Contents

1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background..........................................................................................

2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Professional development/learning........................................................
2.2 Twitter.................................................................................................
2.3 Commentary.........................................................................................
2.4 Sociomaterial sensibility.......................................................................

3 AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

3.1 Aims...................................................................................................
3.2 Objectives..........................................................................................
3.3 Research Questions............................................................................

4 METHODOLOGY
4.1 Background........................................................................................
4.2 This study...........................................................................................

5 METHODS
5.1 Pilot Study..........................................................................................
5.2 Background........................................................................................
5.3 Data gathering instruments.................................................................
5.4 Findings.............................................................................................
Table 1
15
5.5 Ethical Considerations.........................................................................
5.5.1 Introduction
18
5.5.2 Sources of guidance
18
5.5.3 Ethical challenges associated with Internet mediated research
18

6 MOVING FORWARD
6.1 Methods.............................................................................................
6.2 A step-change.....................................................................................

6.3 Analysis..............................................................................................
6.3.1 Use of NVivo
23
6.3.2 Coding strategy
23

7 REFERENCES
8 APPENDICES
8.1 Published articles on Twitter...............................................................
8.2 Search strategy..................................................................................
Preliminary thinking which preceded this search can be found in this post https://cpdin140.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/search-strategy/.....................
8.3 Submission for MRes Module QR1........................................................
8.4 Submission for MRes Module QR2........................................................
8.5 Submission for MRes Module DLTA.......................................................
8.6 Methods Matrix...................................................................................
Discussion of ethics applied to each of the methods
34

1 Introduction
Thanks to Twitter I am now more up to date with education than ever before. I now
get daily professional development from hundreds of educations best tweeters
from all over the world...As soon as I started posting, I realised that Twitter is the
most powerful tool for a teacher to use for PD.
Kemp, 2011
This quote is one of many similar comments teachers are making in relation to the Twitter social
media platform. The aim of my research is to critically assess whether and how Twitter can be
considered the powerful mediator of professional learning that some teachers, like the one above,
claim.

1.1 Background
The educational reform agendas which began in the late 1980s (Day and Qing Gu, 2007; Little,
1993) continue apace: school improvement programmes; curriculum and assessment system
changes; need to address social inequity and the drive to improve standards through
performativity and accountability (Sachs, 2006). We have a changing school landscape offering
greater diversity of provision, greater autonomy from top-down directives, but with developing
forms of school partnerships and alliances. This coincides with the emergence of new
technologies, through which schools and the teachers within them are able to connect and
collaborate, through both formal and informal channels. As an evolving environment, this offers
both challenges and opportunities.
The quality of teachers and teaching was identified by Andreas Schleicher (2012) and the then
coalition government leaders, Cameron and Clegg (DfE, 2010), to be at the heart of
improvements in the education system. Professional development (PD) is quite naturally seen as
a major plank in achieving the goal of improving teacher capability and consequently student
outcomes (DfE, 2016). To what extent then, do these reform agendas take account of emerging
technologies and possibilities?

2 Literature Review
This review was driven initially by the two main themes mentioned in the quote in Section 1;
Twitter and teachers professional development. However, as I will presently discuss, the term
professional development is one amongst several that occur in the literature (and in everyday
educational discourse) that are used interchangeably. Following the main themes, I then discuss
the theoretical approach I intend to adopt.
The search strategy that was developed and continues to be used can be found in Appendix 8.2

2.1 Professional development/learning

Improving the quality of schools and thereby the quality of outcomes for their pupils positions
teacher development as a key driver (Borko, 2004; Burden, 2010; Darling-Hammond et al, 2009;
Desimone, 2009; Garet et al, 2001; Timperley, 2011). The importance that governments and
states attach to this can be seen in the reports they are commissioning, the standards they are
setting and the directives they are providing (AITSL, 2011; DfE, 2016, Donaldson, 2010;
MDESE, 2013, ODoE, 2015). Reassuringly, many build on the evidence synthesised from the
expanding body of research conducted into the field of professional development. These
externally mandated factors may be important in driving teachers to undertake professional
development (Hustler et al, 2003), but so too are local (school-based) and personal factors
(Bigsby and Firestone, 2015; Kwakman, 2002)
Before proceeding further, it is perhaps prudent to acknowledge the varied ways in which a range
of terms (and others) are used across the literature - (continuing) professional development (and
learning), professional learning, teacher learning, staff development, in-service training,
sometimes interchangeably. If not contested, then there is nevertheless a distinct vagueness or
lack of precision in the way the professional development or learning are defined (Evans, 2002;
Fraser et al, 2007; Friedman and Phillips, 2004; Mayer and Lloyd, 2011). These criticisms
cannot be levelled at the comprehensive definition by Day (1999), to which many refer:
Professional development consists of all natural learning experiences and those
conscious and planned activities which are intended to be of direct or indirect
benefit to the individual, group or school and which contribute through these, to
the quality of education in the classroom. It is the process by which, alone and
with others, teachers review, renew and extend their commitment as change
agents to the moral purpose of teaching; and by which they acquire and develop
critically the knowledge, skills and emotional intelligence essential to good
professional thinking, planning and practice with children, young people and
colleagues through each phase of their teaching lives.
Bubb and Earley (2007) in a similarly expansive definition echo the notions of formal and
informal, collegial and individual, knowledge and skills, and that pupils should be the
beneficiaries.

The planned activities to which Day refers cover a broad spectrum, the majority of which will
be familiar to teachers, and doubtless those in other professions, and include: courses/workshops,
conferences/seminars, observation visits, in-service training course, qualification programmes,
individual/collaborative research and mentoring/peer observation (OECD, 2013). The natural or
less formal aspects of professional development receive less attention in the literature, though for
teachers, play a significant part. The contexts within which teacher learning can occur are
distributed across formal sessions, the classroom and even hallways (Borko, 2004; Desimone,
2009). The type of activity is less significant than the features within it in determining how
successful it has been. Since Guskey in 2003 bemoaned the lack of agreement between authors
on the features associated with effective professional development, we are now moving towards
a consensus. What we mean by effective is usually taken to refer to improved outcomes for
pupils, though it can also be argued in terms of teacher outcomes like knowledge and skills
(Desimone, 2009; McCormick, 2010). The features associated with effectiveness, however
measured, include being intensive and sustained over time; involve collective participation or
collaboration; should focus on pedagogical and content knowledge; be active and embedded in
practice; ensure coherence between personal goals, school developments and state standards
(Cordingley and Bell, 2012; Darling-Hammond and Richardson, 2009; Garet et al, 2001; Guskey
and Yoon, 2009; Wilson and Berne, 2009). When these features are present, it can lead to
improved learning or achievement, or improved affective outcomes for pupils (Cordingley et al,
2007; McCormick, 2010), though if the focus is on teachers, improvements in pedagogical and
content knowledge, classroom practice or attitudinal gains are the outcomes (Coldwell et al,
2008; Cordingley et al, 2005).
A number of models or frameworks attempt to conceptualise professional learning. Bell and
Gilbert (1994) and Kennedy (2005) classify and provide frameworks for different elements or
characteristics of professional development. Guskey (1986) and Clarke and Hollingsworth
(2002) view professional development (or growth) as a series of steps from one domain of
learning to another e.g. beliefs to practice. Reid (McKinney et al, 2005) and Avidov-Ungar
(2016) frame the learning experience using dimensions to form quadrants; sphere of action in the
former and individuals dispositions in the latter. Kennedy (2014) advocates an attempt to bring
coherency to this theoretical milieu, and with Fraser et al (2007) sought to draw together
different models to provide a triple-perspective. The range and variety of of models perhaps hint
at how complex a process teacher professional learning is, and some attempt to frame it in terms
of complexity theory (Boylan et al, 2011; Fenwick, 2012; Opfer and Pedder, 2011).
There is a sense then in which the factors associated with professional development are external
to those who should benefit from it. Whether its the state or local institutions driving
professional development, academia defining it and providing models for it, or researchers
identifying characteristics which make it effective, the people who are at the heart of it in one
sense sidelined. The notion that teachers should be more than passive recipients in need of
developing (Webster-Wright, 2009) and ought to pro-actively seek out learning opportunities
that fulfil their needs has been made easier through recent technological developments.
Computers and mobile devices connect people through the internet to online resources, and
through social media to each other to enable new opportunities for learning that some teachers
are keen to exploit.
5

2.2 Twitter
One social media platform seems to have attracted the attentions of teachers above others. In
each of the seven years from 2009 to 2015, Twitter has been voted by learning professionals into
first place on the Top 100 Tools for Learning1. Twitter is a microblogging service in which its
users are able to write short, constrained messages known as tweets. Other users are able to
view these tweets by following other people. The tweets from those they follow are presented
on their Twitter homepage in reverse chronological order as a twitter stream (Zappavigna,
2011). As of the second quarter of 2016, there are 313 million active Twitter users2. A brief
online search on the topic of teachers and Twitter will quickly yield legions of websites, blogs,
tutorials and articles explaining why teachers should use Twitter and how to go about it (Visser et
al, 2014)

