Presentation on theme: "Participant Experiences in an Informal twitter.com Sub-network Jennifer Maddrell Doctoral Student at Old Dominion University AACE E-learn 2010 – Brief."— Presentation transcript:
Participant Experiences in an Informal twitter.com Sub-network Jennifer Maddrell Doctoral Student at Old Dominion University AACE E-learn 2010 – Brief Paper Presentation October 18-22, 2010 Click for audio ->
Nice to meet you … Working on my dissertation Research interest in distance and online learning Live in Chicago and visit these places, too: – http://designedtoinspire.com http://designedtoinspire.com – http://twitter.com/JenM http://twitter.com/JenM – http://edtechtalk.com http://edtechtalk.com
Case Study Research Questions What is the nature of communication and interaction within a twitter sub-network? Why do users in the sub-network participate? How do users represent themselves, including the demographic information they chose to share within their profiles?
Qualitative Case Study edtechtalktwitter.com 3,100 in Reciprocal Following Sub-network
Nature of Relationships Facebook Support existing relationships Two-way dialogue Blogging Blogger talks at audience Comments rhetorically subservient Twitter Browse friends of friends creating large following networks Smaller sub- network where posts frequently directed
Data Collection Observation of user communication Review of user profile data Interviews
Observation Periods Observation PeriodDate of ObservationTarget Hours of Observation Period of Day 1Saturday 200910106:00 a.m. to noonMorning 2Sunday 200910116:00 p.m. to midnightEvening 3Monday 200910126:00 a.m. to noonMorning 4Tuesday 20091013midnight to 5:59 a.m. Late Evening / Early Morning 5 Wednesday 20091014 noon to 5:59 p.m.Afternoon 6Thursday 200910156:00 p.m. to midnightEvening 7Friday 200910166:00 a.m. to noonMorning 8Saturday 20091017midnight to 5:59 a.m. Late Evening / Early Morning 9Sunday 20091018noon to 5:59 p.m.Afternoon 10Monday 200910196:00 p.m. to midnightEvening
Observation Checklist Tweet Content (Cut and Paste) Time 30 minute Observation Period (1-10) Original Post or Re-tweet (O/RT) Broadcast or Direct Response (B / @) User Name # Tagged Content (Y / N) Hyperlink Included (Y / N) Education or Technology (Y / N) Post Made on Twitter.com (Y / N)
Profile Review User NameLocationWebsiteBio # Following # Followers # Tweets Picture (Default / Self/Other) Date Joined Twitter
Focus of Interview Questions Background information Twitter use Perceptions of twitter Communication on twitter Community and relationships on twitter
Nature of Communication Always on / always accessible – 75 different applications used to tweet – live, transient, office buddy, glance, graze, cocktail party, ambi-synchronous Broadcast messages and conversations – 1 in 3 tweets including @ symbol – Half of those were re-tweets RT@ Shared interest communication – 1 in 5 tweets included # tag – Word clouds suggest shared interests
Nature of Interaction Network ties – Most not linked by geography or workplace – Shared interest and weak-tie relationships Transparency – Post specific details of personal & professional life – Central to relationship formation & maintenance Audience awareness – Pay attention to followed by / following lists – Care about post relevance and suitability to audience
Motivations to Participate Access – People – Information – Resources Reciprocity – Sharing of knowledge a condition of membership – Contributions are a form of network currency
Summary of Study Twitter serves as a virtual coffee machine Sub-network bound by shared interest Network ties: – Clusters of strong-tie relationships – Weak-tie acquaintances Transparency central to weak tie formation Reciprocity is network currency and payment for membership
Significance of Findings Sub-network formed organically over years Suggests drivers behind on-going participation Cannot generalize to other sub-networks Does not suggest results would be the same in sub-network created by teacher
Questions for Future Research Is the required level of user transparency and self-discloser feasible in most educational settings? Would an experienced professional be willing to interact with a novice and, if so, would the communication and interaction be at a meaningful level? To what extent do these network characteristics and participant motivators exist in other contexts and settings?
Please share your thoughts … http://designedtoinspire.com/drupal/aace2010twitter
Your consent to our cookies if you continue to use this website.