Innovations in Education and Teaching International
ISSN: 1470-3297 (Print) 1470-3300 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/riie20
‘To tweet or not to tweet?’ A comparison of
academics’ and students’ usage of Twitter in
academic contexts
Charles G. Knight & Linda K. Kaye
To cite this article: Charles G. Knight & Linda K. Kaye (2016) ‘To tweet or not to tweet?’ A
comparison of academics’ and students’ usage of Twitter in academic contexts, Innovations in
Education and Teaching International, 53:2, 145-155, DOI: 10.1080/14703297.2014.928229
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2014.928229
Published online: 26 Jun 2014.
Submit your article to this journal
Article views: 3588
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Citing articles: 29 View citing articles
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=riie20
Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 2016
Vol. 53, No. 2, 145–155, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2014.928229
‘To tweet or not to tweet?’ A comparison of academics’ and
students’ usage of Twitter in academic contexts
Charles G. Knighta and Linda K. Kayeb*
a
Business School, Edge Hill University, Ormskirk, UK; bDepartment of Psychology, Edge
Hill University, Ormskirk, UK
The emergence of social media as a new channel for communication and collaboration has led educators to hope that they may enhance the student experience
and provide a pedagogical tool within Higher Education (HE). This paper
explores academics’ and undergraduates’ usage of Twitter within a post-92
university. It argues that the observed disparity of usage between academics and
undergraduates can be attributed to a number of factors. Namely, academics’
perceived use of the platform for enhancing reputation is an implied acknowledgement of the importance of research within HE and the increasingly public
engagement agenda. Additionally, academics’ limited usage of Twitter to support
practical-based issues may be explained by issues relating to accountability of
information through non-official channels. Moreover, students made greater use
of Twitter for the passive reception of information rather than participation in
learning activities. The implications of these issues will be discussed in reference
to the study findings.
Keywords: Twitter; pedagogy; learning; teaching; Higher Education
Introduction
Social media is a blanket term that has been used to describe technological systems
that allow collaboration and community (Tess, 2013); social networking sites1
(SNS) can be defined as web-based systems that provide a social space for users to
construct a profile, and make links with users who have similar interests or connections (Lin, Hou, Wang, & Chang, 2013; Marques, Krejci, Siqueira, Pimentel, &
Braz, 2013). They can be seen as both experience and resource sharing tools that
allow for the discovery and exchange of user generated content (Gikas & Grant,
2013); furthermore, they allow for the collection, organisation and digital curation of
knowledge (Madhusudhan, 2012; Virkus, 2008).
Educational institutions are now ubiquitous on SNS (Gruzd, Staves, & Wilk,
2012) yet the research base on their usage within this context is relatively ‘meager’
(Forkosh-Baruch & Hershkovitz, 2012, p. 58). Previous studies on this topic have
presented the challenges of the social aspects of web-based systems within the preparation of teaching courses (Danciu & Grosseck, 2011), and suggested tension
among academics in maintaining professionalism in their usage (Veletsianos &
Kimmons, 2013). Other studies have indicated the potential of social networking
sites in providing an informal network through which to share academic knowledge
and resources and allow for peer-to-peer learning (Forkosh-Baruch & Hershkovitz,
*Corresponding author. Email: Linda.kaye@edgehill.ac.uk
© 2014 Taylor & Francis
146
C.G. Knight and L.K. Kaye
2012; Madhusudhan, 2012; Veletsianos & Kimmons, 2013), as well as sharing
information about practical issues within their practice (Veletsianos & Kimmons,
2013), providing an informal but open setting for information dissemination (Gruzd
et al., 2012; Ross, Baanow, & Yu, 2013) and identifying problems with research
design (Mandavilli, 2011). Moreover, the use of SNS, even as a passive consumer
allows academics to follow others in their field who are interested in similar issues.