Figure 1

Since its launch in 2006, academic interest in Twitter has increased annually (see Fig 1) and
reflects the range of sectors which find themselves drawn to Twitter; from medicine (Bosley et
al, 2011) to the media (Casas et al, 2016) and sport (Parganas et al, 2015) to spying (Weinberger,
2011). Both Williams et al (2013) and Zimmer and Proferes (2014) categorised 3-4% of those
papers published up until 2011 as having arisen from an educational context, though
1 http://c4lpt.co.uk/top100tools/ (accessed Sept 2016)
2 http://www.statista.com/statistics/282087/number-of-monthly-active-twitter-users/ (accessed Sept 2016)
6

professional development (broadly conceived) forms only a fraction of those, and within the
primary/secondary (K-12) sectors, even fewer (see Appendix 8.1).
Educators use Twitter in a variety of ways including communicating with students and parents,
conducting
in- and out-of-class activities (Carpenter & Krutka, 2015), and finding an audience for student
work (Wilson, 2013). Predominantly however, the most common form of activity is professional
learning (Carpenter and Krutka, 2014), which, as discussed earlier can be understood/interpreted
in different ways. Teachers conduct conversations (Alderton et al, 2011; Handel et al, 2015;
Holmes et al, 2013), ask for and respond to requests for help (Beadle, 2014, Davis, 2015), reflect
on practice (Davis, ibid), seek and provide emotional support (Krutka and Carpenter, 2016),
share and seek ideas and resources (Skyring, 2014), forge and maintain professional connections
(Forte et al, 2012), and perform various forms of working out loud (Sergi and Bonneau, 2015).
Given the time committed to these activities, there clearly must be some form of benefit being
extracted. In a general sense, teachers are able to find and associate with like-minded people or
those posting on a topic of interest to them, a process Zappavigna (2011) terms ambient
affiliation. More specifically they find they have to access to experts on particular issues
(Carpenter and Krutka, 2015; Chretien, 2015); can join communities for support (Chretien, ibid),
experience a sense of belonging (Lemon, 2016) and thereby reduce their sense of isolation
(Sauers and Richardson, 2015; Wesely, 2013); can find a voice and thereby improve confidence
(Alderton et al, 2011); enjoy the the timeliness of the experience and the capacity to choose when
and where they participate (Carpenter and Krutka, 2014; Davis, 2015); and they can keep up to
date on educational issues (Dalton, 2013; McCulloch et al, 2011). Whether these benefits might
be classified as professional development might be open to question, but nevertheless, teachers
do ascribe value to them.
Much of the aforementioned research tends to compare findings with the features we know to be
associated with professional development:
that professional learning for teachers is generally most effective when it is sustained over time,
of a practical nature in an appropriate context for the learner, related closely to student learning,
collaborative, involves the sharing of knowledge and affords the participants some degree of
control and ownership. (Holmes et al, 2013)
That is, if certain features of professional learning are found in their results, then they argue that
professional learning is happening. Other studies take a similar approach but look for evidence in
their data which aligns with particular theoretical stances, like communities of practice, networks
of practice, communities of interest or personal learning networks.
These findings emerge largely as a result of three principle methods: semi-structured interviews,
collection and analysis of corpora of tweets, or surveys. Of the twenty one papers in which
Twitter and professional learning are found together (see Appendix 8.1), just over a third are
single method studies. If the study only involved analysis of a corpus of tweets, since these only
leave traces of participants activities, they thereby rely entirely on the interpretation of the
researcher. Studies only using surveys are of course employing a method which produces only
self-reported data and consequently open to response set bias (Paulhus, 1991) where respondees
7

may be trying to paint themselves in a particular light. Half the studies use more than one
method to try and combat these issues.

2.3 Commentary
Many of the most cited studies involving teacher professional development are meta-studies
drawing themes from wide bodies of literature (Broad and Evans, 2006; Cordingley and Bell,
2012; Darling-Hammond et al, 2009; Goodall et al, 2005; Mayer and Lloyd, 2011; McCormick
et al, 2008; Timperley et al, 2007; Yoon et al, 2007). Others are large-scale studies, often
employing survey methods (Pedder et al, 2005; Goodall, et al, 2005; Garet et al, 2001; OECD,
2009, 2013). Meta-studies could be considered reductionist in the sense that they take a large
body of information and attempt to distil the significant wisdom from it; one might argue that
this blurs the nature of the actual professional learning of individual teachers.
One could also argue that studies seeking to conceptualise professional development as discussed
in Section 2.1 are used to match empirical data against particular models in order to provide
evidence for those models, or to frame the emerging data. A similar view could be taken
regarding those studies in Section 2.2 which compare empirical data against prior knowledge.
These etic perspectives similarly begin to lose sight of professional learning, as experienced by
the people involved and isolated from the complexity of their experiences (Opfer and Pedder,
2011).
Despite the increasing number of studies on Twitter, the area of teacher professional learning
within that field remains under-researched, especially that seeking to better understand the
learning experience as a tweacher. Although a number of studies have used ethnographic
approaches for Twitter research (Fransman, 2013; Gillen and Merchant, 2013; Marwick, 2013;
Postill and Pink, 2012), Wesely (2013) stands out as the only one to bring the approach to teacher
professional development. Her netnography (Kozinets, 2009) included participant observation,
interviews and document analysis (wikis, blogs and other online articles); standard ethnographic
methods, transferred to the online world.

2.4 Sociomaterial sensibility

Discussing how ones research is theoretically framed becomes problematic if one has chosen an
actor-network theory (ANT) approach, not least because those most closely associated with it,
refute the notion that it is a theory (Latour, 1999; Law, 2009). Law (ibid) positions ANT as
a disparate family of material-semiotic tools, sensibilities and methods of
analysis that treat everything in the social and natural worlds as a continuously
generated effect of the webs of relations within which they are located.
It (or they?) provides the means to disentangle the messy interactions in complex practices, like
professional learning in Twitter, and tell stories of those involved and relationships between
them. As such its power is descriptive, rather than explanatory.
Professional learning has conventionally been conceptualised from either the individuals
perspective as acquisition of knowledge or skills; as social and situated, involving participation
within a sociocultural context; or more recently, in practice, where learning takes place through
8

everyday activity (Fenwick, 2012). In this latter conception we are reminded to attend not only to
the human actors, their skills and interactions, but that the social and material elements of
knowledge practices as entangled and mutually constitutive (Orlikowski, 2009). We should not
ignore the material, leaving it invisible in our conceptions, but in this study particularly,
remember that smartphones, apps, Twitter, tweets, hyperlinks, hashtags, news articles and blog
posts all act too. The intention is not bring these marginalised things back into focus, but to
contest the notion that they exist separately from those with whom they interact (Fenwick, 2010).
Instead we ask how these hybrid assemblages are brought into existence, how they move, how
they affect, why some become stable and others dissolve (Fenwick and Landri, 2012).
What ANT approaches do is encourage us to attend closely to the sociomaterial, though not on
the technology itself, but the practice in which it is embedded (Orlikowski, 2007). Our
attention turns to what things do rather than what they represent or mean, and specifically what
they do in connection with other actors, human and non-human (Fenwick and Edwards, 2013).
We conceptualise all things as networks of relations (Ackland and Swinney, 2015) and therefore
attempt to trace out the relational practices which give rise to the practice under study - we
follow the actors (Latour, 2005). This is consistent with the ethnographic research that
Hammersley and Atkinson (2007) as seeking direct engagement with the social world and indepth investigation through observations, interviews, documentary analysis and examination of
artefacts, and which I will outline in Section 4.2. As Mol (2010) puts it, the usefulness of ANT
is to help tell empirical cases, highlight the invisible, find the unexpected, and pose different
questions.
Choosing a sociomaterial sensibility also necessitates a more radical shift; one which moves
away from epistemology towards ontology (Law and Singleton, 2005). In an epistemological
approach, we would seek multiple descriptions of our object of our study, which would lead to
multiple perspectives of that single object. ANT and sociomaterial approaches argue that objects
are enacted into existence by the relational effects of the networks into which they have been
translated (Law and Singleton, ibid; Mol, 1999). Different practices, different people, different
objects may enact an object into existence in different ways; the implication that the object is
then multiple, rather than the representations of it (Mol, 2002; Riveros and Viczko, 2015).
Perhaps this is true for professional learning on Twitter?

3 Aims and Objectives

3.1 Aims
The aim of the research is to critically assess whether and how Twitter can be considered a
mediator of professional learning for teachers.

3.2 Objectives

The above aim will be achieved through the following objectives:

Establish the features within Twitter that may support professional learning.
Examine the nature of the professional learning claimed to be taking place in Twitter, compared
with more conventional forms.
Investigate the teacher attitudes and dispositions which enable them to learn in this way.
Examine the wider networks which assemble during professional learning using Twitter.

3.3 Research Questions

1.
2.
3.
4.

These aims and objectives produced the following research questions, which informed the design
and execution of the pilot study reported in Section 5.
How does the Twitter social media platform support the professional learning of teachers?
What forms of professional learning do teachers undertake using Twitter?
How does professional learning extend beyond Twitter into the wider social media ecosystem
and the real world?
What attitudes and dispositions do teachers need, to use Twitter for their professional learning?

10

4 Methodology
4.1 Background
Like Skyring (2014), my interest in the use of social media for professional learning emerged
from my own use of Twitter, but before that, the social bookmarking service, Delicious3. I was
introduced to Twitter in 2009 by a fellow Masters programme member and elected to use Twitter
for professional purposes only. I chose to follow mainly teachers and other people with a
professional interest in education, so the majority of tweets I view or write reflect those interests.
My use tends to consist of a daily visit of 10 - 20 minutes, in the evening on weekdays and in the
morning at weekends, using an app on a tablet. If interesting links appear, I may quickly view
them there and then, or send the link to an email account so I can follow up when at a desktop
computer.
This usage pattern, what Toffler (1981) would call prosumption, coupled with sharing
resources, answering queries and providing assistance when possible, positioned me as a regular
participant reflecting similar cultural norms those with whom Ive connected. This has meant I
have been afforded a more emic perspective and am what Banks (1998) might call an
indigenous-insider.

