MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2341380049 · doi:10.1108/jea-03-2015-0024

Administrators’ professional learning via Twitter: the dissonance between beliefs and actions

2016· article· en· W2341380049 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Educational Administration · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial mediaPublic relationsCraftNegotiationCognitive dissonanceLeverage (statistics)Professional developmentPerceptionSociologyPsychologyPolitical scienceSocial psychologyPedagogyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose Although there has been increasing optimism about the potential for social media platforms such as Twitter to support educators’ professional learning, it is yet unclear whether such promises hold true. Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to explore school administrators’ use of Twitter for professional learning. Design/methodology/approach This qualitative case study draws data collected from 17 school administrators from throughout the United States and Canada. In addition to individual, semi-structured interviews, administrators’ tweets were collected for two weeks. This resulted in 1460 tweets. Analyses were aimed at perceptions about Twitter, the knowledge shared, and its impact on practice. Findings Findings presented a paradox: although administrators were enthusiastic about the social and professional benefits associated with Twitter, they did not share or apply much knowledge commonly associated with administrator work. Topically, administrators’ tweets tended to focus on technology, rather than other leadership issues. Also, administrators’ informal tweets focused on norms and relationships in the online community, rather than other dimensions to leadership craft. What’s more, leaders were rarely able to point to direct changes in their school policies or practices resulting from Twitter. Research limitations/implications The present study raises issues for future research, including: How do administrators evaluate the expertise of peers or other resources online? How do leaders negotiate conflict or dialogue online? How might leaders leverage social media as public relations tools? Practical implications Whereas popular media have described the benefits of platforms like Twitter in broad strokes, the present study provides a detailed account of the practitioner experience. This account includes not only descriptions of what leaders might (or might not) be learning via Twitter, but also some of the benefits of being able to socialize with colleagues online. Originality/value As social media use has grown, so has interest in using such platforms for professional learning. However, there is a gap in knowledge regarding the strengths and shortfalls facing administrators. This study breaks new ground by comparing Twitter's purported benefits to user's tweets and outcomes.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.485
Threshold uncertainty score0.600

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.352 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it