Participant Experiences in an Informal twitter.com Sub-network

Jennifer MaddrellDoctoral Student at Old Dominion University

AACE E-learn 2010 – Brief Paper PresentationOctober 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://twitter.com/JenM– 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

3,100in Reciprocal

Following Sub-network

Nature of Relationships

Data Collection

Observation Periods

ObservationPeriod Date of Observation Target Hours of Observation

Period of Day

1 Saturday 20091010 6:00 a.m. to noon Morning2 Sunday 20091011 6:00 p.m. to midnight Evening3 Monday 20091012 6:00 a.m. to noon Morning4 Tuesday 20091013 midnight to 5:59 a.m. Late Evening / Early

Morning5 Wednesday

20091014noon to 5:59 p.m. Afternoon

6 Thursday 20091015 6:00 p.m. to midnight Evening7 Friday 20091016 6:00 a.m. to noon Morning8 Saturday 20091017 midnight to 5:59 a.m. Late Evening / Early

Morning9 Sunday 20091018 noon to 5:59 p.m. Afternoon

10 Monday 20091019 6:00 p.m. to midnight Evening

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 Name Location Website Bio

# 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

Wordle.net Word Cloud of Tweets

Wordle.net Word Cloud of Biographies

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