4.2 This study

Hammersley and Atkinson (2007) describe ethnography from the perspective of the researcher,
describing it as the researcher participating, overtly or covertly, in peoples daily lives for an
extended period of time, watching what happens, listening to what is said, and/or asking
questions through informal and formal interviews, collecting documents and artefacts in fact,
gathering whatever data are available to throw light on the issues that are the emerging focus of
inquiry
Ethnography seeks depth of meaning, insights and understandings from those immersed in a
particular activity (Brewer, 2000). When that activity is online, either solely or partly, the
traditional techniques of participant observation, interviews, collecting textual artefacts may also
shift there (Markham and Baym, 2009), though may need adjustments to accommodate the
different forms of presence and embodiment (Garcia et al, 2009). Additionally, where
connectivity and mobility characterise the nature of the activity, the ethnography must also be
adaptable and flexible (Parker Webster and Marques da Silva, 2013). Such approaches have been
variously called virtual ethnography (Hine, 2000), netnography (Kozinets, 2009), cyberethnography (Rybas and Gajjala, 2007) and digital ethnography (Varis, 2014).
In the early days of the internet, online cultures were seen as somewhat separate from offline;
they were a place to which people went and congregated socially (Baym, 1998; Rheingold,
1993), what Hine (2000) referred to as a culture in its own right. Later, researchers began to
view online activity simply as a coterminous strand within offline life (Kendall, 2002; Markham,
3 http://del.icio.us/ (accessed Sept 2016)
11

1998), which Hine (2000) distinguished as a cultural artefact. With peoples online and offline
activities interwoven, to gain a full picture of their lives, an ethnographer would need the
mobility and flexibility to traverse the online and offline as was deemed necessary (Miller and
Slater, 2000; Orgad, 2005; Postill and Pink, 2012). This then presents a rather more fluid field
site than might be the case in a more traditional ethnography, which consequently might make it
more difficult to bound the study. The sites, the people and their mediated practices ebb and flow
and become difficult to locate. Decisions about how and where to follow the flow mean that
rather than a field which is established from the outset, it is formed and negotiated as the
research unfolds - it is an outcome, rather than a precursor of the research (Hine, 2008). Where
the field site is no longer geographically bounded and becomes multi-sited or more closely
associated with movement and connectedness, Marcus (1995) suggests that tracking strategies
might usefully be brought to bear. Here researchers are encouraged to follow the people,
follow the thing, follow the metaphor, follow the plot, follow the biography, or follow the
conflict. In the mediated online world, things begin to take on far greater significance and we
can see how a sociomaterial sensibility might also serve us well; one in which we follow the
actors (Latour, 2005) whether they be human or not.

12

5 Methods
5.1 Pilot Study
A pilot study is often conducted to test the adequacy and efficacy of the proposed methods in the
context of a larger study (van Teijlingen and Hundley, 2001). The intent here was to reveal issues
and barriers related to recruiting potential participants, explore the use of oneself as a researcher
in a culturally appropriate way and test and modify interview questions (Kim, 2011). Although
the main objective is not to produce empirical data, interesting potential lines of enquiry may be
revealed which may be explored more rigorously the full study.
Three of these methods were submitted as formal assessments for three Research Masters
modules - QR1, QR2 and DLTA. The full submissions can be found in Appendices 8.3 - 8.4.

5.2 Background
Traditional methods associated with ethnographies include participant observation, interviews
(both formal and informal) and document analysis. If the ethnography moves to include online
spaces, it is perfectly possible to transfer those methods to the new environment, though possibly
with some modification. The slippery, flexible nature of the field as described in Section 4.2
means the ethnography needs to be adaptive, and may benefit from the use of new methods.

5.3 Data gathering instruments

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

The pilot study was designed around six methods:

Participant observation - in and beyond Twitter.
Semi-structured, in-depth interview - convenience sample of a teacher self-identified as using
Twitter for professional development.
Blog post analysis - discourse analysis of a blog post discussing Twitter use for professional
development.
Focused observation - on a single individuals Twitter behaviour over a period of 1 month.
Blog interview - using the comments section of a blog post to conduct an interview.
Focus group - conducting a focus group through the medium of a Twitter hashtag chat.
Each method has associated ethical considerations; these are discussed at greater length in
Section 5.5. Ethics approval was sought from and granted through the University Research
Ethics Approval Procedures4.

5.4 Findings
Given the range of methods being tested and that this was a pilot study, conducting a full and
rigorous analysis for each, then synthesising those findings would neither be appropriate, nor
practical in the time available. Since methods 1 - 3 were also submissions for Research Masters
4 https://www.shu.ac.uk/research/ethics-integrity-and-practice/research-ethics-approval-procedures (accessed Sept 2016)
13

modules, a deeper analysis was possible, and the results can be found in Appendices 8.3 - 8.5.
This was not the case for the methods 4 - 6.
Table 1 takes each of the methods in turn and summarises my observations,
advantages/disadvantages, and whether I feel it is appropriate to take each forward into the full
study.

14

Table 1

Method

Comments

Strengths

Weaknesses

Participant
observatio
n

Performed as three separate formal

observation sessions didnt work
too well. Nor was the twitter.com
interface amenable to this kind of
work. These will need
reconsidering before taking
forward.

Allows broad access to the field and

the scope to range more widely in
following actors as they go about their
business. Inherent flexibility.

Difficult to manage the balance between

participating and observing.

Helps identify potential participants for

other data collection instruments.

What I attend to will depend on my prior

experience and may not be the same as
another researcher.

My role as participant will need

clarification. The extent to which
Im participating whilst observing
will need careful negotiation.

Focused
observatio
n

Strictly speaking this wasnt

observation. Real-time observation
of a single individual in the context
of their Twitter use is problematic,
since their usage is likely to be ad
hoc.

Makes materiality more apparent.

Suggests avenues for exploration in
interviews.
Provides informal opportunities for
asking questions of people engaged in
the activity under study.

Taking
forward?
Yes

Only ever provides a snapshot; this is not a

fully immersive experience.

Loss of context makes analysis more

complex, and arguably less meaningful.

A consistent dataset would be captured

even if the researchers were different.

May be a method more people feel less

comfortable with.

Like the participants themselves,

this method allows the researcher
access to the field at times they can
manage.
No

Much of this activity will have happened

in the past, making it harder to follow up
interesting areas.

Collecting their tweets provides a

secondary method, but one where
the context and sense of unfolding
activity is lost.

One month is perhaps too short a period

for observation.

Provide an opportunity to generate

the rich data that an ethnography
demands.

Synchronous and time-bound; the

interviewee knows in advance what
their commitment will be.

There is less time for the interviewee to

reflect and perhaps refer back to evidence
they might like to offer.

Help to shed light on some of the

As interviewer, I have a better sense of

There are greater technical challenges than

15

The time needed to conduct a full

case study and address the
shortcomings of the method as
executed in the pilot would be too
onerous. This method might be
appropriate if it was the only one
being used, with a small number of
people.
Recruiting participants is likely to
be more difficult than other
methods.

Knowing they are being observed may

influence the participants behaviour.

Semistructured
interview

Participant observation allows

ongoing, direct access to the people
and the behaviour Im interested in.
In the Twitter context, the method
is unobtrusive and allows those
going about their business to be
undisturbed. Enables naturalistic
behaviour to be observed and
reduces observer effects.

A challenge to balance between openly

ranging across the field and sticking to a
predetermined observation protocol.

Minimal effort for the researcher in

terms of collecting the data.

Rationale

This method would add little over

and above the other methods being
taken forward.
Yes

The interview provides a route to

participants views, attitudes and
beliefs regarding their professional
learning; things which cant be

issues which may have arisen in

the other methods.

the interviewees reactions, emotional

and other.

Since interviewees could be

anywhere on the globe, these are
unlikely to be face-to-face
interviews. This has both
advantages and disadvantages for
interviewer and interviewee.

The interviewee can choose the time of

the interview, and the place with which
they are most comfortable.
Conducted online, the interviewer
effects (gender, age, ethnicity) may be
mitigated somewhat.

managing the single voice recorder that

would often be used. In addition, there are
two ends for the interviewer to manage.

observed.
Once the participants have been
recruited and have committed, the
interviewer has far more
opportunity to explore interesting
avenues that the interviewees
reveal.

More difficult for an interviewee to

indicate they would like to terminate the
interview.

The interviewer is in more control

and able to follow their agenda
much more closely, so is able to
stick to the topics raised through
the research questions.

Offering the interviewee different

media through which to conduct
the interview introduces greater
technical challenges.
Blog
interview

Focus
group

Here we are extrapolating from

naturalistic data. Participants have
already expressed a particular view
through the content of their blog
post. The interview conducted
through the blog comments
provides an opportunity for the
researcher to follow up interesting
themes in the post, or seek
clarification.

Transcription is not necessary.

Although this didnt unfold as

originally planned, the data which
emerged provided similar
information regarding the efficacy
of the method.

The data, as found, was more

naturalistic than artificially generated
by a researcher.

What was missing was the

opportunity to steer the groups
discussion and keep it aligned with
my research aims.

Interviewee has longer to reflect and

can respond at a time convenient to
them.
Interviewee can provide intertextual
links to additional information.
The blog post itself provides an
additional source of data.

The two different data sources, perhaps

require two different analytical
approaches.

Yes

Reduction in privacy for participants; the

exchange is conducted in public (though as
bloggers, this may not be an issue for
them).
Authors may not respond to the initial
request, though from a participants
perspective, this could be considered an
advantage.

Participants dont have to travel to

particular location and are able to fit it
around their routines.

The found data archive indicates that

groups conducting hashtag chats may
already have discussed professional
learning through Twitter as a topic, and
therefore might be reluctant to retread
ground already covered.

The structure and function of hashtag

chats are becoming understood and
familiar places for discussions;

Some Twitter users consider the short form

of the microblog unconducive to extended
discussions.

16

A lot of potential data already exists

in the blog posts which have
already been made. This has largely
been ignored in online research
thus far. Coupled with the capacity
to probe the details with the
authors, this offers a unique
opportunity.
This instrument aligns with, and
follows on from the fieldwork in
participant observation. It may be
that blog posts are referenced by
tweets, so arguably constitute
extensions of the field.

No

It is possible however, that hashtag

chats may unfold during the year
and become manifest through the
course of fieldwork. Although not
acting in the role of moderator and
directing the discussion, it would
still be possible to be involved as a
participant and ask questions, as
appropriate.

participants are more likely to be at

their ease.

The researcher has much less control over

a focus group of this nature than a face-toface one (number of participants, staying
on topic etc).

