The document discusses using Twitter as a teaching practice to enhance active and informal learning in higher education. It summarizes a study that compared using Twitter versus more traditional methods for learning about sustainability. 15 students in a class on sustainable cities were split into two groups - one used Twitter to discuss the topic outside of class, while the other kept diaries and had one group discussion. The Twitter group was found to have more engagement with the material and retained more knowledge as shown on a quiz. The study suggests Twitter may be an effective tool for informal, outside of class learning compared to traditional methods.
Active learning in higher education 2012-kassens-noor-9-21
1. Active Learning in Higher Education
http://alh.sagepub.com/
Twitter as a teaching practice to enhance active and informal learning in higher
education: The case of sustainable tweets
Eva Kassens-Noor
Active Learning in Higher Education 2012 13: 9
DOI: 10.1177/1469787411429190
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://alh.sagepub.com/content/13/1/9
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
Additional services and information for Active Learning in Higher Education can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://alh.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://alh.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://alh.sagepub.com/content/13/1/9.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Feb 28, 2012
What is This?
Downloaded from alh.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on May 19, 2012
3. 10 Active Learning in Higher Education 13(1)
apply knowledge through engagement (Bonwell and Eison, 1991; McKinney and Heyl, 2008;
Meyers and Jones, 1993). While students actively participate in multiple learning contexts, their
learning evolves within formal and informal settings (Greenhow et al., 2009). Informal learning is
a course-related activity outside the classroom that centers around students’ self-directed and inde-
pendent learning activities including peer-to-peer interactions (Aspden and Thorpe, 2009;
Jamieson, 2009). In particular, networking is considered an informal learning strategy (Marsick
and Watkins, 1990). Based on empirical evidence from MBA students, Yang and Lu (2001) suggest
that informal learning ought to be an essential component in education, because it enhances aca-
demic performance. As ‘non-classroom, disciplinary-based facilities’ (Jamieson, 2009: 20) for
informal student learning activities continue to decrease, Jamieson (2009) highlights the need to
create outside-of-class options for students to interact.
With the advent of Web 2.0 applications, cyberspace has offered new communication spaces for
informal and active learning activities and also altered how information is transmitted among stu-
dents. Hicks and Graber (2010: 627) hypothesize that Web 2.0 might have created a different
‘learning and information reality’ compared with the traditional reflective and collaborative dis-
course. Therefore, they encourage research into these technologies in order to inform higher educa-
tion teaching practices about how instructors can design and use these new web tools.
A brief introduction to Twitter, microblogs and Web 2.0
Web 2.0 refers to a variety of web-enabled applications built on open source and driven by user-
generated and user-manipulated content. The most frequently used Web 2.0 applications include
wikis (Wikipedia.org), podcasts (youtube.com), blogs (blogspot.com), and social networking sites
(facebook.com, Twitter.com). Especially in recent years, social networking sites have seen an
explosive growth as a way of communication (Fox et al., 2009). At the end of 2009, about 19% of
Internet users logged into social networking sites to bring their friends up to date or to keep
informed about their friends’ lives. Also in 2009, the number of users on social networking sites
tripled (Fox et al., 2009). This explosive growth trend continued throughout 2010 (Borasky, 2010).
As a free Web 2.0 application, Twitter has become a popular microblogging tool and social
networking website among younger generations (Java et al., 2007; McFedries, 2007). Since
Twitter’s inauguration in 2006, this online community has seen a steep rise in users, especially
those under 34 years old (Fox et al., 2009). Through Twitter, people communicate by exchanging
quick, frequent, and short messages of up to 140 characters in length. These are called tweets and
belong to the group of microblogs (Stevens, 2008). Twitter community members can post their
tweets directly on their own Twitter website via mobile phone, email, and instant messaging. At the
end of 2009, 65 million people used Twitter around the globe, a 14-fold increase since early in
2008 (ComScore, 2010). Most tweeters reside in North America, Europe, and Asia (Java et al.,
2007). Usually, tweeters provide updates on their current status, as Twitter was designed to briefly
answer the question: ‘What are you doing?’ (Twitter, 2010). Users can also post links to pictures,
more expansive blogs, and other websites (Java et al., 2007).
Twitter in higher education
Hannay and Fretwell (2011) predict that Web 2.0 applications will soon be taken up by universi-
ties and suggest these technologies will have implications for the academic workplace; students
will demand that faculty members communicate digitally, via instant messaging, Twitter and
other technologies. Similarly, companies will expect their recruits, our graduates, to be versed in
Downloaded from alh.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on May 19, 2012
4. Kassens-Noor 11
social media technologies (Wankel, 2009). It is unsurprising, then, that we, as educators, are being
encouraged to use Twitter to enable interactivity, excite learners, and foster greater student
participation.