The use of SNS within educational contexts is noteworthy given that many academics are increasingly using them as a means of communication rather than more
‘traditional’ forms such as email or Virtual Learning Environments (VLE; Judd,
2010). Additionally, students often do not make a clear distinction between the virtual and physical landscapes and the two ‘seamlessly meld’ (Bicen & Cavus, 2011,
p. 943) in a way that means that their expectations of how and where interaction
occurs differs from previous generations of students. The reach of SNS within academia can be seen to be closely tied to the usage of mobile devices because they
allow for instant access to content (Du, Hao, Kwok, & Wagner, 2010; Gikas &
Grant, 2013). In a content-analysis of Facebook and Twitter usage, Forkosh-Baruch
and Hershkovitz (2012) found that academic accounts were active for long periods
and that the use of SNS allowed for community sharing of knowledge and greater
informal learning, while Greenhow (2011) argues that SNS allow for more studentcentred courses by providing support for learning. Recent research by Arquero and
Romero-Frías (2013) found that students’ use of SNS had implications for their academic performance. Indeed, the raison d’être of SNS is that of ‘frictionless sharing’,
the process of sharing knowledge made as simple as possible thus allowing for the
rapid dissemination of information (Lovejoy, Waters, & Saxton, 2012). Thus, within
the academy and its relationship with students and the wider world, the value (creation) inherent in social media is the sense making it allows via users as participatory
agents (Bechmann & Lomborg, 2013).
Although some research suggests time spent on SNS is detrimental to student
performance (Paul, Baker, & Cochran, 2012), counter-claims have been made suggesting there is evidence to support the pedagogic benefits of such platforms.
Research has considered their role in enhancing learners’ sense of social belonging,
support and social presence in their learning experiences (Dunlap & Lowenthal,
2009; Hung & Yuen, 2010; Selwyn, 2009), providing a platform for active learning
opportunities for enhanced engagement (Lester & Perini, 2010; Lin et al., 2013;
Williams & Chinn, 2009) and supporting transition in education (Woodley &
Meredith, 2012). Additionally, it has been argued that SNSs which have aspects of
both broad and deep interaction can provide a foundation for collaborative student
learning outside of the traditional classroom setting (Lin et al., 2013; Marques et al.,
2013).
A type of micro-blog, Twitter, allows users to engage in a range of activities
including; updating personal information, ‘Tweeting’ information for public (or private) display, articulating (‘following’) other users, sharing the tweets of others and
posting photographs and website URLs (Lovejoy et al., 2012). Since its launch in
2006, the service has attracted more than 600 million accounts and around 300 million active users and, as of March 2013, there are in excess of 500 million tweets
per day (Holt, 2013); Twitter estimates that 80% of its users access via a mobile
device (Chow, 2013). Additionally, it notes that 40% of its users use the service as a
‘curated news feed of updates that reflect their passions’ and do not tweet (Singhvi,
2013), a number that would support the idea that significant amounts of social media
Innovations in Education and Teaching International
147
usage is passive – users are consumers/followers not contributors (Chow, 2013;
Forkosh-Baruch & Hershkovitz, 2012).
It therefore follows that a greater understanding of the different forms of academic uses of Twitter as a form of SNS is worthy of further enquiry. For example, it
is unclear as to the extent to which students are using Twitter ‘actively’ within their
academic experiences (e.g. discussing course content), or whether usage is more passive in nature (e.g. following academically related users). A whitepaper by plagiarism service Turnitin notes that in 2012, across 13 million matched elements of
content, 23% was taken from social networking and content sharing sites (Turnitin,
2013). This suggests the pertinence of understanding the way in which students are
using SNS such as Twitter in their studies, and the way in which it may facilitate
the academic–student relationship.