17

5.5 Ethical Considerations

5.5.1 Introduction
Since this study focuses on teachers use of Twitter for professional learning, participants are
therefore likely to be articulate, intelligent professionals who in this context would not be
considered vulnerable. They are engaged in activity which is neither illegal nor socially
undesirable. The educational topics and themes discussed are not sensitive. The primary focus is on
Twitter, an environment which:
is openly public by default
has an architecture which encourages sharing and reposting of information - retweets, Share on
Twitter buttons on other sites.
has norms and expectations that what you tweet may be made visible elsewhere - usage of tweets by
the media (and at the UK Prime Ministers despatch box5), users commonly curating tweets using
tools like Storify (https://storify.com/) and Scoop.It (http://www.scoop.it/)
As a participant observer in this arena, I have chosen to make my status as a researcher clear in my
profile, together with a link to detailed information on the nature of my study.

5.5.2 Sources of guidance

The principles which underpinned the decisions taken in this submission include ethical guidance
provided by professional bodies and associations, and our statutory obligations under the Human
Rights Act, Data Protection Act (in the UK & Europe) and copyright law. Although the ethical
issues which arise in a study of this nature are similar to those in an offline context, Henderson et al
(2013) caution us social media have particular affordances, and concomitant consequences, that
make them unlike other research contexts. Fortunately, some bodies have produced guidance
specific to online research: The British Sociological Association (2002) provides a cautionary
paragraph, the ESRC Framework (2015) includes a section specifically addressing Internetmediated research and the British Psychological Society (2013) has a separate publication solely
devoted to this topic. Of course the guidelines produced by the Association of Internet Researchers
(Ess, 2002; Markham and Buchanan, 2012) proved particularly helpful.
Given the fluid nature of the study as it navigates different spaces and contexts, it will nevertheless
be important to maintain a reflexive sensibility, adopting an ethical stance which requires constant
negotiation (Fileborn, 2015).

5.5.3 Ethical challenges associated with Internet mediated research

A number of areas become particularly significant in this study and in this section, outline them
briefly. They are discussed in much more detail on my research blog6, and in the matrix in Appendix
8.6, I have related them to each of the pilot study methods.

5 UK Parliament. (2016, February 10). Prime Minister's Questions [Video file]. Retrieved from https://youtu.be/8DGYeoP7xTU?t=22m25s
6 https://cpdin140.wordpress.com/tag/ethics/ (accessed Sept 2016)
18

Private - Public distinction: there are three intertwined contextual factors here. How the space is
perceived, the nature of the information being shared and the intended audience, which Rosenberg
(2010) condenses into Researchers must base their ethical decisions on a communitys purpose and
participants expectations of privacy.
Informed consent: most advice from professional bodies begins from the premise that informed
consent should always be sought. There is a recognition however that that might not always be
necessary if certain conditions are satisfied: that the data is in an open, publicly accessible space,
and that the risk to participants is minimal (Bruckman, 2002; ASA, 1999)
Sensitivity, distance and level of interaction: when considered together, these three factors can
help researchers decide whether consent is more likely to be required. If the researcher will be
interacting closely with participants on a sensitive topic and in an area which is more private,
seeking consent will be paramount.
Human subject versus textual artifacts: although some claim that inscriptions on the Internet can
be considered published texts, the AoIR (2012) guidance argues that, especially with social media,
it becomes difficult to detach the text from the person. Where human subjects produce published
works however, we are obliged to reconsider issues of anonymity (see later)
Unobtrusivity: the Internet and social media enable researchers to observe behaviour without
influencing it, since their presence may not be apparent in the same way it would be in offline
spaces. Research conducted in this way can be considered less impactful on participants and is akin
to lurking. This term may have negative connotations, but is considered acceptable behaviour in
many online spaces (Nonnecke and Preece 2000). However, if our methods involve covert research,
we must be mindful of Hines (2011) entreaty that although we might be able to easily access data
using unobtrusive methods, this does not make them ethically available. Coughlan & Perryman
(2015), conducting research into Facebook, clearly stated and defended the ethical choices they
made: Our position is that as we are conducting observation-only research on passive participants
in the public sphere, it is ethically defensible to neither join the groups we are researching, nor
disclose our status as researchers. The views of social media users seem to support this stance.
Beninger et al (2014) found that Twitter users in particular were less concerned that researchers
might use their tweets, nor did they feel their consent was required. The users felt that Twitter had
easier privacy settings, to use and understand.

19

6 Moving forward
6.1 Methods
The pilot study provided a balance between naturalistic and solicited data; between public and
private interactions; between highly interactive and largely unobtrusive approaches; and between
short-form and long-form responses. I am keen to carry this balance forward into the main study,
however, during the fieldwork, it became apparent that there was an element that was invisible to
me as a digital ethnographer. Although it is possible to view and capture some of the activity that
people are involved in online, we lack the opportunity to simultaneously view their offline
circumstances and how they might be contributing to or influencing participants online behaviour.
This is a particular problem, since the material actors in the participants lives might be exerting
considerable influence, but off stage as far as the researcher is concerned. Although this aspect
could be probed through interviews, I thought there would be greater value in shifting the locus of
control closer to potential participants. For this I propose audio arcs - participants conduct
themselves in a Twitter session precisely as they normally would, but narrate and record the
experience. This is similar to audio diaries as used by Williamson et al (2015) and Worth (2009),
although what is proposed here is much shorter term and to provide a snapshot, rather than
longitudinal record. As Hislop et al (2005) found, participants not only provide factual information
about an otherwise hidden world, but paint pictures of their lives.
The four methods I propose taking forward to contribute towards the digital ethnographic approach
in the main study are:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Participant observation
In-depth, semi-structured interviews
Blog interviews
Audio arcs
As discussed earlier, this group of methods should provide balance across a range of factors. For
example:

In addition, it should be possible to cross-check findings from one method across others.
It is proposed that methods 2-4 will be conducted with four participants each. These will generate
the following work demands (all figures in hours):
20

Table 2

Method

Data gathering

Data processing

Data analysis (initial

coding)

Participant observation

This is more difficult to quantify, but is also more flexible and

can expand to fill the available space.

Total (sum of the

previous columns x4
participants)
~50

S-s interviews

44

Blog interviews

28

Audio arcs

28

The figures in the Table 2 do not include time for participant recruitment, nor the time needed for
interpreting across methods. I would therefore be inclined to double to above figures. This load
would notionally be spread over the year as follows:

Table 3

Year
Quarterly milestones

2
1

Research process
Establish samples
Recruit participants
Participant observation
Conduct blog interviews
Audio arcs
Conduct interviews
Initial coding
Thematic analysis
Thesis writing schedule
Title & abstract
Introduction
Literature review
Methodology
Supplementary chapter(s) e.g. ethics
Findings and analysis
Discussion
Conclusion

21

3
3

6.2 A step-change
The pilot study followed the ethical guidance issued by most professional bodies, based on human
subject research ethics - when quoting participants, they should be granted confidentiality and their
identities disguised. Bruckman (2002), one of the originators of the AoIR (2002) Guidance, urges us
to balance the need to protect vulnerable human subjects in research studies with the right of
Internet users to receive credit for their creative and intellectual work. Here we have an opportunity
to address one of the power imbalances that exists between researcher and participants and rethink
what some refer to as a paternalistic attitude. We can also perhaps contribute towards our duty of
beneficence, by providing credit where the participant would want to be credited, rather than
anonymised (Bassett and ORiordan, 2002; BERA, 2011; Herring, 1996; Sixsmith and Murray,
2001, Tilley and Woodthorpe, 2011).
Teachers using Twitter for professional development often exhibit behaviours which are
performative and solicit attention: publicising ones Twitter statistics (retweets and reach); pointedly
asking for retweets; linking to their blog posts; and openly seeking comments. Whilst this may be a
generalisation and will not be true for all users all of the time, this does exemplify a particular set of
norms. My research participants are likely to subscribe to those views, so it could be argued to be in
their interests to allow my research, where possible, to support those activities. Audio recordings of
interviews or audio arcs would usually be transcribed and any identifying data fragments
anonymised. The alternative I am proposing here however, is to openly publish the audio recordings
(if participants consent) to a podcasting platform. In addition to being what might be considered
normal behaviour within the environment, this is an opportunity to acknowledge and share
participants contributions and views more widely and openly, whilst also helping to deliver the
Universitys commitment to open publishing and open access7.
In circumstances like these, our duty as researchers should perhaps be to establish the wishes of
participants and aim, where possible, to fulfil them, rather than make decisions on their behalf. This
can be done at the point where informed consent is sought. If consent cannot be obtained, either
because participants cannot be contacted or are not in a position to provide it, then maintaining
anonymity would be more appropriate.
These ethical changes were included in an updated ethics submission and have been subsequently
approved.

7 https://www.shu.ac.uk/research/ethics-integrity-and-practice/research-data-management-policy (accessed Sept 2016)

22

6.3 Analysis
As mentioned in Section 5.4, analyses conducted during the pilot study were preliminary in nature;
an opportunity to explore options and potential routes forward. Using what I learned whilst using
NVivo during the pilot, the following sections discuss how the data will be analysed in the main
study.

6.3.1 Use of NVivo

Given the topic of study and that most of my data will be generated digitally, it is perhaps no
surprise that I would consider conducting computer assisted qualitative data analysis (CAQDAS).
The choice of NVivo was a pragmatic one; NVivo is the CAQDAS package the University
subscribes to, however, it also offers the features and functionality I was looking for to support my
data management and analysis.
NVivo can also assist with data collection. NCapture, a browser add-on, allows data to be captured
directly from the web, turning web pages into PDFs for importing into NVivo. NCapture also
allows automated capture of tweets, rendering them directly into a dataset where the content of the
tweet and the supplementary metadata are kept together. These too can be imported into NVivo, and
it is the capacity for different forms of data to be stored and managed within a single application
which is important for me. In addition to web pages (which will be multimodal) and tweets, I will
also have audio files, transcripts and other textual and graphical documents.
The key elements which NVivo will then enable include the capacities to explore the data from a
single entry point; to maintain a closeness to the data at all times; to be able to code and
subsequently retrieve fragments of data, but retain those fragments within the source context; to be
able to search through both the data and codes; to be able to write memos and link those
observations with the data which generated them (and connect with other memos and data); and to
help in making sense of emerging themes (Lewins and Silver, 2009).