Responding to this challenge, educators in higher education have started to experiment with
Twitter in the hope students seize the opportunity to interact more frequently, engage more thought-
fully, and foster learning inside and beyond the classroom (Grosseck and Holotescu, 2008; Junco
et al., 2011; Perez, 2009; Schroeder et al., 2010). Establishing five social media literacies, namely
attention, participation, collaboration, network awareness, and critical consumption, Rheingold
(2010) emphasizes the need for Twitter to be a valuable communication tool, in contrast to Twitter’s
potential pitfall of being a mere distraction (Wankel, 2009). Ultimately, Twitter can be a powerful
collaboration tool (Corbeil and Corbeil, 2011; Rheingold, 2010). Summarizing, Reuben (2008)
emphasizes the tremendous potential Twitter could play in education, but acknowledges that no
one has found the right niche just yet.
Twitter as an instant feedback tool during class
Microblogging as a way to enhance student learning has a substantial impact within class settings
(Ebner, 2009; Ebner et al., 2010); accordingly faculty have primarily experimented with Twitter in
classrooms (Young, 2009). Most of these experiments have focused on Twitter as an in-class instant
feedback tool between teachers and students. For example, Dunlap and Lowenthal (2009) analyzed
the use of Twitter in online courses; DeCosta et al. (2010) looked at Twitter as a tool for student–
teacher communication; Parry (2008) identified 13 ways in which Twitter can be used during class;
and Croxall (2010) found that Twitter enables frequent class discussions. This ‘live-tweeting’
encourages careful listening, paying close attention, gathering information, and multi-tasking
(Wankel, 2009).
Another form of using Twitter is for student–student communication outside the classroom yet
within a formal class-setting. Twibes, entire classes that form Twitter groups, spread information
in real time; one example is field trips, during which participants tweeted classmates who remained
at the university (Richardson, 2009; Rogers-Estable, 2009). Within classroom settings, Twitter has
been primarily used as an instant feedback tool for student–teacher communication and is in the
early stages of exploration for student–student interaction.
Twitter as a learning tool
The e-learning community increasingly has looked to social networks as tools for creating and
sharing knowledge (Grosseck and Holotescu, 2008; Huberman et al., 2008). In particular, micro-
blogging is a new form of communication that can support informal learning beyond classrooms
(Ebner et al., 2010). Twitter can support students’ informal learning activities (Aspden and Thorpe,
2009). It can also be an active learning tool (Cherney, 2008) that promotes connections with real-
life learning, thereby encouraging critical reflection and fostering enhanced understanding
(Bonwell and Eison, 1991).
One of the few empirical studies exploring the effects of Twitter on college students was con-
ducted by Junco et al. (2011) with 125 pre-health majors. Splitting the students into two sections,
the researchers found that Twitter had a positive impact on both student engagement and grades.
Owing to the use of Twitter, class conversations were extended beyond sessions, students more
easily and more readily displayed openness about feelings and their own shortcomings, more
cross-communication took place, and unlikely interpersonal relationships were forged based on
Downloaded from alh.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on May 19, 2012
5. 12 Active Learning in Higher Education 13(1)
shared values and interests. In short, Twitter catalyzed connections more quickly than classroom
discussions. Furthermore, instructor–student communication was improved when Twitter provided
a comfortable platform for asking deeply probing questions.
Purpose of the study and research questions
This evolving stream of literature supports three conclusions about Twitter. First, all instructors
who have experimented with Twitter agree that it can have a positive impact on engagement.
Second, studies have focused almost exclusively on Twitter used as an instant feedback tool inside
the classroom. Third, scholars suggest Twitter holds potential as a powerful learning tool that can
readily transmit knowledge, inform learners, and extend beyond individuals to their social
networks.
Despite a multitude of websites suggesting the use of Twitter in academic settings and advising
on how to use the Web 2.0 tool (Parry, 2008; Perez, 2009; Reuben, 2008), there are very few
empirical studies that actually support this advice. In particular, studies have yet to examine quali-
tatively the effect of using Twitter beyond the classroom as an active and informal learning tool
focused on peer-to-peer interactions.