Methodology
Following ethical approval of the research at the Department of Psychology, and
Faculty Ethics Research Committees, an online questionnaire was developed in the
spring–summer of 2013. Email invitations to complete the questionnaire were sent
to staff and students at Edge Hill University.2 This targeted an estimated population
size of 22,350 students (approximately 65% of those being undergraduates and the
remainder being postgraduates) and 900 staff. Further requests for participation were
subsequently made before the survey closed in mid-June 2013. The response rate
was 181 which was spilt between 137 undergraduates, 16 postgraduates and 26 staff;
to provide focus, the results here concentrate on undergraduates and academics.
The survey was split into three parts: demographic questions (e.g. age, status and
type of user), usage of Twitter for academic purposes (e.g. posting questions relating
to course content and contacting specific course tutors) and general usage of Twitter
(e.g. information-sharing and advertising). These typically required participants to
indicate which of the activities they engaged in on Twitter (e.g. which of the following activities on Twitter do you engage in? Please select all which apply). The questions relating to academic usage, varied slightly in the wording between the student
and academics’ version of the questionnaire. For example, student participants were
asked to rank the items in order of the usefulness of the activities which they found
their tutors to do. In contrast, the tutor version asked participants to indicate which
academic activities they engaged in.
Results and discussion
General usage of Twitter
A comparison of academics’ and undergraduates’ general usage of Twitter was
undertaken (see Table 1 below).
Across both groups, the use of Twitter for passive information seeking was the
top priority and there was little difference between academics and undergraduates
(73.1 and 65.7%) and in line with Twitter’s own findings on usage patterns. Perhaps
confirming the view that SNS provide a window into a celebrity-obsessed culture,
undergraduates were four times more likely (65%) to follow famous people on
Twitter than academics (15.4%). Notwithstanding this, moving beyond Twitter as an
information-gathering resource, where the substantial difference arose was in how
active each group was in their use of Twitter, and the relationship between passive
148
C.G. Knight and L.K. Kaye
Table 1. Percentages of usage of Twitter activities between sub-samples.
Activity
Information seeking
Sharing information
Follow famous people
Network with friends
Network with new people
Organise events
Advertise/promote
Updating status
Blogging
Academic reasons
Contact companies
Spamming
Undergraduates (n = 137) %
Staff (n = 26) %
65.7
48.2
65.0
62.0
21.2
11.7
12.4
46.7
6.6
27.7
21.2
0
73.1
88.5
15.4
42.3
57.7
23.1
46.2
15.4
23.1
65.4
15.4
0
and active, personal and professional. Indeed, given the common narrative that SNS
have been particularly successful with what has been identified as Generation Y,
students were far more passive in their use of social media than academics. In line
with Twitter’s own research (see Introduction), less than half (48.2%) were using
Twitter to share information with others. Where Twitter was being used for participatory activities, this was generally within well-defined boundaries. The key interaction for undergraduates’ was with their own friends – suggesting that for this cohort
at least, social media is indeed social in that it is used as an adjunct to the physical
and a way to reinforce the bond that exists between pre-existing relationships (62%
against 46%) rather than have more value as a way to either extend their own networks, their influence or to gain access to communities of interest. Linked to and
amplifying this finding, undergraduates were far more likely to update their status
about mundane personal matters (46.7%) than academics (15.4%); this again reflects
Twitter’s own empirical data that indicates the most common topic for a UK-based
Tweeter is what an individual has been watching on the television (Chow, 2013).