6.3.2 Coding strategy

Although Lincoln and Guba (1985) claimed that Not very much can be said about data analysis in
advance of the study, conducting the pilot study means that I now feel better placed to consider
appropriate coding methods.
The following proposals draw from Saldanas (2015) methods and his definitions. Prior to the pilot
study, my first cycle coding techniques were to include a combination of initial coding (where a
priori codes are drawn from the literature review), descriptive coding (identify topics in that which
was observed) and process coding (using gerunds to highlight actions). Whilst these align with the
research questions as originally posed, and may still prove valuable, emerging from the pilot study
was the sense that there were elements within the data that were being missed. Rather than simply
seeking to understand a phenomenon, I also felt it would be important to capture some sense of
reality as participants experience it - what is professional learning for them? This makes other
coding methods more significant: in vivo coding (to capture the participants own words), values
23

coding (to capture participants values, attitudes and beliefs) and emotion coding (to highlight any
affective aspects).
Second cycle coding would use Miles and Hubermans (1994) pattern coding to seek themes,
relationships, recurrences or commonalities. These proposals provide a starting point only and may
need to adapt to accommodate emerging issues.

24

7 References
Ackland, A., & Swinney, A. (2015). Material matters for learning in virtual networks: A case study
of a professional learning programme hosted in a google+ online community. Research in Learning
Technology, 23 doi:10.3402/rlt.v23.26677
Alderton, E., Brunsell, E., & Bariexca, D. (2011). The end of isolation. Journal of Online Learning
and Teaching, 7(3), 1-16.
American Sociological Association, & American Sociological Association. (1999). Code of ethics
and policies and procedures of the ASA committee on professional ethics The Association.
Australian Institute for Teaching and School leadership. (2011). Australian professional standards
for teachers. (Professional Standards). Victoria, Australia: Education Services Australia.
Avidov-Ungar, O. (2016). A model of professional development: Teachers perceptions of their
professional development. Teachers and Teaching, , 1-17.
Banks, J. A. (1998). The lives and values of researchers: Implications for educating citizens in a
multicultural society. Educational Researcher, 27(7), 4-17.
Bassett, E. H., & O'Riordan, K. (2002). Ethics of internet research: Contesting the human subjects
research model. Ethics and Information Technology, 4(3), 233-247.
Beadle, H. (2014). The tweet smell of success: Perceptions of twitter as a CPD tool. Re-Thinking
Models of Professional Learning, Aston University, Birmingham. 16-25.
Bell, B., & Gilbert, J. K. (1996). Teacher development: A model from science education Psychology
Press.
Beninger, K., Fry, A., Jago, N., Lepps, H., Nass, L., & Silvester, H. (2014). Research using social
media; users views. NatCen Social Research,
BERA. (2011). Ethical guidelines for educational research. London: British Educational Research
Association.
Bigsby, J. B., & Firestone, W. A. (2016). Why teachers participate in professional development:
Lessons from a schoolwide teacher study group. The New Educator, , 1-22.
Borko, H. (2004). Professional development and teacher learning: Mapping the terrain. Educational
Researcher, 33(8), 3-15.
Bosley, J. C., Zhao, N. C., Asch, D. A., Becker, L., & Merchant, R. M. (2011). The heart of the
matter: Cardiac arrest and public health information on twitter. Circulation, 124(21)
Boylan, M., Coldwell, M., & Simkins, T. (2011). Complexity and leadership in teacher professional
development: The case of the national centre for excellence in the teaching of mathematics.
Brewer, J. D. (2000). Ethnography. Buckingham England]: Open University Press.
British Sociological Association. (2002). Statement of ethical practice for the british sociological
association British Sociological Association.
Broad, K., & Evans, M. (2006). A review of literature on professional development content and
delivery modes for experienced teachers. University of Toronto, Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education.
Bruckman, A. (2002). Ethical guidelines for research online. Retrieved June, 18, 2005.
Bubb, S., & Earley, P. (2007). Leading & managing continuing professional development:
Developing people, developing schools Sage.
Burden, K. J. (2010). Conceptualising teachers' professional learning with web 2.0. Campus-Wide
Information Systems, 27(3), 148-161.
Carpenter, J. P., & Krutka, D. G. (2015). Learning in 140 characters: English teachers educational
uses of twitter. International Journal of English and Education, 4(2)
25

Carpenter, J. P., & Krutka, D. G. (2014). How and why educators use twitter: A survey of the field.
Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(4), 414-434.
doi:10.1080/15391523.2014.925701
Casas, A., Davesa, F., & Congosto, M. (2016). Media coverage of a "connective" action: The
interaction between the 15-M movement and the mass media. Revista Espanola De Investigaciones
Sociologicas, (155), 73-94. doi:10.5477/cis/reis.155.73
Chretien, K. C., Tuck, M. G., Simon, M., Singh, L. O., & Kind, T. (2015). A digital ethnography of
medical students who use twitter for professional development. Journal of General Internal
Medicine, 30(11), 1673-1680.
Clarke, D., & Hollingsworth, H. (2002). Elaborating a model of teacher professional growth.
Teaching and Teacher Education, 18(8), 947-967.
Coldwell, M., Simkins, T., Coldron, J., Smith, R., Aspinwall, K., Close, P., . . . Wainwright, J.
(2008). Developing the whole school workforce an evaluation of the testbed programme. ().Teacher
Development Agency. Retrieved from
http://www.tda.gov.uk/upload/resources/pdf/t/testbedsfinalreportandappendixfeb08.pdf
Cordingley, P., & Bell, M. (2012). Understanding what enables high quality professional learning: A
report on the research evidence. London: CUREE and Pearson,
Cordingley, P., Bell, M., Evans, D., & Firth, A. (2005). The impact of collaborative CPD on
classroom teaching and learning: What do teacher impact data tell us about collaborative CPD? ().
London: Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre.
Cordingley, P., Bell, M., Thomason, S., & Firth, A. (2005). The impact of collaborative continuing
professional development (CPD) on classroom teaching and learning. review: How do
collaborative and sustained CPD and sustained but not collaborative CPD affect teaching and
learning? (). London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education,
University of London.
Coughlan, T., & Perryman, L. (2015). A murky business: Navigating the ethics of educational
research in facebook groups. European Journal of Open, Distance and e-Learning, , 146-169.
Dalton, M. (2013). "What would I tweet?": Exploring new professionals' attitudes towards twitter as
a tool for professional development.
Darling-Hammond, L., & Richardson, N. (2009). Research review/teacher learning: What matters.
Educational Leadership, 66(5), 46-53.
Darling-Hammond, L., Wei, R. C., Andree, A., Richardson, N., & Orphanos, S. (2009). Professional
learning in the learning profession. Washington, DC: National Staff Development Council,
Davis, K. (2015). Teachers perceptions of twitter for professional development. Disability and
Rehabilitation, 37(17), 1551-1558.
Day, C. (1999). Developing teachers: The challenges of lifelong learning Psychology Press.
Day, C., & Gu, Q. (2007). Variations in the conditions for teachers' professional learning and
development: Sustaining commitment and effectiveness over a career. Oxford Review of Education,
33(4), 423-443.
Department for Education. (2010). The Importance of Teaching: The Schools White Paper 2010.
(Cm 7980). London: The Stationery Office
Department for Education. (2016). Standard for teachers professional development.
Implementation guidance for school leaders, teachers, and organisations that offer professional
development for teachers, DFE-00167-2016.
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers' professional development: Toward
better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38(3), 181-199.
doi:10.3102/0013189X08331140
26

Donaldson, G. (2011). Teaching Scotlands future: Report of a review of teacher education in

Scotland Scottish Government (Scotland).
Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). (2015). ESRC framework for research ethics.
Retrieved from http://www.esrc.ac.uk/funding/guidance-for-applicants/research-ethics/
Ess, C. (2002). Ethical decision-making and internet research: Recommendations from the aoir
ethics working committee. Readings in Virtual Research Ethics: Issues and Controversies,
Evans, L. (2002). What is teacher development? Oxford Review of Education, 28(1), 123-137.
Fenwick, T. (2010). Re-thinking the thing: Sociomaterial approaches to understanding and
researching learning in work. Journal of Workplace Learning, 22(1/2), 104-116.
Fenwick, T. (2012). Co-production in professional practice: A sociomaterial analysis. Professions
and Professionalism, 2(2), 1-16.
Fenwick, T., & Edwards, R. (2013). Performative ontologies: Sociomaterial approaches to
researching adult education and lifelong learning. European Journal for Research on the Education
and Learning of Adults, 4(1), 49-63.
Fenwick, T., & Landri, P. (2012). Materialities, textures and pedagogies: Socio-material
assemblages in education. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 20(1), 1-7.
Fileborn, B. (2015). Participant recruitment in an online era: A reflection on ethics and identity.
Research Ethics, , 1747016115604150.
Forte, A., Humphreys, M., & Park, T. H. (2012). Grassroots professional development: How
teachers use twitter. Paper presented at the International Conference on Weblogs and Social Media,
Dublin, Ireland. Retrieved from http://www.aaai.org/Library/ICWSM/icwsm12contents.php;
Fransman, J. (2013). Researching academic literacy practices around twitter. Literacy in the Digital
University: Critical Perspectives on Learning, Scholarship and Technology, , 27.
Fraser, C., Kennedy, A., Reid, L., & McKinney, S. (2007). Teachers continuing professional
development: Contested concepts, understandings and models. Journal of in-Service Education,
33(2), 153-169.
Friedman, A., & Phillips, M. (2004). Continuing professional development: Developing a vision.
Journal of Education and Work, 17(3), 361-376.
Garcia, A. C., Standlee, A. I., Bechkoff, J., & Cui, Y. (2009). Ethnographic approaches to the
internet and computer-mediated communication. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 38(1), 5284. doi:10.1177/0891241607310839
Garet, M. S., Porter, A. C., Desimone, L., Birman, B. F., & Yoon, K. S. (2001). What makes
professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American
Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-45.
Gillen, J., & Merchant, G. (2013). Contact calls: Twitter as a dialogic social and linguistic practice.
Language Sciences, 35, 47-58.
Goodall, J., Day, C., Lindsay, G., Mujis, D., & Harris, A. (2005). Evaluating the impact of
continuing professional development (CPD). (No. 659).Department for Education and Skills.
Guskey, T. R. (1986). Staff development and the process of teacher change. Educational
Researcher, 15(5), 5-12.
Guskey, T. R. (2003). Analyzing lists of the characteristics of effective professional development to
promote visionary leadership. NASSP Bulletin, 87(637), 4-20.
Guskey, T. R., & Yoon, K. S. (2009). What works in professional development. Phi Delta Kappan,
90(7), 495-500.
Hammersley, M., & Atkinson, P. (2007). Ethnography: Principles in practice Routledge.
Handel, D., Hochman, J., & Santoro, D. (2015). Visualizing teacher tweets: Finding professional
learning networks in topical networks. Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and
Technology, 52(1), 1-3.
27