Therefore, the goal of this study is to stimulate scholarly discussion about Twitter as an active,
informal, outside of class, peer-to-peer interaction tool that aids the in-class learning process. This
study is an exploration of ways in which today’s students apply, create, and retain knowledge when
using Twitter compared with more traditional approaches to learning. In this study, traditional
approaches are defined as individual homework assignments and in-class discussion. The research
questions that ultimately drive this study are ‘Does the use of Twitter aid students in learning a
particular subject matter? And, if so, in which learning contexts does Twitter offer advantages over
more traditional teaching methods?’
Methodology
This methodology section is divided into three sections. The first introduces the study participants.
The second explains the study’s design and implementation procedure. The third elaborates on
measures and analysis.
Participants
The Twitter experiment ran in a Midwestern research tier I university class, in which students grap-
ple with how urban planners can create sustainable and climate-resilient cities. Between 25 March
2010 and 22 April 2010 (Earth Day, a day during which people worldwide inspire awareness and
learn to protect the natural environment), 15 students participated in the study; eight were upper-
level undergraduates and seven were graduate students. The students’ grade point average (GPA)
was 3.58 and their age averaged at 23.65 years. As a cross-disciplinary class, the students majored
in urban planning, construction management, and environmental studies.
Prior to the class, five students had used Twitter, three of them rarely and two on a weekly basis.
Their reasons for using Twitter were primarily to receive news updates, to stay in touch with
friends, and to gather information about jobs. Furthermore, two students indicated their interest in
celebrities.
Prior to the start of the study, the experiment was deemed as expedited via the instructor’s insti-
tutional review board (IRB). The IRB is an appointed committee acting independently and
Downloaded from alh.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on May 19, 2012
6. Kassens-Noor 13
Table 1. Group characteristics
Student characteristics Twitter Traditional (diary and discussion)
Active participants/Total 6/7 6/8
Undergraduates/Graduates 4/2 4/2
Average GPA 3.57 3.59
Age 23.3 24
Time spent on exercise 2 hours 1 hour 40 min + 30 min discussion
ethically to protect the rights and welfare of human research subjects. Fourteen students provided
informed consent to release the findings of this study. The student who did not want to participate
in the study was excluded from the evaluation, and this student’s contributions to the study have
been destroyed. In the course of the study, two students did not turn in their assignments. Hence
both were deemed as non-active participants and excluded from the evaluation of the study. To
ensure confidentiality, the students who took part were asked to adopt code names for the exercise,
such as ‘Captain Planet’, or ‘Earthability’, and keep their diaries and new Twitter accounts exclu-
sively under these code names. Thereby, the collected data could not be associated with any one
student and any potential teacher–student power relationship bias was eliminated.
As part of the course, students were asked to identify unsustainable practices in cities and suggest
remedies. Divided in groups, one group would use Twitter to create and exchange information, while
the other group would keep a personal diary and discuss their entries once among the group members
towards the end of the course (a third option, to write an individual essay, was not selected by any of
the students). In the end, a quiz would indicate which group had retained more knowledge.
Design and procedure
Students were offered three choices to complete their sustainability assignment: (1) the ‘Twitter
group’ would use Twitter as their only communication mechanism, (2) the ‘traditional group’
would have one in-class discussion and keep individual diaries, (3) the ‘essay group’ would write
5,000 words on unsustainable practices and their remedies. No student chose the third option. The
assignment was a for-credit exercise. To avoid the potential bias of a student–teacher power rela-
tionship, the students received full credit for the exercise if either the Twitter assignment or the
traditional assignment was completed on time.
The Twitter group and the traditional group show comparable group characteristics (Table 1).
Active participants provided informed consent to make the results of this study public and regularly
produced Twitter or diary entries. After the exclusion of the two non-active participants, each group
had an equal number of students: four undergraduate and two graduate students. The average GPAs
in the two groups were almost identical, and there was only a slight difference in their average ages.
Data from five sources were collected during the experiment: surveys, tweets, diaries, a group
discussion, and a pop-quiz. The surveys were given to all students in-class before the study exer-
cise began (14 January 2010), asking them to report whether they had used Twitter and, if so, for
what purpose. After the study (22 April 2010), the Twitter group was required to hand in printouts
of all their tweets and re-tweets (answers to tweets) made during the study. On the same day, the
traditional group had to hand in their diaries and hold a team discussion about their diaries in class.
This discussion was audio-recorded and the tape was transcribed by a third person, who did not
know the students. The 30-minute quiz was given to students on 27 April 2010. The in-class quiz
Downloaded from alh.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on May 19, 2012
7. 14 Active Learning in Higher Education 13(1)
Table 2. Extract from diary instruction sheet
Date Unsustainable practice Remedy
first asked students about their demographics: which group they belonged to, their current under-
graduate or graduate year, the time they had spent on the exercise, their GPA, and their age. The
second part of the quiz asked students to recall an unsustainable practice and potential remedies
they had explored in their respective groups. To avoid potential bias in this knowledge-retention
exercise, students were not informed about the quiz beforehand.
