pebble-in-the-pond?!
DESCRIPTION
Does a Hashtag Conversation on Twitter connect Teachers?TRANSCRIPT
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
#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