Conversely, academics were highly active in their use of Twitter and were overwhelmingly using it to share information (88.5%) with others. Nearly a quarter
(23.1%) had used it to organise an event as opposed to only a tenth (11.7%) of
undergraduate students, and were far more likely to use it for networking with new
people (57.7%) than students (21.2%). Furthermore, nearly half (46%) of academics
had used the service to advertise or promote an event they were involved within
while only slightly more than a tenth (12.4%) of students had done the same. Moreover, 23.1% of academics were using Twitter to promote a blog while only 6.6% of
undergraduates were doing the same. It suggests that academics and undergraduate
students are using Twitter for significantly different purposes that do not intersect –
for the undergraduate as participatory agents it is about the personal and their local
communities, while their interaction with the wider community is largely either simply as reader, follower or as ‘retweeter’. Reasons for the low rates of engagement in
wider networks in this sub-sample may be reflective of the fact that these activities
are typically cautioned by parents and educational policy through the formative
stages of life. In this way, this sub-sample act as consumers or promoters of media
rather than content creators to actively engage in these wider networks. In contrast,
for the academics it is about the professional and the interaction with wider communities – almost two-thirds (65.4%) were using Twitter for what they broadly
Innovations in Education and Teaching International
149
described as academic reasons, while only a quarter (27.7%) of undergraduates were
doing the same.
The difference between the two can be perhaps explained in part by the rise of
social media within the academy as a means of self-promotion and the increasingly
emphasis and training given within institutions for academics to try and generate
wider interest in their work via public engagement (Gruzd et al., 2012). Moreover,
against a backdrop of the casualisation of the academic labour force, the use of
zero-hour contracts and increasingly fragmented institutional identities and roles,
Twitter alongside other SMS provides a means for a persistent networked identity
where legitimacy is derived from authority from reputation rather than from role
(Stewart, 2014). The value of this legitimacy as opposite to the more straight forward ‘academic reputation’ (Willinsky, 2010) based on hierarchical structures, peer
reviewed publications, funding awards, citations and so forth is under-researched
and contested but that many within the academy and the on the peripherals of it
attempt to gain it or seek it even if they lack clarity on the benefits of that exposure
are unarguable.
Students’ academic usage of Twitter
Moving into the specific pedagogical findings relating to using Twitter for academic
reasons, a noticeable difference is apparent between the two groups. In particular,
this refers to both their usage and their expectations of what the service can be used
for. Overall, for academic-related reasons, students are limited both in their range of
activities and the frequency in which they used as shown below in Table 2.
The most common activity (13.9%) was asking questions of specific other users
who were not their tutors. This supports the idea that Twitter as a SNS is one which
is a community of interest rather than one of practice and that the interaction of students around their course-related activities are widely than these on the course itself.
However, given the low frequency of even this activity, it indicates that students are
perhaps cautious about using Twitter for this purpose. This might be part of a
vicious circle with the low take-up of Twitter for pedagogical purposes acting as a
signal to the students that it is either not to be used for these purposes or lacks legitimacy. The second most common activity was not connecting or interacting with a
tutor (11.7%) but simply posting questions about assessments or class content as a
general post or ‘tweet’ to all of their followers (12.4%). The use of Twitter to ask
specific course-related questions to tutor was very low (8%) and when taken in
Table 2. Students’ academic usage of Twitter.
Activity
Contact specific tutors
Asked questions to specific users
Asked questions as a general post
Discussed course content with tutors
Asked course-related questions in open-forums
Posted course-related updates whilst in lectures
Posted course-related updates after lectures
Used the Edge Hill username in a general update
Undergraduates
(n = 137) %
Postgraduates
(n = 16) %
11.7
13.9
12.4
8.0
5.1
7.3
10.2
8.8
6.3
12.5
18.8
6.3
25.0
12.5
12.5
12.5
150
C.G. Knight and L.K. Kaye
conjunction with the earlier findings about the use of Twitter as a social rather than
professional space suggests that, at the moment, students see Twitter as something
that exists outside or parallel to the usual channels of communication with their
tutors. Consequently, although there has been significant debate and concern within
the academy about lectures and seminars being subversively live broadcasted by students as they occur, often with the aim of mocking or disputing the tutor, the actual
practice itself is limited (7.3%). More common was the use of Twitter to discuss or
post course updates after the lecture/seminar had occurred (10.2%). These findings
are ambiguous in that they may suggest that lectures and seminars were so engrossing that it limited this type of activity or perhaps that students are becoming more
aware that tweets by their very nature are public and therefore discoverable by academic members of staff. An alternative explanation is highlighted through the results
in Table 3 (see below), in that academics did not use Twitter within teaching sessions (e.g. hosting debates or course-related updates). This is a conceivable reason
as to why the students in this sample did not engage in this activity. That is, without
the encouragement from their tutors to engage in this activity during teaching sessions, particularly if tutors typically discourage usage of SNS within contact hours,
students would be unlikely to be motivated to engage in such behaviour. It seems
therefore, that SNSs such as Twitter are perhaps better suited to ‘outside-hours’ academic support, rather than as a teaching tool within scheduled sessions unless there
is a critical mass of support among academics to normalise it within an institution.