The sustainability assignment was introduced to all students during an in-class presentation on
18 March 2010; handouts further clarified instructions for the assignment to the two groups. One
email reminder to continue their diaries and to keep posting tweets was sent (1 April 2010) a week
after the exercise started.
Starting on 25 March 2010, the Twitter group was instructed to post a tweet whenever they
found an unsustainable practice in daily life (for example, buying a paper cup) and suggest a rem-
edy (for example, bringing their own reusable cup to buy coffee).
Twitter rules
•• Each new tweet has to briefly describe an unsustainable practice and suggest a remedy.
•• Each answer to a tweet has to either add an additional remedy or refute that the previous
tweet contains an unsustainable practice.
•• Tweet daily (if possible multiple times – as soon as you identify a practice/remedy).
The Twitter group members were not allowed to discuss their tweets outside the online forum. For
communication and evaluation purposes, each of the Twitter group participants joined the course
leader’s Twitter list called ‘the sustainable city’ under their code names. Prior to the start of the
project, the students were informed that the instructor would not interfere or add to the knowledge
application and creation exercise unless the students were posting inappropriate tweets.
Also starting on 25 March 2010, the traditional group members were instructed to keep a daily
diary according to Table 2.
The students discussed their diary entries within their ‘traditional group’ during class time on 22
April 2010. A time slot of 30 minutes was allotted for discussion while the Twitter group left the
classroom.
Measures and analysis
All collected material was tracked, examined, and evaluated. Knowledge application and creation
were qualitatively assessed through content analysis of four sources: tweets, diaries, surveys, and
the transcript of the team discussion among the diary-keeping students. Knowledge retention was
qualitatively assessed through content analysis of the in-class pop quiz.
Scoring and coding were conducted after the end of the study with various cross-checks. First,
the course leader coded the tweets by key words, pairing the unsustainable practices with their
remedies. Then, the instructor identified all students who noted the same unsustainable practice
Downloaded from alh.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on May 19, 2012
8. Kassens-Noor 15
Table 3. Traditional and Twitter participation
Expected Total Average
Baseline Entries per day per person per person per day
Diary entries 174 131 4.5 21.8 0.75
Tweets 174 88 3 14.7 0.5
and the same remedies. The identical coding procedure was applied to the diary entries. Thereafter,
the transcript was coded and cross-compared with the diary entries, marking similar and different
unsustainable practices and their remedies. Finally, the quiz was coded according to the same pro-
cedure. A second coder independently applied the same methodology; discrepancies were dis-
cussed and mutually agreed upon.
Results
The results are split in two sections: the first reports on knowledge creation, the second reports on
knowledge retention. The distinction between the two is important, because they measure different
outcomes of the learning process. Whereas the former focuses on the communicative advantages
Twitter may offer as an instant tool and readily available database, the latter shows which teaching
practice has the potential for long-term recollection of the created and shared ideas. Before launch-
ing into the results sections, a brief comparison between the two groups is necessary in regards to
participation and knowledge comprehension.
Both groups showed a good understanding of the content taught in class: the unsustainable
practices and their remedies. Throughout the exercise, the students applied the knowledge they had
learned during class and applied it faultlessly via Twitter, diaries, and in the team discussion.
Both groups frequently tweeted or kept their diaries, but both groups participated less than
expected (Table 3). The baseline of 174 entries represents the minimum number of expected entries
(29 days × 6 student entries) per group, in which all students had followed the instructions by
tweeting at least daily or making at least one diary entry per day.
Even though the traditional students made more entries than the Twitter students (Table 3), the
Twitter students reported a higher amount of time spent on their entries than the traditional stu-
dents; while students reported to have spent two hours on average on the Twitter exercise, the tra-
ditional group reported 10 minutes more: 1 hour 40 minutes for their diary entries and the 30-minute
discussion.
Knowledge creation
The Twitter group found more unsustainable practices and found more remedies per identified
practice. Overall, the Twitter students identified 64 unsustainable practices with 65 remedies
through their tweets. In contrast, the traditional group found 10 fewer unsustainable practices, but
gave a variety of remedies per identified practice, totaling 70 remedies. For example, the Twitter
group identified as an unsustainable practice that individuals drove cars, and suggested one rem-
edy: riding a bike. In contrast, the traditional group found the same unsustainable practice (an
individual driving a car), but identified seven remedies to the identified unsustainable practice:
car-sharing, transit (using public transport), using hybrid cars, collating trips by car, cycling, walk-
ing, and using more energy-efficient air travel.