Henderson, M., Johnson, N. F., & Auld, G. (2013). Silences of ethical practice: Dilemmas for
researchers using social media. Educational Research and Evaluation, 19(6), 546-560.
Herring, S. (1996). Linguistic and critical analysis of computer-mediated communication: Some
ethical and scholarly considerations. The Information Society, 12(2), 153-168.
Hine, C. (2007). Connective ethnography for the exploration of eScience. Journal of Computer
Mediated Communication, 12(2), 618-634.
Hine, C. (2009). How can qualitative internet researchers define the boundaries of their projects. In
A. M. Markham, & N. K. Baym (Eds.), Internet inquiry: Conversations about method (pp. 1-20)
Sage.
Hine, C. (2011). Internet research and unobtrusive methods. Social Research Update, (61), 1.
Hine, C. (2000). Virtual ethnography. London; Thousand Oaks, Calif.: SAGE.
Hislop, J., Arber, S., Meadows, R., & Venn, S. (2005). Narratives of the night: The use of audio
diaries in researching sleep. Sociological Research Online, 10(4)
Holmes, K., Preston, G., Shaw, K., & Buchanan, R. (2013). Follow me: Networked professional
learning for teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(12), n12.
Hustler, D., McNamara, O., Jarvis, J., Londra, M., & Campbell, A. (2003). Teachers' perceptions of
continuing professional development. (No. 429). London: Department for Education and Skills.
Kendall, L. (2002). Hanging out in the virtual pub: Masculinities and relationships online Univ of
California Press.
Kennedy, A. (2005). Models of continuing professional development: A framework for analysis.
Journal of in-Service Education, 31(2), 235-250.
Kim, Y. (2011). The pilot study in qualitative inquiry identifying issues and learning lessons for
culturally competent research. Qualitative Social Work, 10(2), 190-206.
Kozinets, R. V. (2009). Netnography: Doing ethnographic research online. London: SAGE.
Krutka, D. G., & Carpenter, J. P. (2016). Participatory learning through social media: How and why
social studies educators use twitter. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16,
1.
Kwakman, K. (2002). Factors affecting teachers participation in professional learning activities.
Oxford ;: doi:10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00101-4; info:doi/10.1016/S0742-051X(02)00101-4
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social. London: Oxford,
Latour, B. (1999). On recalling ANT. Sociological Review, 47, 15-25. doi:10.1111/j.1467954X.1999.tb03480.x
Law, J. (2009). Actor network theory and material semiotics. The New Blackwell Companion to
Social Theory, , 141-158.
Law, J., & Singleton, V. (2005). Object lessons. Organization, 12(3), 331-355.
Lemke, J. L. (2002). Travels in hypermodality. Visual Communication, 1(3), 299-325.
Lemon, N. (2016). Tweeting as a pre-service teacher: Learning to use twitter for professional use.
Fusion Journal, (08) Retrieved from http://www.fusion-journal.com/tweeting-as-a-pre-serviceteacher-learning-to-use-twitter-for-professional-use/
Lewins, A., & Silver, C. (2009). Choosing a CAQDAS package. Retrieved from
http://eprints.ncrm.ac.uk/791/1/2009ChoosingaCAQDASPackage.pdf
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry Sage.
Little, J. W. (1993). Teachers professional development in a climate of educational reform.
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15(2), 129-151.
Marcus, G. E. (1998). Ethnography through thick and thin. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press.
Markham, A., & Buchanan, E. (2012). Ethical decision-making and internet research: Version
2.0. .Association of Internet Researchers.
28

Markham, A. N. (1998). Life online : Researching real experience in virtual space. Lanham, Md.;
Plymouth: Lanham, Md. ; Plymouth : AltaMira.
Markham, A. N., & Baym, N. K. (2009). Internet inquiry conversations about method. London:
SAGE.
Marwick, A. E. (2014). Ethnographic and qualitative research on twitter. Twitter and Society.New
York: Peter Lang, , 109-122.
Mayer, D., & Lloyd, M. (2011). Professional learning: An introduction to the research literature.
Australian Institute for Teaching and School Leadership, Melbourne. Prepared in Partnership with
Deakin University and the Queensland University of Technology.
McCormick, R. (2010). The state of the nation in CPD: A literature review. The Curriculum
Journal, 21(4), 395-412.
McCormick, R., Banks, F., Morgan, B., Opfer, D., Pedder, D., Storey, A., & Wolfenden, F. (2008).
Schools and continuing professional development (CPD) in England-state of the nation research
project (T34718): Literature review. Cambridge University/The Open University.
McCulloch, J., McIntosh, E., & Barrett, T. (2011). Tweeting for teachers. United Kingdom: Pearson
Centre for Policy and Learning.
McKee, H. A., & Porter, J. E. (2009). Playing a good game: Ethical issues in researching MMOGs
and virtual worlds. International Journal of Internet Research Ethics, 2 (1), , 5-37.
McKinney, S., Carroll, M., Christie, D., Fraser, C., Kennedy, A., Reid, L., & Wilson, A. (2005).
AERS: Learners, learning and teaching network project 2progress report. Paper presented at the
Paper Delivered at the Scottish Educational Research Association Annual Conference. Perth,
Scotland,
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd
ed.. ed.) Sage.
Miller, D., & Slater, D. (2000). In Slater D. (Ed.), The internet: An ethnographic approach. Oxford:
Berg.
Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. (2013). Professional learning
guidelines for student success. Missouri, USA: Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary
Education.
Mol, A. (1999). Ontological politics. A word and some questions. The Sociological Review, 47(S1),
74-89.
Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple: Ontology in medical practice Duke University Press.
Mol, A. (2010). Actor-network theory: Sensitive terms and enduring tensions. Klner Zeitschrift
Fr Soziologie Und Sozialpsychologie.Sonderheft, 50, 253-269.
Nonnecke, B., & Preece, J. (2000). Lurker demographics: Counting the silent. Paper presented at
the Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 73-80.
OECD. (2014). TALIS 2013 results: An international perspective on teaching and learning
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Doi:10.1787/9789264196261-en
OECD. Publishing. (2009). Creating effective teaching and learning environments: First results
from TALIS Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
Ohio Department of Education. (2015). Ohio standards for professional development. Ohio: Ohio
Department of Education.
Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2011). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of
Educational Research, 81(3), 376-407.
Orgad, S. (2005). From online to offline and back: Moving from online to offline relationships with
research informants Berg.
Orlikowski, W. J. (2007). Sociomaterial practices: Exploring technology at work. Organization
Studies, 28(9), 1435-1448.
29

Orlikowski, W. J. (2009). The sociomateriality of organisational life: Considering technology in

management research. Cambridge Journal of Economics,, bep058.
Parganas, P., Anagnostopoulos, C., & Chadwick, S. (2015). 'You'll never tweet alone': Managing
sports brands through social media. Journal of Brand Management, 22(7), 551-568.
doi:10.1057/bm.2015.32
Parker Webster, J., & Marques da Silva, S. (2013). Doing educational ethnography in an online
world: Methodological challenges, choices and innovations. Ethnography and Education, 8(2), 123130.
Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver &
L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes. (pp. 17-59).
San Diego: Academic Press.
Pedder, D., James, M., & MacBeath, J. (2005). How teachers value and practise professional
learning. Research Papers in Education, 20(3), 209-243.
Postill, J., & Pink, S. (2012). Social media ethnography: The digital researcher in a messy web.
Rheingold, H. (2000). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier (Rev. ed..
ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Rybas, N., & Gajjala, R. (2007). Developing cyberethnographic research methods for understanding
digitally mediated identities. Paper presented at the Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum:
Qualitative Social Research, , 8(3)
Sachs, J. (2006). Harnessing the power of the knowledge society: Possibilities and prospects for
education policy and teacher practice. Figuring and Reconfiguring Research, Policy & Practice for
the Knowledge Society: New Directions for Educational Change, St.Patrick's College, Dublin, , 5-8.
Saldaa, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers Sage.
Sauers, N. J., & Richardson, J. W. (2015). Leading by following an analysis of how K-12 school
leaders use twitter. NASSP Bulletin, 0192636515583869.
Schleicher, A. (2012). Building a high-quality teaching profession. Lessons from around the world.
Educational Studies, (1), 74-92.
Sergi, V., & Bonneau, C. (2015). When talk is text: The performativity of working out loud on
twitter. Paper presented at the 31st EGOS Colloquium, Sub-Theme, , 16
Sixsmith, J., & Murray, C. D. (2001). Ethical issues in the documentary data analysis of internet
posts and archives. Qualitative Health Research, 11(3), 423.
Skyring, C. (2014). Professional learning in 140 characters. Paper presented at the Conference
Proceedings of the Australian Computers in Education Conference 2014, 422-429.
Spradley, J. (1980). Participant observation Wadsworth Publishing Co.
The British Psychological Society Ethics Committee. (2013). Supplementary guidance on the USE
OF SOCIAL MEDIA The British Psychological Society.
Tilley, L., & Woodthorpe, K. (2011). Is it the end for anonymity as we know it? A critical
examination of the ethical principle of anonymity in the context of 21st century demands on the
qualitative researcher. Qualitative Research, 11(2), 197-212.
Timperley, H., Wilson, A., Barrar, H., & Fung, I. (2007). Teacher professional learning and
development: Best evidence synthesis iteration. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education,
New Zealand.
Timperley, H. (2011). Realizing the power of professional learning. Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill
Open University Press.
Toffler, A. (1981). The third wave Bantam books New York.
van Teijlingen, E., & Hundley, V. (2001). The importance of pilot studies. Social Research Update,
(35) Retrieved from http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU35.html
30