Staff usage vs. student perception of usefulness
Students were also asked to rank possible usage scenarios for Twitter from 1 to 14
(1 being the most useful) in terms of how useful they would perceive them to be,
while academics were asked to indicate how often they used Twitter for such techniques. This was intended to see if there was a convergence between the wants of
the students and the activities of the academics. Table 3 presents these results.
Table 3. Students’ perception of usefulness vs. staffs’ usage of Twitter activities.
Activity
Provide details on practical issues
Post course-related updates outside teaching sessions
Reminders of upcoming assignment deadlines
Pose questions relating to course/module content
Provide specific assignment support
Reminders of assignment procedures
Share research ideas or publications
Provide generic or whole group feedback
Advertise departmental activities
Host academic debates or forums outside teaching
sessions
Advertise university activities
Ask course-related questions in open forums
Post course-related updates whilst in teaching sessions
Host academic debates or forums in teaching sessions
Students’ rank
(most useful to
least useful)
Staff usage
(%)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
4.2
16.7
12.5
16.7
0
4.2
58.3
4.2
50.0
12.5
11
12
13
14
62.5
29.2
4.2
0
Innovations in Education and Teaching International
151
Previous research on Twitter within educational contexts has suggested that it
can provide a powerful learning aid in a number of ways (cf. Tess, 2013). For example, it has been argued that the learning experience can be enhanced by being integrated into the classroom and allow students to tweet questions during lectures,
providing an additional level of interaction or a ‘back-channel’ (Ross et al., 2013).
This is claimed to be advantageous in a number of ways including providing benefit
to students who do not wish to interrupt and to the lecturer by providing instant
feedback that can be also be collated afterwards. Other research has argued that
Twitter as a community of interest provides a way to enhance activities within the
classroom by allowing questions and scenarios to be posed that the wider community can help answers for or crowd-source useful resources for students to use in
their responses to assignment activities (Dunlap & Lowenthal, 2009).
However, the top ranked suggestions could all be categorised as procedural or
organisational rather than related to knowledge-sharing or creation and activities.
Indeed, the rankings provided by students can be seen to exist along a continuum,
the more interactive the activity, the less likely students were to rank it highly, while
the more passive, the higher the rank. The three most highly ranked suggestions
were the use of Twitter to provide information on practical issues, the posting of
course-related reminders and the post of assignment submission deadlines. These
findings contrast with those of recent research highlighting the way in which students use SNS within learning, and the impact on indicators of academic performance (Arquero & Romero-Frías, 2013). Indeed, the current findings are suggestive
of limited interactivity with course content or learning activities through SNS usage,
indicating little potential for the utility in enhancing academic performance. This
issue however requires consideration in accordance with the staff usage data, given
that the extent to which students may interact with course content, for example, on
SNS may be largely reliant on staff facilitation of this activity.