Downloaded from alh.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on May 19, 2012
9. 16 Active Learning in Higher Education 13(1)
For the traditional group, the venue to share their individual work and discuss their diaries was
the in-class meeting on 22 April 2010. During the discussion, the traditional group managed to
analyze 28 unsustainable practices (~55% of all unsustainable practices created by the entire
group) including various remedies.
Knowledge retention
The traditional group reported on average 10 unsustainable practices including remedies during the
pop quiz. On average, 70% of these practices were those created by themselves, which means the
students had either reported those unsustainable practices and remedies in their own diaries or
invented new ones during the quiz. The other 30% of reported unsustainable practices and reme-
dies were those discussed during the 30-minute in-class meeting.
The Twitter students reported fewer unsustainable practices and remedies than the traditional group.
On average, they reported 7.6 unsustainable practices with remedies during the quiz. In contrast with
the traditional group, the Twitter students remembered over 60% of the unsustainable practices and
remedies that others had created on Twitter, while only 40% were from their own source of ideas.
Discussion of Twitter and traditional group activity
Knowledge creation
The following interpretations might explain why (1) the Twitter group found more unsustainable
practices with matching remedies than the traditional group and (2) why the traditional group
reported a variety of remedies per identified practice, but found overall fewer unsustainable prac-
tices than the Twitter group.
(1) The traditional group found fewer unsustainable practices, because no communication among
the students took place during the collection of ideas. Consecutively, the same unsustainable practice
was identified multiple times by different members of the traditional group; in their diaries, they
reported 18 unsustainable practices at least twice. In contrast, the Twitter group only mentioned the
same unsustainable practice eight times. This interpretation supports the findings of Rheingold (2010)
and Richardson (2009) that Twitter is a powerful collaboration tool between students. Additionally,
the comparative nature of the study suggests that Twitter is better suited for creating and sharing large
amounts of information compared with traditional teaching methods. A further advantage Twitter
provides is tracking the tweets by time and date automatically; it ensured continuous participation
throughout the entire month, which may also have contributed to the greater number of unsustainable
practices identified. In contrast, the traditional students could have completed their diaries the day
before their assignment was due or might have thought about the exercise only on a weekly basis.
Because both groups presented information equivalent in quality, this suggests Twitter is also useful
for informal out-of-classroom assignments, just like other microblogging tools (Ebner et al., 2010).
(2) The traditional group created more remedies per identified practice, because there was no
character limit for diary entries. In contrast, the Twitter group had to adhere to the 140 characters
per tweet (Figure 1). For multiple remedies, students would have had to start a new tweet.
Starting new tweets might have been a barrier for reflective thinking (no student tweeted twice
within a short time frame or even within the same day). The multitude of remedies created by the
diary-keeping students suggests that traditional teaching practices allowed for more in-depth think-
ing and self-reflective learning because diaries did not create artificial writing barriers. While
Twitter can be an active learning tool (Cherney, 2008), tweets seem to defeat an essential attribute
for active learning, because tweeters do not have ‘space to think’.
Downloaded from alh.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on May 19, 2012
10. Kassens-Noor 17
Figure 1. Extract from the sustainably city Twitter site (Source: http://Twitter.com/#/list/ekassens/the-
sustainable-city)
Twitter showed another pitfall in comparison with interactive face-to-face discussions. During
the traditional group meeting, students offered knowledge that was not part of the exercise per se.
The student conversation shown in Table 4 exemplifies this finding. As this extract of the tran-
scribed discussion meeting shows, because one student explained the reason for packaged food
(sanitary purposes), all students in the traditional group knew about that reason after the discus-
sion. While the same discussion came up in the Twitter group (fast food packaging) with the same
remedies (do not eat at all, or minimum packaging), none of the students explained why packag-
ing was necessary.
Knowledge retention
The Twitter students reported a much higher percentage of team-created solutions than the
traditional group in the pop quiz. There are multiple explanations for the discrepancy in
outcomes.
Downloaded from alh.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on May 19, 2012
11. 18 Active Learning in Higher Education 13(1)
Table 4. Extract from traditional group discussion
Participant A: Another thing that really upsets me, if you ever go get fast food, everything is packaged. It
comes in a bag. The food is wrapped.
Participant B: Yes
Participant A: The plastic straw is wrapped, the plastic fork is wrapped. It’s like it’s ridiculous. So, my
remedy was to stop eating fast food, because it’s bad for you anyway.