Varis, P. (2015). Digital ethnography. In A. Georgakopoulou, & T. Spilioti (Eds.), The routledge
handbook of language and digital communication (pp. 55-68). Abingdon: Routledge.
Visser, R. D., Evering, L. C., & Barrett, D. E. (2014). #TwitterforTeachers: The implications of
twitter as a self-directed professional development tool for K12 teachers. Eugene, OR:
doi:10.1080/15391523.2014.925694
Walker, D. M. (2010). The location of digital ethnography. Cosmopolitan Civil Societies: An
Interdisciplinary Journal, 2(3)
Weinberger, S. (2011). Spies to use twitter as crystal ball. Nature, 478(7369), 301-301.
Wesely, P. M. (2013). Investigating the community of practice of world language educators on
twitter. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(4), 305-318. doi:10.1177/0022487113489032
Williams, S. A., Terras, M. M., & Warwick, C. (2013). What do people study when they study
twitter? Classifying twitter related academic papers. Journal of Documentation, 69(3), 384-410.
Williamson, I., Leeming, D., Lyttle, S., & Johnson, S. (2015). Evaluating the audio-diary method in
qualitative research. Qualitative Research Journal, 15(1), 20-34.
Wilson, M. (2013). Twitter for schools and classes.
Wilson, S. M., & Berne, J. (1999). Teacher learning and the acquisition of professional knowledge:
An examination of research on contemporary professional development. Review of Research in
Education, 24, 173-209.
Worth, N. (2009). Making use of audio diaries in research with young people: Examining narrative,
participation and audience. Sociological Research Online, 14(4), 9.
Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. L. (2007). Reviewing the evidence
on how teacher professional development affects student achievement. issues & answers. REL
2007-no. 033. Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest (NJ1),
Zappavigna, M. (2011). Ambient affiliation: A linguistic perspective on twitter. New Media &
Society, 13(5), 788-806.
Zimmer, M., & Proferes, N. J. (2014). A topology of twitter research: Disciplines, methods, and
ethics. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 66(3), 250-261.

31

8 Appendices
8.1 Published articles on Twitter
The following articles were found during the ongoing literature search (see Appendix 8.2). They
discuss both teacher professional learning and Twitter.
Table 4

Title

Authors

Year

The End of Isolation

Alderton, Brunsell and Bariexca

2011

The Tweet smell of success: Perceptions of Twitter as a CPD Tool

Beadle

2014

Beyond the Four Walls of My Building: A Case Study of #Edchat as a

Community of Practice

Britt and Paulus

2016

How and Why Educators Use Twitter: A Survey of the Field

Carpenter and Krutka

2014

Learning in 140 Characters: English Teachers Educational Uses of Twitter

Carpenter and Krutka

2015

"Administrators professional learning via Twitter: the dissonance between

beliefs and actions

Cho

2016

Administrators Use of Twitter for Professional Learning: A Structurational

Perspective

Cho

2013

Teachers perceptions of Twitter for professional development

Davis, K

2015

Building and using a Personal/ Professional learning network with social

Media

Davis, T

2013

Grassroots Professional Development: How Teachers Use Twitter

Forte, Humphreys and Park

2012

Visualizing Teacher Tweets: Finding Professional

Learning Networks in Topical Networks

Handel, Hochman and Santoro

2015

Follow Me: Networked Professional Learning for

Teachers

Holmes et al

2013

Transformative Professional Development in Unlikely Places: Twitter as a

Virtual Learning Community

King

2011

Tweeting for Teachers

McCulloch, McIntosh and Barrett 2011

Twitter as an informal learning space for teachers!? The role of social capital Rehm and Notten
in Twitter conversations among teachers

2016

English Teachers Online Participation as Professional Development: A

Narrative Study

Rodesiler and Pace

2015

Leading by Following: An Analysis of How K-12 School

Leaders Use Twitter

Sauers and Richardson

2015

Professional Learning in 140 Characters

Skyring

2014

#Twitter for Teachers: The Implications of Twitter as a Self-directed

Professional Development Tool for K12 Teachers

Visser, Evering and Barrett

2014

Investigating the Community of Practice of World Language Educators on

Twitter

Wesely

2013

Twittering in teacher education: reflecting on practicum experiences

Wright

2010

32

8.2 Search strategy

Preliminary thinking which preceded this search can be found in this post - https://cpdin140.wordpress.com/2015/11/20/search-strategy/

How does the Twitter social media platform support the professional learning of teachers?
1. What forms of professional learning do teachers undertake using Twitter?
2. How does professional learning extend beyond Twitter into the wider social media ecosystem and the
real world?
3. What attitudes and dispositions do teachers need, to use Twitter for their professional learning?

My research questions:

Databases to search:

SHU Library Gateway, Web of Science, Scopus, BEI, Education

Criteria for inclusion:

Databases on Proquest, BASE

The search will aim to be inclusive, except where it returns too many results, and will therefore include:
all years
most publications (excluding news articles)
all countries of origin, but only publications in English
both theoretical and empirical studies
EXCEPT publications where the context is tertiary education

Database searched

Date

Search terms

No. of
results

Comments

SHU Library Gateway

28/01/20
16

(professional learning OR professional development

OR CPD) AND teacher AND (twitter OR microblog OR
social media) AND (actor-network theory OR
sociomaterial OR ANT)

Search string asking for too much?

SHU Library Gateway

28/01/20
16

(professional learning OR professional development

OR CPD) AND teacher AND (actor-network theory OR
sociomaterial OR ANT)

15

15 results, but only 12 unique. 3 were particularly relevant and

downloaded.

SHU Library Gateway

28/01/20
16

(actor-network theory OR sociomaterial OR ANT) AND

teacher AND (twitter OR microblog OR social media)

1 result repeated from previous search, 1 (downloaded) providing a

different, useful ANT perspective , others too far off topic

33

SHU Library Gateway

28/01/20
16

(professional learning OR professional development

OR CPD) AND teacher AND (twitter OR microblog OR
social media)

117

15 pertinent articles downloaded.

Most articles less relevant, drawing from academia, social media for other
purposes, professionalism, different disciplines (medicine, librarians),
other social media. Will return to these if needed.

SHU Library Gateway

28/01/20
16

(professional learning OR professional development

OR CPD) AND teacher

35503

Terms too broad; included many How to or improving practice style

articles/books.

SHU Library Gateway

28/01/20
16

(professional learning OR professional development

OR CPD) AND teacher
filtered for articles only

32163

Still too broad, so sorted for Relevance. Even then the uppermost results
were from small-scale, very specific (discipline, pedagogical approach,
intervention) or from particular sectors.

SHU Library Gateway

28/01/20
16

(twitter OR microblog OR social media) AND teacher

10842

Too broad once more (suspect search is including social rather than
social media

SHU Library Gateway

28/01/20
16

(twitter OR microblog) AND teacher

231

Included some of the results already downloaded. Majority of results were

of use of social media with students.

SHU Library Gateway

28/01/20
16

professional learning

4209

Sorted by Relevance, top 150 results checked.

Included some of the results already downloaded.

Web of Science
(All WoS searches
filtered to Education
discipline only)

28/01/20
16

(professional learning OR professional development

OR CPD) AND teacher AND (twitter OR microblog OR
social media) AND (actor-network theory OR
sociomaterial OR ANT)

Too many criteria to satisfy?

Web of Science

28/01/20
16

(professional learning OR professional development

OR CPD) AND teacher AND (actor-network theory OR
sociomaterial OR ANT)

2 downloaded; others less relevant.

Web of Science

28/01/20
16

(professional learning OR professional development

OR CPD) AND teacher AND (twitter OR microblog OR
social media)

36

3 downloaded
3 repeated from previous search

Web of Science

28/01/20
16

(actor-network theory OR sociomaterial OR ANT) AND

teacher AND (twitter OR microblog OR social media)

Web of Science

28/01/20
16

(professional learning OR professional development

OR CPD) AND teacher

6250

Criteria insufficiently discriminating.