That is, when considered in light of the actual usage of Twitter by academics,
the idea of Twitter as a possible means for intermediation and activity in the context
of learning becomes more contested. The most popular activity for academics to
undertake on Twitter connected to their role in the university was to advertise university activities (62.5%) and this was closely followed by its usage to advertise
their own research activities and publications (58.3%) and to promote departmental
activities (50%). Additionally, no academics used Twitter to provide specific assignment support or as part of a structured debate or forum for speech in teaching sessions and the usage of Twitter to support the activities deemed most important by
students were fairly low (see Table 3). Indeed, the activity that students ranked most
important, that of providing support on practical issues was virtually un-used by academics (4.2%). One possible explanation for the limited use of these activities by
academics may relate to issues surrounding accountability. That is, it is questionable
as to the extent to which information posted on Twitter has official ‘weight’ or is
representative of the institution more generally, and how accountable individual
members of staff are on the information posted. Given this, this may deter individual
academics from posting information which relates to specific issues, particularly in
relation to assessments. Accountability is therefore a key issue in this context, and
presents disparity between students’ perceptions of the usefulness of particularly
types of information, and the extent to which academics are prepared to sacrifice the
ability to edit or remove information on the university provided private VLE and
152
C.G. Knight and L.K. Kaye
assume individual responsibility for the content posted on a service they have limited control over and far higher public visibility.
Significantly, the overwhelming picture from the rankings when compared to the
actual usage is that academics want to use Twitter to inform the wider community
of their activities rather than engage their students. The concentration of activities
are around research and scholarship, suggesting that academics in this study are
slow to engage Twitter as a learning tool. There are a number of possible reasons
for this that warrant possible further investigation, one possible reason might be that
academic scholarship and dissemination are seen as intrinsic to them and their identity as a scholar while learning and teaching type activities are seen as part of their
role and something best explored via official channels (the VLE). This adds support
to the idea that the perceived power of Twitter for academics is as a way to extend
influence and reputation and engage possible collaborators rather than to undertake
routine learning and teaching processes. This is largely consistent with the findings
of previous research which has found academics’ usage of SNS surrounds the
embodiment of research practices, such as developing networks (Briggle &
Mitcham, 2009).
Alternatively, this disparity may result from the role of geographic proximity and
the distinctions this may bring within research vs. teaching usage of Twitter. That is,
academics who use Twitter for research may often be reaching out to audiences of
greater geographical parameters whereas in relation to teaching, benefit from faceto-face contact with their students. This may explain the lower rates of teachingrelated engagement in Twitter usage. However, recent development of MOOCs and
other online distance learning provisions may provide a channel through which
Twitter may be developed more widely within teaching practices. This may be a particularly useful tool within MOOCs facilitation given some evidence of high dropout rates within these provisions (Koutropoulos et al., 2012). Utilising Twitter as a
tool for enhancing student engagement within these provisions is therefore one key
consideration.
Moreover, it is possible that the academics represented in the current study are
part of the ‘lagging majority’ who are slow to adopt or undertaking new practices.
Given this, perhaps the data presented here is the first stage of a developing trend,
which may, within a longer period of time, be a more widely adopted aspect of academic practice. This data may not therefore be entirely representative of the utility
of this platform, and could provide only an initial insight into its full potential within
this particular context. This implies the need for follow-up work as a means of determining whether or not this SNS can provide a suitable basis through which the academic–student relationship and associated activities can be effectively married, for
enhancing learning and teaching practices in Higher Education (HE).
Conclusion
The current findings present some initial insight (albeit limited by a single institution
and small sample size) into the disparity between academics’ and students’ usage of
Twitter. It appears that academics are more concerned with enhancing their own reputation through engaging in particular activities on Twitter, rather than focusing on
its utility within the student experience. Although this presents a problem, it can be
speculated that Twitter may still have unknown potential within this context. That is,
with a slow uptake of academics using this platform within their academic practice,
Innovations in Education and Teaching International
153
it may be the case that future trends result in greater uptake of this SNS, leading to
greater possibilities and opportunities for its utility in supporting the academic–student relationship in enhancing learning in the HE contexts. This suggests the need
for future research to further explore the issues underlying this finding. This may be
achieved through the use of qualitative-based methods, aiming to assess the reasons
why academics typically choose not to engage in using Twitter for the enhancement
of the student learning experience. This may help reveal whether this relates solely
to lack of experience in using the technology in this way, or may help gain further
insight into whether this represents more complex issues surrounding accountability,
for example. It might also be reflective of the fact that SNS come and go with speed
and time-pressured academics are simply resistant to expediting effort on a platform
that may decline in a short period of time. Either way, further research would benefit
this particular area of enquiry; in particularly a mixed methods study to provide a
deeper understanding on the actions of the two groups within this study or a crosscase study to compare and contrast with other institutions.