Participant C: But then, if we like, . . ., I’ll just ask them for stuff without the bag.
Participant B: Will they give you that?
Participant D: Yeah, well I kinda force them to. They’re like ‘are you sure?’ [laughter]
Participant D: Yeah, I do the same thing in other food stores.
Participant E: The one thing about the, sorry, real quick, about the fast food is like, I think they have to
do that for sanitary purposes.
Table 5. Extracts from James Bond’s diary
Date Unsustainable practice Remedy
25 Mar I drove my car to school today. Ride the bus or ride my bike.
3 Apr I went to Cirque du Solei today Provide obvious recycle bins at the
and there were hundreds of Breslin center.
recyclable cups just getting thrown
in the trash or left on the ground.
12 Apr My roommate left the light on in Turn off the light when one leaves.
the hallway all day while nobody
was home.
First, continuous tweeting fosters team communication and prolonged interactive engagement in
the learning process. This combination enhances the understanding of the team-created unsustainable
practices and remedies. Therefore, the tweeters remembered more solutions that were jointly created
on Twitter. This interpretation would support the findings of Aspen and Thorpe (2009), who posit that
Twitter can be a powerful active learning tool.
Second, the diary format, as individual work, is intrinsically self-reflective (Table 5). Therefore,
traditional students might have primarily recalled their own ideas. This interpretation would support
the idea that self-reflection is encouraged more strongly in diaries than on Twitter. This outcome sup-
ports evidence found during the knowledge creation exercise of this study: Twitter may be superior
in gathering the amount of information, but is less powerful at fostering self-reflective thinking.
Third, because only half of the overall unsustainable practices identified were discussed during
the traditional group meeting, the traditional students were more likely to report from their diaries.
In contrast, through Twitter, gathering of information was more easily facilitated, as also suggested
by Wankel (2009).
These three reasons, however, do not explain why traditional students seemed to have retained
overall more knowledge about sustainable lifestyles than Twitter students (10 vs 7.6 unsustainable
practices including remedies identified in the test), especially given that the Twitter group could
draw from a larger pool of existing ideas. This result, collapsed to a single assignment, is in con-
trast to Junco et al.’s (2011) findings of Twitter’s positive impact on grades. One possible explana-
tion is that the traditional group had the chance to share their knowledge shortly before the test
during their scheduled discussion session, whereas the Twitter group probably did not reread all
tweets shortly before the quiz.
Downloaded from alh.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on May 19, 2012
12. Kassens-Noor 19
Conclusions
This exploratory study filled some knowledge gaps in the largely unexplored Twitter territory. Twitter
as an active, informal learning tool has some distinct advantages and disadvantages over traditional
team work. The advantages lie in that Twitter can foster the combined knowledge creation of a group
better than individuals’ diaries and discussion, because Twitter facilitates sharing of ideas beyond the
classroom via an online platform that allows readily available access at random times to continue
such discussion. The disadvantages of Twitter lie in constraining critical thinking and self-reflection
because of the tweets’ character limit. As in previous studies (DeCosta et al., 2010; Dunlap and
Lowenthal, 2009), Twitter had a positive impact on student learning, because instantaneous peer-to-
peer communication via Twitter enhanced understanding of unsustainable practices and remedies.
Twitter, like other microblogging tools (Ebner et al., 2010), also supports informal learning. In con-
trast to Junco et al. (2011), this study contradicts the finding that students using Twitter more easily
and more readily displayed openness about feelings and their own shortcomings. This study instead
suggests that the diary-keeping students showed a stronger display of self-reflection: more students
identified their own flaws, whereas Twitter students only identified faults of others.
This study has several limitations. First, the small sample size limits the generalizability of
results. Having six students in each of the groups only allowed for a glimpse into the advantages
and disadvantages Twitter could provide to the learning community. Second, the ways in which
this study measured knowledge application, creation, and retention are clearly limited. All
assessment methods contain obvious biases, because knowledge application, creation and reten-
tion are not equivalent to writing in diaries or on Twitter nor to recalling facts in a quiz. As prox-
ies though, the five sources combined offer important lessons on the value of using Twitter as a
new teaching practice. Third, the study stretched only over one month. Given these limitations,
future research should sample a larger study group, observe the students’ knowledge creation
and application over longer periods of time, and comparatively apply both teaching practices to
a variety of topics in order to provide further insights into the benefits and pitfalls of Twitter.
