Twitter has been celebrated as a tool for professional learning. However many of the assertions about the benefits of Twitter for professional learning have been anecdotal proclamations rather than research-evidenced claims. This presentation draws on findings from my EdD research, which explored how higher education professionals use Twitter for learning. A case study approach enabled in-depth exploration of how and why Twitter was used by professionals for learning about teaching-related practices. The research found that participants used Twitter in different ways: some peripherally participated on Twitter, while others participated at the centre of online-networked spaces. These findings contradict commonly held views that open online spaces, such as Twitter, are inherently social. The research established that capacity to participate, feelings of confidence and vulnerability, and finding a sense of belonging online were contributing factors to participation or non-participation in such spaces. These findings highlight the complexity of participating in online social spaces for learning. Thus, there are implications for those who advocate online social networks for learning. Critical thought and further discussion coupled with suitable supports are required if open online spaces are to be advocated and encouraged for learning in higher education contexts.

1. Exploring higher education professionals’
use of Twitter for learning: issues of
participation.
Dr. Muireann O’Keeffe
Critical Perspectives on ‘Openness’ in Higher Education
SRHE: The Digital University
Image created in Wordle.net from my EdD my thesis.

2. Academic Developer DCU
EdD graduate IOE UCL
@muireannOK
Image: CC BY-NC Muireann O’Keeffe,

3. Motivation and idea
I advocated Twitter as a
learning tool with HE staff
I have responsibility to lead by
example, demonstrate critical
awareness of technology I
engage with (Selwyn & Facer,
2013)
Exploration of Twitter for
informal professional learning
(Gerstein, 2011; Holmes et al.,
2013; Lupton, 2014)
Image from www.freepik.com/free-photos-vectors/hand. Designed by Freepi. Free license with attribution

4. Rhetoric V Research
Top Tool
for
Learning
Collaboration
& learning
Supports
sharing of
practice
Builds
connections
Keep up-to-
date

5. Research questions
1. What are the activities of HE professionals using
the social networking (SNS) site Twitter?
2. How are activities on Twitter supporting the
learning of these HE professionals?
3. What are the barriers and enablers experienced
by these HE professionals in engaging with Twitter
for professional learning?

6. Case study approach
• Exploratory research
• Holistic view of situation
• Conclusions can be questions for further research
(Buchanan, 2012; Denscombe, 2010; Yin, 2014)
• Participants: 7 HE professionals
• Lecturers, learning technologists, academic
developers
• Cross-case analysis
Image from https://www.pexels.com/photo/people-coffee-meeting-team-7096/ CC0

7. Data Collection &
Analysis
• Twitter – Data Harvest
• TAGS explorer (Hawksey, 2014)
• Follow-up interviews
• Semi-structured
• Thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006)
• Data analysis revealed enablers and barriers for
professionals in using Twitter for learning.

8. An approach to social learning:
(Wenger, 1998)
CoP model
community
practice
meaning
identity

9. An approach to social learning:
(Wenger, 1998)
CoP dimensions:
mutual
engagement
joint
enterprise
shared
repertoire

10. Factors for informal
learning
Eraut (2004)

11. Informal online
professional learning
• Networked learning, connected learning, connectivism
• Common assumptions: learning is self-determined,
participatory, authentic and relevant to needs
• (Garrison & Anderson, 2003; Hayes & Gee, 2005; Ito, et
al., 2013; Siemens, 2006).
• Online as a space/place (White & Le Cornu, 2011; Gee,
2005)
Visitors and Residents typology: Wenger’s modes of
participation
• Visitors : peripheral /non-participation
• Residents : participation

12. Framework
Factors necessary to
participate
Participation
contributes to:
Confidence
&
Commitment
Support &
Feedback
Challenge
& Value of
work
Identity of
non-
participation
Learning on
the
peripheries
Presence
Reification
Identity
Belonging
Learning
Non-participation:
Figure: Muireann O'Keeffe EdD thesis http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/1521971/

13. Visitor - Resident
continuum
(White & Le Cornu, 2011)

14. Findings: Activities
(RQ1)
Visitors
• Information
gathering
• Absence of social
presence
Residents
• Social presence
• Connecting and
interacting w/
other
professionals

15. Findings (RQ 2)
• RQ2 – How activities on Twitter influenced practice:
• New ideas, toolkit (Louise)
• Challenged thinking (Louise, Carol)
• Initiated collaborations (Ben, Maurice)
• New teaching approaches: peer review, Peerwise,
lab teaching (Ben, Maurice, Louise)

16. Findings (RQ 3)
Visitors
Barriers
Residents
Enablers

17. Visitors
I don’t have the
bravery
(confidence)
I’m not
ready
I’m not confident
about it being
massively open
I’m hyper sensitive
of people judging
my comments
I would agonise
over tweets for too
long
Colleagues who
know a lot more
Because people I
subscribe to are
kind of fairly high
up

18. Visitor participants –
inhibiting factors
Capacity to
participate
(Visitors)
Lack of
Confidence
More
knowledgeable
others
Not ready
Unknown
audiences
Caution
Vulnerability