Notes
1. The literature uses a range of terms from Social Networking Sites (SNS), Online Social
Networks and Social Networking Services (SNS) in an almost interchangeable fashion.
Since the majority of usage is now via applications on mobile devices rather than websites, Social Networking Services most accurately reflect reality and is used here.
2. Edge Hill University is based in the north-west of the United Kingdom in Ormskirk,
Lancashire and is a new campus-based institution organisationally structured around
three facilities – Arts and Sciences, Education and Health. It can be considered a midtable university as measured by various national league tables such as the Times Good
University Guide and although it has a growing research profile is predominately teaching focused.
Notes on contributors
Charles G. Knight is a senior lecturer in Management at Edge Hill University. His research
interests including the digital economy with an emphasis on mobility and mobile technology.
He also has an interest in how the use of social media is changing interactions between
organisations and stakeholders.
Linda K. Kaye is a senior lecturer in Psychology at Edge Hill University. Her research interests broadly relate to uses and experiences of interactive digital technologies, and their impact
on a range of positive outcomes. She also has a keen interest in aspects of Higher Education
pedagogy, particularly relating to enhancing student experiences.
References
Arquero, J. L., & Romero-Frías, E. (2013). Using social network sites in higher education:
An experience in business studies. Innovations in Education and Teaching International,
50, 238–249.
Bechmann, A., & Lomborg, S. (2013). Mapping actor roles in social media: Different perspectives on value creation in theories of user participation. New Media & Society, 15,
765–781.
Bicen, H., & Cavus, N. (2011). Social network sites usage habits of undergraduate students:
Case study of Facebook. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 28, 943–947.
Briggle, A., & Mitcham, C. (2009). Embedding and networking: Conceptualizing experience
in a technosociety. Technology in Society, 31, 374–383.
154
C.G. Knight and L.K. Kaye
Chow, J. (2013). A new compete study: Mobile users in the UK. Twitter Blogs. Retrieved from
https://blog.twitter.com/2013/twitter-advertising-blog-new-compete-study-mobile-users-uk
Danciu, E., & Grosseck, G. (2011). Social aspects of web 2.0 technologies: Teaching or
teachers’ challenges? Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 15, 3768–3773.
Du, H., Hao, J.-X., Kwok, R., & Wagner, C. (2010). Can a lean medium enhance large-group
communication? Examining the impact of interactive mobile learning. Journal of the
American Society for Information Science and Technology, 61, 2122–2137.
Dunlap, J. C., & Lowenthal, R. R. (2009). Tweeting the night away: Using Twitter to
enhance social presence. Journal of Information Systems Education, 20, 129–135.
Forkosh-Baruch, A., & Hershkovitz, A. (2012). A case study of Israeli higher-education institutes sharing scholarly information with the community via social networks. The Internet
and Higher Education, 15, 58–68.
Gikas, J., & Grant, M. M. (2013). Mobile computing devices in higher education: Student
perspectives on learning with cellphones, smartphones & social media. The Internet and
Higher Education, 19, 18–26.
Greenhow, C. (2011). Online social networks and learning. On the Horizon, 19, 4–12.
Gruzd, A., Staves, K., & Wilk, A. (2012). Connected scholars: Examining the role of social
media in research practices of faculty using the UTAUT model. Computers in Human
Behavior, 28, 2340–2350.