While most researchers have argued that Twitter can encourage creativity and stimulate conver-
sation and collaboration, research is still in its infant stages in exploring the ‘different approaches
to teaching and learning . . . in order to take advantage of the potential of digital media and Web
2.0 applications’ that Hicks and Graber (2010: 627) suggest exist. Despite the small sample size,
this work offers valuable insights into the applicability and usability of Twitter as a teaching prac-
tice. As an informal, active, outside the classroom tool, Twitter can be a powerful teaching practice
to relate theoretical concepts to practical applications in everyday life.
As a first step, this study showed that the use of Twitter can display both sides of the coin as it
depends on the course content, the assignment task, and the instructor’s intent whether or not
Twitter is the right tool for learning aspects of the subject matter. So, in some contexts Twitter will
better aid students in learning a particular subject matter compared with more traditional teaching
methods, but in other contexts it would hinder them. If instructors intend to engage students on a
particular subject matter, bridging theory and practice while including real-world examples (linear
applicative learning), Twitter provides distinct advantages over the traditional individual home-
work assignments and in-class discussions. Offering a 24/7 available communication platform,
Twitter is a powerful tool in applying and creating ideas. In contrast, if the instructor intends to
foster critical, in-depth and self-reflective thinking among the students and their peers, this study
suggests Twitter is likely to be an unsuitable teaching practice for the class.
Assuming continuous growth of the social network, Twitter may become a phenomenon that
captures our millennial student generation. If wisely introduced by educators this tool could
become a powerful medium that extends beyond classrooms.
Downloaded from alh.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on May 19, 2012
13. 20 Active Learning in Higher Education 13(1)
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Professors Kathleen McKinney and Pat Crawford for their valuable feedback on earlier
drafts. I am also grateful to Professors Trixie Smith, Manuel Colunga, Janice Molloy, and Wen Li for helping
me think through the structure of this article. Furthermore, many thanks go to my students, without whom this
research would not have been possible.
References
Aspden EJ and Thorpe LP (2009) Where do you learn? Tweeting to inform learning space develop-
ment. Educause Quarterly 32(1). Available at: http://www.educause.edu/EDUCAUSE+Quarterly/
EDUCAUSEQuarterlyMagazineVolum/WhereDoYouLearnTweetingtoInfor/163852
Bonwell CC and Eison JA (1991) Active Learning: Creating Excitement in the Classroom. ASHE-ERIC
Higher Education Report No. 1. Washington, DC: George Washington University, School of Education
and Human Development.
Borasky ME (2010) A visual history of Twitter’s growth. Available at: http://borasky-research.net (accessed
10 December 2010).
Cherney ID (2008) The effects of active learning on students’ memories for course content. Active Learning
in Higher Education 9(2): 152–71.
Chickering AW and Gamson ZF, eds (1991) Applying the Seven Principles for Good Practice in Under
graduate Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
ComScore (2010) Data passport – first half of 2010. Measuring the digital world. Available at: http://
www.slideshare.net/StephaneHuy/comscore-2010-rapport-premier-semestre (accessed 15 December
2010).
Conlon TJ (2004) A review of informal learning literature, theory and implications for practice in developing
global professional competence. Journal of European Industrial Training 28(2–4): 283–95.
Corbeil JR and Corbeil ME (2011) The birth of a social networking phenomenon. In: Wankel C (ed.)
Educating Educators with Social Media (Cutting-edge Technologies in Higher Education, Volume 1).
Bingley: Emerald Group, pp. 13–32.
Croxall B (2010) Reflections on teaching with social media. ‘ProfHacker’, Chronicle of Higher Education,
7 June 2010. Available at: http://chronicle.com/blogPost/Reflections-on-Teaching-with/24556/ (accessed
5 September 2010).
DeCosta M, Clifton J and Roen D (2010) Collaboration and social interaction in English classrooms. English
Journal (High school edition) 99(5): 14.
Dewey J (1938) Experience and Education. New York, NY: Collier Books.
Dunlap JC and Lowenthal PR (2009) Tweeting the night away: Using Twitter to enhance social presence.
Journal of Information Systems Education 20(2): 129.
Ebner M (2009) Introducing live microblogging: How single presentations can be enhanced by the mass.
Journal of Research in Innovative Teaching 2(1): 108–19.
Ebner M, Lienhardt C, Rohs M and Meyer I (2010) Microblogs in Higher Education – A chance to facilitate
informal and process-oriented learning? Computers and Education 55: 92–100.