19. Residents
There is a
tendency for group
think
It’s all about
having the
correct etiquette
and just being a
nice personI think confidence
is a huge issue
It’s a subject I feel
very confident in
You have the freedom
to say ‘actually this is
what I believe’ and
maybe I don’t know
‘I’m happy to be
proved wrong
I suppose people
would be perhaps
cautious that they may
say something silly,
misrepresent the
institution,
misrepresent
themselves

20. Resident participants –
enabling factors
Capacity to participate
(Residents)
Professional confidence
Playfulness
Time Information management
Capacity to debate Etiquette

21. Residents on Twitter

22. Key themes
Capacity to
participate
socially on
Twitter
Confidence
Vulnerability
Belonging

23. Overall….
All participants demonstrated different ways of being social
online
Differnet modes of participation underpinned by various
reasons
Non-participation an opportunity for learning: “being silent
is still a social practice” (Wenger, 1998, p. 57)
Is Twitter an inherently social space?

24. Shortcoming of peripheral
participation
• Denise, Paul, Carol: strong reluctance to increased
participation
• Learning to participate in communities is perceived to be
important in establishing voice:
“the purpose is not to learn from talk as a substitute for
legitimate peripheral participation; it is to learn to talk as a key
to legitimate peripheral participation” (Lave & Wenger, 1991,
pp. 108-9).
• Louise: peripheral participation helped establish voice on
Twitter, showing changing modes of participation
paralleled with an identity trajectory.

25. Belonging in open online
spaces
• Online spaces for learners endorsed as affinity spaces
(boyd, 2011; Hayes & Gee, 2010; Ito, et al., 2013;
Stewart, 2014)
• Others warn against simplified and unchallenged findings
that extol the virtues of learning in online spaces (Selwyn
& Facer, 2013)
• Paul ( Visitor): others more knowledgeable
• Knowledge and status hierarchy
• Hughes’ (2010): affinity through knowledge-related
identity was fundamental to learning

26. Belonging
• Paul equal to other educators in formal face-to-face contexts
• Denise: comfortable in engaging in face-to-face discussion
• Did other factors marginalise their participation online and prevent
finding affinity with others
• Resident participants, Maurice and Ben, were both male and had
secured permanent
“participating online feels different if you are a woman” (Neary &
Beetham, 2015, p. 98)
“These platforms were designed with specific people in mind, and those
people were rarely people of color, minorities, women, or marginalized
folks” (Singh, 2015)

27. Barriers inhibited capacity
to participate
Visitors: marginal position
“creating an identity of non- participation that
progressively marginalised them”
(Wenger, 1998, p. 203).

28. Stumbling &
experimenting
• Importance of legitimacy in peripheral participation
“inevitable stumblings and violations become
opportunities for learning rather than cause dismissal,
neglect or exclusion” (Wenger, p101).
• Understanding and benefiting from Twitter:
experiment and use Twitter (McPherson, Budge, &
Lemon, 2015; McCluskey & Readman, 2014).

29. Vulnerability / care
• Denise’s concerns: exposure & vulnerability
• Singh (2015) urges educators be sensitive about openness as
for some it can signify harm
• “These do not feel like safe spaces when you are developing
your identity, your subject specialism, and your voice….”
(Beetham, 2016, blog)
• Stewart’s (2016) research, in contrast, highlights how those
who engage peripherally on Twitter, without participation in
networks, might not benefit from networks of care

30. Affective barriers
• Participants had an emotional response to Twitter
• Trust: important in CoP’s – Wenger (1998)
• Vulnerability in online spaces, unknown audiences
(boyd, 2014)
• Confidence
“Much learning at work occurs through doing things and
being proactive in seeking learning opportunities, and this
requires confidence” (Eraut 2004)

31. Twitter: an identity
opportunity?
• Turkle (1997) online as an identity opportunity
• Wenger (1998): identity as an educational resource
• Wesch (2008): online enables development of self-
awareness
• Twitter/SNS: rich development opportunity
development opportunity stimulating reflection on
the self and one’s position in societal, cultural,
institutional and global contexts.
• Placing SNS into prof dev opportunities can support
identity and digital identity work

32. Contributions
• Professionals use SNS in varied ways, not all
positively disposed to participation
• SNS provide opportunities but create complex
effects
• Support needed: more than technical, digital identity
development (confidence & identity)
• Multiple issues identified need critical thought and
further discussion among academic developers and
those supporting education in digital era

33. Duty of Care?
Risk-taking, vulnerability
of open online
Care: As educators
how are we protecting
people from that gap?
(Stewart, 2016)
Image from https://pixabay.com/en/railway-platform-mind-gap-1758208/ CC0

34. Questions for practice
• Critical discussion is required to discover what it means to work in the
digital age in education (Beetham, 2015)
• As can be seen from the data the virtual world presents particular
emotional challenges (Neary & Beetham, 2015) and is a messy
experience (Budge, Lemon, & McPherson, 2016).
• Should academic developers model online social networking practices
and behaviours? If so what do these practices and behaviours look like?
• More broadly, how do we create safe places for networked forms of
learning and how can we best support this?
• Should support be framed by policies, by guidelines, by procedures, or by
developing critical thinking regarding SNS and Twitter?
• Digital identity is important, but it is formed in conjunction with the
practices and responsibilities of HE professionals. How can academic
developers help support professional identity and thus support digital
identity?
• If digital identity is increasingly part of ‘Identity’, how do we support both?

