Pebble-in-the-Pond?! Does a Hashtag Conversation on Twitter connect Teachers?

Martin Rehm, Ad Notten, Annabell Preußler, Michael Kerres

EARLI SIG 14, Oslo, Norway

continuous professional development of teachers is a pivotal element in the provision of high quality

education (e.g. Hokka & Etelapelto, 2013)

fostered while collaborating in social networks composed of diverse groups of people

(Paavola, Lipponen, & Hakkarainen, 2004)

Networks of Practice (NoP)

“a larger, loosely knit, geographically distributed group of individuals engaged in a shared practice”

(Wasko & Faraj. 2005. p. 37)

• “people typically value and protect what they know” (Hew & Hara. 2007. p. 1).

• “most teachers […] are accustomed to designing teaching activities in isolation […], which, in turn, prevents knowledge externalization and sharing.” (Hou. Sung. & Chang. 2009. p. 101)

Social Capital

“relational resources embedded in the cross-cutting personal ties that are useful for the personal development

of individuals”(Tsai & Ghoshal, 1998, p. 464)

Revolutionary rise of social capital“[…] individuals create social capital at

unprecedented pace and ever-extending networks.”

(Lin, 1999, p. 45)

Three Dimensions of Social Capital

Structural social interactions

Cognitive shared code

(Nahapiet & Ghoshal, 1997)

Relational assets such as trust

Research Hypotheses

Twitter Conversations contribute to:

1. a Network of Practice (NoP) among Teachers

2. the structural dimension of individuals’ social capital

3. the cognitive dimension of a NoP’s social capital

Twitter

#educhat

• focuses on the Northern American teaching community.

• topics cover different aspects of teaching practice

• started out as a synchronous Twitter event

• Data collected: 01.05. – 31.06.20142095 User3884 Tweets

Method

i. Users metrics

– Tweets, Mentions, Replies to, Followers, Followed

ii. Social Network Analysis

– Degree, Betweeness, Cluster

iii. Semantic Network Analysis

– Top-25 Hashtags, 2-Mode Network (Users-Hashtags)

Mentions Tweets Replies to In-Degree Out-Degree Top25 Hashtags

Mean 1,75 1,75 1,75 1,19 1,75 0,80

Stdev. 2,23 2,23 2,23 6,64 2,23 6,07

Minimum 1,00 1,00 1,00 0,00 1,00 0,00

Maximum 68,00 68,00 68,00 164,00 68,00 218,00

Followed Followers AllTweets

Mean 1.288,54 2.128,71 8.953,49

Stdev. 7.563,45 13.724,87 21.238,74

Minimum 0,00 1,00 1,00

Maximum 294.369,00 487.095,00 266.073,00

Descriptives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 Mentions1

2 Tweets1.00** 1

3 Replies to1.00** 1.00** 1

4 In-Degree0.03 0.03 0.03 1

5 Out-Degree1.00** 1.00** 1.00** -.37** 1

6 Top25-Hashtags.13** .13** .13** -.06** .28** 1

7 Followed0.00 0.00 0.00 .13** -.07** 0.03 1

8 Followers.04* .04* .04* .32** -.25** -.05** .73** 1

9 Tweets (Overall).07** .07** .07** 0.01 -.04* 0.00 .61** .73** 1

* p < .05. ** p < .01

Correlations

Clustering Algortihm: Louvain Method (Single Refinement)Layout: Kamada-Kawai (Optimize Inside Clusters)

605 Clusters

“School”Community

“School”Community

“Portal”Community

“Portal”Community

“Personal”Community“Personal”Community

Social Network Analysis

Two-Mode Network: Top-25 Hashtags

Blue Squares: Hashtags; Red Circles: Users

Semantic Network Analysis

Two-Mode Network: Top-25 Hashtags

Node Size based on Degree

Semantic Network Analysis (cont.)

• Networks of Practice (NoP)

– Yes: “larger, loosely knit […], geographically distributed group of individuals engaged in a shared practice” (Wasko & Faraj. 2005. p. 37)

• Social Capital

– Structural Dimensionlimited, “homophiliy”, structural holes & bridges

– Cognitive Dimensionlimited, ontology/categorization, shared code