Fox S, Zickuhr K and Smith A (2009) Twitter and status updating, fall 2009 – Report: Social Networking,
Web 2.0. Available at: www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/.../PIP_Twitter_Fall_2009web.pdf (accessed
10 January 2011).
Greenhow C, Robelia B and Hughes J (2009) Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age. Web 2.0
and classroom research: What path should we take now? Educational Researcher 38(4): 246–59.
Grosseck G and Holotescu C (2008) Can we use Twitter for educational activities? Paper presented at the 4th
International Scientific Conference eLSE: eLearning and Software for Education, Bucharest, Rumania,
17–18 April
Hannay M and Fretwell C (2011) The higher education workplace: Meeting the needs of multiple generations.
Research in Higher Education Journal 10(March): 1–12.
Hicks A and Graber A (2010) Shifting paradigms: Teaching, learning and Web 2.0. Reference Services
Review 38(4): 621–33.
Downloaded from alh.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on May 19, 2012
14. Kassens-Noor 21
Huberman B, Romero DM and Wu F (2008) Social networks that matter: Twitter under the microscope
(updated 1 September 2010). Available at: http://www.hpl.hp.com/research/scl/papers/twitter/ (accessed
5 January 2011).
Jamieson P (2009) The serious matter of informal learning. Planning for Higher Education 37(2): 18–25.
Java A, Song X, Finin T and Tseng B (2007) Why we Twitter: Understanding microblogging usage and com-
munities. In: Proceedings of the Joint 9th WEBKBB and 1st SNA-KBB Workshop 2007, August 2007.
Available at: http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/get/a/publication/369.pdf (accessed 16 September 2010).
Junco R, Heibergert G and Loken E (2011) The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades.
Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 27: 119–32.
Marsick V and Watkins K (1990) Informal and Incidental Learning in the Workplace. New York: Routledge
and Kegan Paul.
McFedries P (2007) Technically speaking: All a-Twitter. IEEE Spectrum 44(10): 84.
McKinney K and Heyl B, eds (2008) Sociology Through Active Learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE/Pine
Forge Press.
Meyers C and Jones TB (1993) Promoting Active Learning: Strategies for the College Classroom. San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Parry B (2008) Twitter for academia. Available at: http://academhack.outsidethetext.com/home/2008/twitter-
for-academia/ (accessed 10 September 2010).
Perez E (2009) Professors experiment with Twitter as teaching tool. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel 27.
Available at: http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/43747152.html (accessed 2 February 2011).
Reuben R (2008) The use of social media in higher education for marketing and communications: A guide for
professionals in higher education. Available at: http://doteduguru.com/id423-social-media-uses-higher-
educationmarketing-communication.html (accessed 10 September 2010).
Rheingold H (2010) Attention and other 21st-century social media literacies. Educause Review (1527–6619)
45(5): 14.
Richardson W (2009) Blogs, Wikis, Podcasts, and Other Powerful Web Tools for Classrooms. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Rogers-Estable M (2009) Web 2.0 and distance education: Tools and techniques. Distance Learning 6(4): 55–60.
Schroeder A, Minocha S and Schneider C (2010) The strengths, weaknesses, and threats of using social
software in higher and further education teaching and learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning
26: 159–74.
Stevens V (2008) Trial by Twitter: The rise and slide of the year’s most viral microblogging platform.
TESLEJ: Teaching English as a Second or Foreign Language 12(1). Available at: http://tesl-ej.org/ej45/
int.html (accessed 15 September 2010.)
Twitter (2010) Twitter: www.twitter.com (accessed 20 December 2010).
Wankel C (2009) Management education using social media. Organization Management Journal 6(4): 251–63.
Yang B and Lu D (2001) Predicting academic performance in management education: An empirical investi-
gation of MBA success. Journal of Education for Business 77(1): 15–20.
Young J (2009) Teaching with Twitter: Not for the faint of heart. Chronicle of Higher Education. Available
at: http://chronicle.com/article/Teaching-With-Twitter-Not-for/49230/ (accessed 10 September 2010).
Biographical note
Eva Kassens-Noor is an Assistant Professor at Michigan State University, holding a joint appoint-
ment in the School of Planning, Design and Construction and the Global Urban Studies Program.
Her work primarily focuses on sustainability and urban planning. She received both her PhD
(Department of Urban Studies and Planning) and her SM (Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering), from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. She completed her Dipl.-Ing.
degree at the University of Karlsruhe Fridericiana in Germany. Address: School of Planning
Design and Construction, Michigan State University, 201E Human Ecology, East Lansing,
Michigan 48823, USA. [email: ekn@msu.edu]
Downloaded from alh.sagepub.com at Universiti Teknologi MARA (UiTM) on May 19, 2012