Holt, R. (2013). Twitter in numbers. Telegraph.co.uk. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.
co.uk/technology/Twitter/9945505/Twitter-in-numbers.html
Hung, H.-T., & Yuen, S. C.-Y. (2010). Educational use of social networking technology in
higher education. Teaching in Higher Education, 15, 703–714.
Judd, T. (2010). Facebook vs. email. British Journal of Educational Technology, 41,
E101–E103.
Koutropoulos, A., Gallagher, M. S., Abajian, S. C., deWaard, I., Hogue, R. J., Keskin, N. Ö.,
& Rodriguez, C. O. (2012). Emotive vocabulary in MOOCs: Context & participant retention. European Journal of Open, Distance and E-Learning. Retrieved from http://www.eu
rodl.org/?p=Special&sp=init2&article=507
Lester, J., & Perini, M. (2010). Potential of social networking sites for distance education student engagement. New Directions for Community Colleges, 2010, 67–77.
Lin, P.-C., Hou, H.-T., Wang, S.-M., & Chang, K.-E. (2013). Analyzing knowledge dimensions
and cognitive process of a project-based online discussion instructional activity using Facebook in an adult and continuing education course. Computers & Education, 60, 110–121.
Lovejoy, K., Waters, R. D., & Saxton, G. D. (2012). Engaging stakeholders through Twitter:
How nonprofit organizations are getting more out of 140 characters or less. Public Relations Review, 38, 313–318.
Madhusudhan, M. (2012). Use of social networking sites by research scholars of the University of Delhi: A study. The International Information & Library Review, 44, 100–113.
Mandavilli, A. (2011). Peer review: Trial by Twitter. Nature, 469, 286–287.
Marques, A. M., Krejci, R., Siqueira, S., Pimentel, M., & Braz, M. (2013). Structuring the
discourse on social networks for learning: Case studies on blogs and microblogs. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 395–400.
Paul, J. A., Baker, H. M., & Cochran, J. D. (2012). Effect of online social networking on student academic performance. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 2117–2127.
Ross, H. M., Baanow, R., & Yu, S. (2013, April). The impact of a course-connected Twitter
backchannel on post-secondary student engagement. Paper presented at the 3rd Annual
Symposium for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, University of Saskatchewan,
Saskatchewan.
Selwyn, N. (2009). Faceworking: Exploring students’ education‐related use of Facebook.
Learning, Media and Technology, 34, 157–174.
Singhvi, S. (2013). #Twitter7. Twitter corporate blog. Retrieved from http://blog.uk.Twitter.
com/2013_03_01_archive.html
Stewart, B. (2014, April). How do we know who we are when we’re online? Reputation,
identity and influence in scholarly networks. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Networked Learning 2014, Edinburgh, UK.
Tess, P. A. (2013). The role of social media in higher education classes (real and virtual) – A
literature review. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, A60–A68.
Innovations in Education and Teaching International
155
Turnitin. (2013). The sources in student writing – Higher education: Sources of matched content
and plagiarism in student writing (white paper). Retrieved from http://pages.turnitin.com/
rs/iparadigms/images/Turnitin_WhitePaper_Sources_in_%20Student_%20Writing_HE.pdf
Veletsianos, G., & Kimmons, R. (2013). Scholars and faculty members’ lived experiences in
online social networks. The Internet and Higher Education, 16, 43–50.
Virkus, S. (2008). Use of web 2.0 technologies in LIS education: Experiences at Tallinn
University, Estonia. Program: Electronic Library and Information Systems, 42, 262–274.
Williams, J., & Chinn, S. (2009). Using web 2.0 to support the active learning experience.
Journal of Information Systems Education, 20, 165–175.
Willinsky, J. (2010). Open access and academic reputation. Annals of Library and Information Studies, 57, 296–302.
Woodley, C., & Meredith, C. (2012). Supporting student transition through social media.
American Journal of Distance Education, 26, 86–95.