Abstract
Research indicates that student engagement with lectures, and participation in discussion and debate, greatly improve their learning and experience of University. The nature of some lectures means they can lack opportunities for interaction and active learning. For this reason it can be difficult for some students, especially students new to University, to fully engage in lectures, and interact with their peers. This study attempts to use Twitter as a means of increasing these opportunities for interaction and engagement for students, especially those who may lack the confidence to engage traditionally. As a first step, the study analyses the use of Audience Response Systems to understand the role technology can play in providing opportunities for interaction. Following this, a review of experiments conducted using Twitter is carried out. While there is a dearth of research in this area, these cases provide some valuable insights into the use of this technology and its integration into education. In the methodology section, the process of using Twitter in lectures is explained, along with some of the challenges and obstacles faced. Findings presented indicate that while adoption of Twitter was low, the platform provides engagement opportunities for timid members of the group, while having a generally positive impact on engagement and discussion for the group as a whole. Finally, emerging uses of the Twitter platform are examined, allowing the reader glimpse possibilities for future integration.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abate, L. E., Gomes, A., & Linton, D. (2011). Engaging students in active learning: Use of a blog and audience response system. Medical Reference Services Quarterly, 30(1), 12–18.
Bates, S. P., Howie, K., & Murhpy, A. S. J. (2006). The use of electronic voting systems in large group lectures: Challenges and opportunities. New Directions in the Teaching of Physical Sciences, 2, 1–8.
Beldarrain, Y. (2007). Distance education trends: Integrating new technologies to foster student interaction and collaboration. Distance Education, 27(2), 139–153.
Bligh, D. A. (1998). What’s the use of lectures? 5th edn. Exeter: Intellect books.
Bruner, J. P. (1967). On knowing: essays for the left hand. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Carnevale, D. (2006). Email is for old people. Chronicle of higher education. http://chronicle.com/article/E-Mail-is-for-Old-People/4169. Accessed 08 February 2012.
Chickering, A., and Ehrmann, S.E. (1996). Implementing the seven principles: Technology as lever. American Association for Higher Education, 3–6.
Crotty, Y. (2011). Through the enlightened eye and I, am I bringing creativity and visual literacy into higher level education? Educational Journal of Living Theories, 4(1), 1–36.
Crouch, C. H., & Mazur, E. (2001). Peer instruction: Ten years of experience and results. American Association of Physics Teachers, 69(9), 970–977.
Draper, S. W., & Brown, M. I. (2004). Increasing interactivity in lectures using and electronic voting system. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 20, 81–94.
Duncan, D. (2005). Clickers in the classroom: how to enhance science teaching using classroom response systems. San Francisco: Pearson Education.
Ebner, M., Lienhardt, C., Rohs, M., & Meyer, I. (2010). Microblogs in higher education – a chance to facilitate informal and process-oriented learning? Computers in Education, 55, 92–100. Elsevier.
Educause. (2007). 7 things you should know about Twitter. ELI 7 Things you should know. http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7027.pdf. Accessed 06 February 2012.
Farren, M. (2008). eLearning and action research as transformative practice. Innovate Journal of Online Education, 5(1).
Feden, P. D. (1994). About instruction: Powerful new strategies worth knowing. Educational Horizons, 73, 18–24.
Gysbers, V., Johnston, J., Hancock, D., & Denyer, G. (2011). Why do students still bother coming to lectures, when everything is available online? International Journal of Innovation in Science and Mathematics Education, 19(2), 20–36.
Hesmondhalgh, P. (2011). 10 Reasons Teachers should give Twitter a go. The creative education blog. http://www.creativeeducation.co.uk/blog/index.php/2011/09/10-reasons-to-tweet/. Accessed 08 February 2012.
Junco, R., Heibergert, G., & Loken, E. (2011). The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 27, 119–132.
Laurillard, D. (2002). Rethinking university teaching: a conversational framework for the effective use of learning technologies (2nd ed.). London: RoutledgeFalmer.
Maykut, P., & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitiative research: a philolsophical and practical guide. London: RoutledgeFalmer.
McElroy, J., and Blount, Y. (2006). You, me and iLecture. Proceedings of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education (ASCILITE) Conference (pp. 549–558). Sydney Australia, Dec 3–6. http://www.ascilite.org.au/conferences/sydney06/proceeding/pdf_papers/p87.pdf. Accessed 11 December 2012.
Meyer, K. (2002). Quality in distance education: Focus on online learning. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report, 29(4).
Moore, M. G. (1989). Three types of interaction. American Journal of Distance Education, 3, 1–7.
Morales, L. (2011). Can the use of clickers of continuous assessment motivate critical thinking? A case study based on corporate finance students. Higher Learning Research Communications, 1, 33–42.
Moss, K., & Crowley, M. (2010). Effective learning in science: The use of personal response systems with a wide range of audiences. Computers in Education, 56, 36–43.
Prensky, M. (2009). H. sapiens: From digital immigrants and digital natives to digital wisdom. Innovate: Journal of online education, 5(3). http://www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=705. Accessed 1 March 2012.
Rankin, M. (2009). The Twitter experiment at UT Dallas. http://www.utdallas.edu/~mrankin/usweb/twitterconclusions.htm. Accessed 08 February 2012.
Simpson, V., & Oliver, M. (2007). Electronic voting systems for lectures then and now: A comparison of research and practice. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 23(2), 187–208.
Steinert, Y., & Snell, L. S. (1999). Interactive lecturing: Strategies for increasing participation in large group presentations. Medical Teacher, 21, 37–42.
Tamim, R. M., Bernard, R. M., Borokhovski, E., Abrami, P. C., & Schmid, R. F. (2011). What forty years of research says about the impact of technology on learning: A second-order meta-analysis and validation study. Review of Educational Research, 81(1), 4–28.
Thompson, C. (2007). How Twitter creates a social sixth sense. Wired Magazine, 15(7).
Volery, T. (2001). Online education: An exploration study into the success factors. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 24(1), 77–92.
Von Konsky, B. R., Ivins, J., & Gribble, S. J. (2009). Lecture attendance and web based lecture technologies: A comparison of student perceptions and usage patterns. Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(4), 581–595.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind and society: the development of higher mental processes. Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Young, J. (2009a). Teaching with Twitter: not for the faint of heart. http://chronicle.com/article/Teaching-With-Twitter-Not-for/49230/. Accessed 08 February 2012.
Young, J (2009b). When Professors create social networks for classes, some students see a ‘Creepy Treehouse’. http://chronicle.com/blogs/wiredcampus/when-professors-create-social-networks-for-classes-some-students-see-a-creepy-treehouse/4176. Accessed 08 February 2012.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tiernan, P. A study of the use of Twitter by students for lecture engagement and discussion. Educ Inf Technol 19, 673–690 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9246-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-012-9246-4