Twitter as a means of class participation: Making student reading visible
Issue: Vol 8 No. 1 (2011)
Journal: Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice
Subject Areas: Writing and Composition Linguistics
DOI: 10.1558/japl.v8i1.1
Abstract:
Earlier studies have shown that tutoring in reading strategies reflects positively on the acquisition of skills and construction of knowledge. However, the suggested ways of carrying out such training – via individual face-to-face instruction or tutoring software – require time and specialized resources which are not always available in a university seminar. In the study reported here, I investigate the possibility of making reading strategy training more feasible through the use of a widely accessible microblogging platform, Twitter. In the experiment, students were required to tweet comments on their reading with the objective of prompt self-explanation. The qualitative data drawn from post-seminar interviews and content analysis of tweets indicate that students spontaneously resort to self-explanation strategies and develop from predominantly low-level to high-level strategy use in the course of the seminar. Other positive effects included an increased commitment to reading, stimulation of in-class discussion and enhancement of a feeling of community among learners.
Author: Daria Dayter
References :
Anderson, J. (1987) Skill acquisition. Psychological Review 94: 192–210.
Bielaczyc, K., Pirolli, P. and Brown, A. (1995) Training in self-explanation and self-regulation strategies. Cognition and Instruction 13 (2): 221–252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci1302_3.
boyd, d. and Marwick, A. (2011) Social privacy in networked publics. Symposium on the Dynamics of the Internet and Society, September 2011. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1925128.
boyd, d., Golder, S. and Lotan, G. (2010) Tweet Tweet Retweet. In Proceedings of HICSS-43: 1–10. Kauai, HI. http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/HICSS.2010.412.
Burns, A. (2005) Action research. Language Teaching 38: 57–74. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0261444805002661.
Carter-Wells, J. (1996) Raising expectations for critical reading. New Directions for Higher Education (96): 45–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/he.36919969606.
Chi, M., Bassok, M., Lewis, M., Reimann, P. and Glaser, R. (1989) Self-explanations. Cognitive Science 13 (2): 145–182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1302_1.
Chi, M., Leeuw, N., Chiu, M. and Lavancher, C. (1994) Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science 18: 439–477. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1803_3.
Cottrell, K. and McNamara, D. (2002) Cognitive precursors to science comprehension. In Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society 24: 244–249. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Croxall, B. (2010) Reflections on teaching with social media. Chronicle of Higher Education, 7/06/2010. http://chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/reflections-on-teaching-with-social-media.
Dunlap, J. and Lowenthal, P. (2009) Tweeting the night away. Journal of Information Systems Education 20 (2): 129–137.
Ehrlich, K. and Shami, S. (2010) Microblogging inside and outside the workplace. Presentation at ICWSM 2010, 10–15 April 2010. http://www.cs.cornell.edu/~sadats/icwsm2010.pdf.
Ellison, N., Steinfield, C. and Lampe, C. (2007) The benefits of Facebook “friends”: Social capital and college students’ use of online social network sites. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00367.x.
Fies, C. and Marshall, J. (2006) Classroom response systems. Journal of Science Education and Technology 15 (1): 101–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10956-006-0360-1.
Gardner, R. (1988) The socio-educational model of second-language learning. Language Learning 38 (1): 101–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-1770.1988.tb00403.x.
Graesser, A. (2007) An introduction to strategic reading comprehension. In D. McNamara (ed.) Reading Comprehension Strategies, 3–26. Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Hartley, P. (2007) New technology and the modern university. Presentation at Next Generation Environments Conference. http://www.jisc.ac.uk/media/documents/events/2007/04/next_gen_keynote.pdf.
Herring, S. (1999) Interactional Coherence in CMC. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication 4 (4). http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.1999.tb00106.x.
Hew, K. and Cheung, W. (2008) Attracting student participation in asynchronous online discussions. Computers & Education 51 (3): 1111–1124. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2007.11.002.
Hopkins, D. (2008) A Teacher’s Guide to Classroom Research. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Jucker, A. (2003) Mass media communication at the beginning of 21st century. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 4 (1): 129–148. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/jhp.4.1.07juc.
Junco, R., Heiberger, G. and Loken, E. (2011) The effect of Twitter on college student engagement and grades. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 27 (2): 119–132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00387.x.
Kieslinger, B. (2009) How To Use Social Software in Higher Education. A handbook from the iCamp project. http://www.icamp.eu/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/icamp-handbook-web.pdf.
Marwick, A. and boyd, d. (2011) I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately. New Media and Society 13 (1): 114–133. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461444810365313.
Mazur, E. (1997) Peer Instruction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
McNamara, D. (2004) SERT: Self-explanation reading training. Discourse Processes 38 (1): 1–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326950dp3801_1.
McNamara, D. (2010) Strategies to read and learn. Medical Education 44 (4): 340–346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2009.03550.x.
McNamara, D., Levinstein, I. and Boonthum, C. (2004) iSTART. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 36 (2): 222–233. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03195567.
Mulcahy-Ernt, P. (1990) What’s new in reading research. Journal of College Reading and Learning 22 (2): 37–48.
Nippert-Eng, C. (2010) Islands of Privacy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Nunan, D. (1989) Understanding Language Classrooms. New York: Prentice Hall.
Orsini-Jones, M. (2010) Task-based development of language students’ critical digital multiliteracies and cybergenre awareness. In M. Luzón, M. Ruiz-Madrid and M. Villanueva (eds) Digital Genres,N ew Literacies and Autonomy in Language Learning, 197–224. Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars.
Parry, D. (2008) Twitter for Academia. In AcademHack, January 23, 2008. http://academhack.outsidethetext.com/home/2008/twitter-for-academia/.
Pike, G., Kuh, G. and McCormick, A. (2011) An investigation of the contingent relationships between learning community participation and student engagement. Research in Higher Education 52 (3): 300–322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11162-010-9192-1.
Puschmann, C. (2009) Lies at Wal-Mart. In J. Giltrow and D. Stein (eds) Genres in the Internet, 49–84. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Ripley, B. (2007) Causation, counterfactuals, and critical reading in the active classroom. International Studies Perspectives 8 (3): 303–314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1528-3585.2007.00291.x.
Schroeder, A., Minocha, S. and Schneider, C. (2010) The strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of using social software in higher and further education teaching and learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 26 (3): 159–174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00347.x.
Skeels, M. and Grudin, J. (2009) When social networks cross boundaries. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI. New York: ACM. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1531674.1531689.
Smyk-Bhattacharjee, D. (2006) A ‘lyracist’ by night, teenager by day and sleepaholic everytime in between. In J. Androutsopoulos, J. Runkehl, P. Schlobinski and T. Siever (eds) Neuere Entwicklungen in der linguistischen Internetforschung, 68–85. Hildesheim: Olms.
van Compernolle, R. (2008) Second-person pronoun use and address strategies in on-line personal ads from Quebec. Journal of Pragmatics 40 (12): 2062–2076. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.04.008.
Yus, F. (2011) Cyberpragmatics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Zhao, D. and Rosson, M. (2009) How and why people Twitter. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI. New York: ACM. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1531674.1531710.