Web of Science

28/01/20

(professional learning OR professional development

5053

Sorted by Most cited

34

16

OR CPD) AND teacher

Refined to Education/Educational Research and to articles
and proceeding

Scopus

28/01/20
16

(professional learning OR professional development

OR CPD) AND teacher AND (twitter OR microblog OR
social media) AND (actor-network theory OR
sociomaterial OR ANT)

Restricted to Social Sciences and Humanities

Scopus

28/01/20
16

(professional learning OR professional development

OR CPD) AND teacher AND (actor-network theory OR
sociomaterial OR ANT)

11

3 articles were repeated from earlier searches and therefore not

downloaded.
1 new article downloaded

Scopus

29/01/20
16

(professional learning OR professional development

OR CPD) AND teacher AND (twitter OR microblog OR
social media)

35

4 articles were repeated from earlier searches and therefore not

downloaded.
3 new articles downloaded (one was framed within CoPs, but thought it
worth checking)

Scopus

29/01/20
16

(actor-network theory OR sociomaterial OR ANT) AND

teacher AND (twitter OR microblog OR social media)

Scopus

29/01/20
16

(professional learning OR professional development

OR CPD) AND teacher

9217

BEI

29/01/20
16

(professional learning OR professional development

OR CPD) AND teacher AND (twitter OR microblog OR
social media) AND (actor-network theory OR
sociomaterial OR ANT)

BEI

29/01/20
16

(professional learning OR professional development

OR CPD) AND teacher AND (twitter OR microblog OR
social media)

12

4 articles were repeated from earlier searches and therefore not

downloaded.
1 new article downloaded

BEI

29/01/20
16

(professional learning OR professional development

OR CPD) AND teacher AND (actor-network theory OR
sociomaterial OR ANT)

Same result as from a previous search

BEI

29/01/20

(actor-network theory OR sociomaterial OR ANT) AND

35

From the top 100 most cited works, and following an inspection of the
abstract for relevance, 7 were downloaded.

Even restricting this to Social Sciences results, only reduced this to 8785.
Sorted by Most cited
From the top 150 most cited works, and following an inspection of the
abstract for relevance, 13 were articles I already had. 7 were new and
therefore downloaded.

16

teacher AND (twitter OR microblog OR social media)

BEI

29/01/20
16

(professional learning OR professional development

OR CPD) AND teacher

2934

Sorted in order of Relevance, the top 100 results were inspected.

3 articles were sufficiently relevant to download.

Proquest

29/01/20
16

(professional learning OR professional development

OR CPD) AND teacher AND (twitter OR microblog OR
social media) AND (actor-network theory OR
sociomaterial OR ANT)

34

Seems a little high when compared with the other databases. Perhaps
because Proquest includes theses and dissertations?
4 repeats from earlier searches. 2 documents downloaded.

Proquest

30/01/16

(professional learning OR professional development

OR CPD) AND teacher AND (twitter OR microblog OR
social media)

3285

Removed OR microblog OR social media terms, which reduced the

returned results to 1945. Imposing a further restriction to Scholarly
journals brought that down to 748. Of these however, there were still a
number of news articles and theses among the results. The top 100 results,
ordered by Relevance were inspected
8 downloaded.

Proquest

30/01/20
16

(professional learning OR professional development

OR CPD) AND teacher AND twitter

304

As above, but rather than filtered for scholarly journals, Dissertations

and theses were chosen.
Only the first 2 of the top 50 results by Relevance were downloaded; the
remainder seemed to be increasingly niche and off-topic.

Proquest

30/01/20
16

(professional learning OR professional development

OR CPD) AND teacher AND (actor-network theory OR
sociomaterial OR ANT)

2045

The number of results was reduced to 466 when filtered for Scholarly
journals.
Of the top 50 results, only 4 seemed relevant and all these had been
previously downloaded.

Proquest

30/01/20
16

(actor-network theory OR sociomaterial OR ANT) AND

teacher AND (twitter OR microblog OR social media)

409

The number of results was reduced to 120 when filtered for Scholarly
journals.
1 new document found and downloaded; of the top 50 results, most were
too niche.

BASE

30/01/20
16

(professional learning OR professional development

OR CPD) AND teacher AND (twitter OR microblog OR
social media) AND (actor-network theory OR
sociomaterial OR ANT)

BASE

30/01/20
16

(professional learning OR professional development

OR CPD) AND teacher AND (actor-network theory OR
sociomaterial OR ANT)

18

36

4 results not English

3 results were relevant, but had already been downloaded.

BASE

30/01/20
16

(professional learning OR professional development

OR CPD) AND teacher AND (twitter OR microblog OR
social media)

32

1 result not in English

5 relevant results, but all accessed in previous searches.

BASE

30/01/20
16

(actor-network theory OR sociomaterial OR ANT) AND

teacher AND (twitter OR microblog OR social media)

Not relevant

SHU Library Gateway

21/06/20
16

(serendipitous OR informal OR incidental) AND teacher

AND learning
In Title field only

35

Wide-ranging results across theoretical - empirical, different disciplines

and educational sectors.
2 relevant results; documents downloaded.
1 for which SHU has no subscription.
Alert created

Web of Science

21/06/20
16

(serendipitous OR informal OR incidental) AND teacher

AND learning
In Title field only

28

Similar type of results to SHU Gateway, but with little overlap.32 relevant
results; documents downloaded.
1 for which SHU has no subscription
Alert created

ERA

21/06/20
16

(serendipitous OR informal OR incidental) AND teacher

AND learning
In Title field only

30

Some overlap with previous searches, but also some fresh results.
2 documents downloaded.
Some results dont appear to conform strictly to the search criteria?

BEI

21/06/20
16

(serendipitous OR informal OR incidental) AND teacher

AND learning
In Title field only

17

Mainly repetition from previous searches

ProQuest Central

21/06/20
16

(serendipitous OR informal OR incidental) AND teacher

AND learning
In Title field only

26

Mainly repetition from previous searches, though

1 thesis downloaded

Scopus

21/06/20
16

(serendipitous OR informal OR incidental) AND teacher

AND learning
In Title field only

BASE

21/06/20
16

(serendipitous OR informal OR incidental) AND teacher

AND learning
In Title field only

Google Scholar

(serendipitous OR informal OR incidental) AND teacher

AND learning

37

Scopus was generating an error, even when the search term was simplified
to learning across all fields.
26

Some overlap with previous searches, but around half the results were
fresh. Of these:
2 documents downloaded (inc 1 thesis)
1 for which SHU has no subscription
A weekly alert has been set up with these criteria.

General comments:
In addition to the search terms used above, a snowballing technique from the discovered papers was also used to source additional literature.
In the above table, no restriction was imposed on dates or media type, except where specified.
Articles were only downloaded following an assessment of the abstract for relevance to the research questions.
All articles downloaded were also added to Refworks (under Search strategy results)
After each successful search, an alert was created and saved within each database. These alerts provide information on papers being released since the
initial and subsequent searches.
Reasons why articles may have been rejected:
Related to other educational sectors, rather than the primary/secondary i.e. HE/FE/work-based
Related to disciplines other than education e.g. medicine, library professionals
Professionalism, rather than professional learning.
The context within which the study was conducted was too narrow e.g. professional learning of 6x Teachers of English from two schools in Melbourne
implementing a reading strategy.
The context within which the study was conducted was only loosely related to my research questions e.g. new teacher induction or ITE programme or
technology integration as focus.

38

8.3 Submission for MRes Module QR1

8.4 Submission for MRes Module QR2
8.5 Submission for MRes Module DLTA

39

8.6 Methods Matrix

Discussion of ethics applied to each of the methods
(PIS - Participant Information Sheet)
Table 5

Proposed method

Private/public space nature and norms

Human subject/
authored text

Researcher
disclosure

Degree of
interaction

Distance

Need for
consent

Obtaining
consent

1 Participant
Observation

Twitter is a public platform

as described by its Terms of
Service. The community
under study would be
expected to be aware that
posting there will be visible
to all and any posts could be
repurposed in multiple ways.

Both perspectives are

possible. It is highly
unlikely that tweets
would be used in their
raw rather than aggregate
form, but if they were,
they would be
anonymised.

The stance here is one of

overhearer or passive
observer, so presence
will not be visible. My
status as researcher has
been visible through my
profile and regular blog
postings over the past 6
months.

There will be no
interaction with
participants.

Distance between
researcher and
participants is
high, but between
participants and
the data they
produce is
relatively close.

Consent not
needed.

N/A

2 Semi-structured
interviews

This will be a 1-on-1 semistructured interview with

participant chosen
purposively from those who
are significant to the topic.

This is focused
interaction with a person.

Full disclosure in
advance.

Direct
interaction with
individuals.

Distance between
researcher and
participants is
low, as is that
between
participants and
their replies.

Consent needed. A
PIS would be
provided and
debriefing offered.

Consent would be
sought as part of
the initial
approach. After
reading the PIS,
an online consent
form would be
completed,
providing consent
to all the
aforementioned.

3 Blog post
analysis

A(n open) blog is a public

space, with the expectation
that posts will be viewed.
Posts are often signposted by
links from other places. The

This is an authored text,

but one we should
remember that may be
still linked dynamically
to the person who wrote

The stance here is one of

reader/audience, so
presence will not be
visible.

No direct
interaction.

Distance between
researcher and
participants is
high.

Consent not
needed

N/A

40

content of the blog will be

analysed.

it.

5 Blog
interviews

A(n open) blog is a

performative, discursive
public space which invites
comment.

This is focused
interaction with a person,
but as a result of an
authored text they have
produced.

Full disclosure prior to

any questions being
asked. e.g. Im
conducting research into
the topic you mentioned;
could I ask you a few
questions?

Direct
interaction with
individuals.

Distance between
researcher and
participants is
low, as is that
between
participant and
their replies.

Consent needed,
though not in the
form of a formally
completed consent
form. A PIS
would be provided
and debriefing
offered.

Consent would be
sought as part of
the initial
approach.

6 Twitterchat
focus group

This form of public

discussion is common, often
weekly. Using one as a
research study however, is
not.

This is clearly an
interview situation in
which people will be
encouraged to express
their opinions.

Full disclosure from the

outset, but given the fluid
nature of the
environment, participants
may join the chat who
were not present at the
start.

The researcher
will be
interacting
directly with the
participants
individually and
as a group.

Distance between
researcher and
participants is
low, as is that
between
participants and
the information
they provide.

Permission, rather
than consent
would be sought,
however, a PIS
would be
provided. A
debriefing would
be offered.

The initial
approach would
be through a
gatekeeper, but
permission would
be sought from
potential
participants prior
to and after the
chat. The option
to withdraw
would be
highlighted.

41