and Duguid (1991) describe knowledge in
terms of canonical and non-canonical knowledge. Canonical knowledge is formally articulated
and standardized. For example, classes, trainings, and reading materials are common ways to
transmit canonical knowledge. In contrast, non-canonical knowledge is not easily articulated. As
Brown and Duguid put it, whereas canonical knowledge is about practice, non-canonical
knowledge is about becoming a practitioner. It is tied to experiences, context, and relationships.
Thus, stories, norms, and metaphors provide common ways to transmit non-canonical knowledge
(Davenport and Prusak, 1998; Nonaka et al., 1998).
To continue reading
Request your trial