35. Thank you!
Feedback &
questions…
Muireann O’Keeffe
@muireannOK
openuplearning.wordpress.com/
http://www.slideshare.net/muir31
Image: permission from Catherine Cro

36. References
• Beetham,H. (2016) Ed Tech and the circus of unreason. https://helenbeetham.com/2016/11/14/ed-tech-and-the-
circus-of-unreason/ 14 Nov 2016.
• Braun, V. and Clarke, V. (2006) Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2). pp.
77-101. Available from: http://eprints.uwe.ac.uk/11735
• boyd, d. (2011). Social network sites as networked publics: Affordances, dynamics,,and implications. In Z.
Papcharissi, A networked self (pp. 39-58). New York: Routledge.
• boyd, d. (2014). It’s complicated: the social lives of networked teens. Retrieved 2015, from danah boyd:
http://www.danah.org/books/ItsComplicated.pdf
• Buchanan, D. (2012). Case studies in organisational research. In G. Symon, & C.
• Crump, H. (2014, October 31). My Open Tour: a critical turn. Retrieved November 3, 2014 from Learningcreep:
http://helencrump.net/2014/10/31/my-open-tour-a-critical-turn/
• Denscombe, M. (2010). The good research guide: for small-scale research projects (4th ed.). Berkshire: Open
University Press.
• Eraut, M. (1994). Developing professional knowledge and competence. Oxon: Routledge.
• Eraut, M. (2004). Informal learning in the workplace. Studies in Continuing Education, 26(2), 247-273.
• Garrison, D., & Anderson, T. (2003). E-learning in the twenty first century. New York: RoutledgeFalmer.
• Gerstein, J. (2011). The Use of Twitter for Professional Growth and Development. International Journal on E-Learning
, 10 (3), 273-276.
• Hart, J. (2015, March 31). Twitter for Learning: The Past, Present and Future. Retrieved April 20, 2015 from Learning
in the Social Workplace: http://www.c4lpt.co.uk/blog/2015/03/31/twitter-for-learning-the-past-present-and-future/
• Hawksey, M. (2014) Available from https://tags.hawksey.info/.

37. References
• Hayes, E., & Gee, J. (2010). Popular culture as a public pedagogy. Retrieved Sept 29, 2015, from
jamespaulgee.com: http://jamespaulgee.com/admin/Images/pdfs/Popular%20Culture%20and%2
0Public%20Pedagogy.pdf
• Holmes, K., Preston, G., Shaw, K., & Buchanan, R. (2013, August). ‘Follow’ Me: Networked Professional Learning
for Teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(12). Retrieved April 20, 2015, from EduResearch
Matters: http://www.aare.edu.au/blog/?p=564
• Hughes, G. (2010). Identity and belonging in social learning groups: the importance of distinguishing social,
operational and knowledge‐related identity congruence. British Educational Research Journal, 36(1), 47-63.
• Ito, M., Gutiérrez, K., Livingstone, S., Penuel, B., Rhodes, J., Salen, K.,Watkins, C. (2013). Connected learning: an
agenda for research and design. Irvine, CA, USA: Digital Media and Learning Research Hub.
• Lupton, D. (2014). ‘Feeling Better Connected’: Academics’ Use of Social Media. News & Media Research Centre,
University of Canberra. Canberra: University of Canberra.
• Seely Brown, J., & Thomas, D. (2011). A New Culture of Learning: Cultivating the Imagination for a World of
Constant Change. Copyright by Thomas & Seely Brown.
• Siemens, G. (2006). Connectivism: Learning Theory or Pastime for the Self-Amused? Retrieved April 30, 2015,
from elearnspace Everything eLearning: http://www.elearnspace.org/Articles/connectivism_self-amused.htm
• Singh, S. (2015). The Fallacy of “Open”. Retrieved May 20, 2016, from savasavasava:
https://savasavasava.wordpress.com/2015/06/27/the-fallacy-of-open/
• Stewart, B. (2014). Networks of Care and Vulnerability. Retrieved May 10, 2015, from the theoryblog:
http://theory.cribchronicles.com/2014/11/04/networks-of- care-and-vulnerability/
• Stewart, B. (2016). Collapsed publics: Orality, literacy, and vulnerability in academic Twitter. Journal of Applied
Social Theory, 1(1), 61-86.
• Veletsianos, G. (2012). Higher Education Scholars’ Participation and Practices on Twitter. Journal of Computer
Assisted Learning , 28 (4), 336-349.
• White, D., & Le Cornu, A. (2011). Visitors and Residents: A new typology for online engagement. First Monday,
16(9).Yin, R. K. (2014). Case Study Research: Design and Methods (5 ed.). California: Sage Publications.