MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Examining the Use of Twitter in Online Classes: Can Twitter Improve Interaction and Engagement?

2022· article· en· W4220724096 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Linda E. Rohr, Laura Squires, Adrienne M. F. Peters

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocial mediaAsynchronous communicationStudent engagementEntertainmentPsychologyPerceptionOnline learningCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Computer scienceMathematics educationWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Student engagement promotes communication and knowledge acquisition, a concept that is challenged in the online environment as few opportunities exist to physically connect instructors and learners. Limited research suggests that social media is a tool that can positively impact student engagement in the online classroom, which is especially relevant in the case of the COVID-19 pandemic and learning formats transitioning online. Specifically, Twitter, a favoured format for sharing news, entertainment, and professional networking, may provide a platform and an opportunity for engagement between students and the instructor outside of the traditional, formal classroom setting. This research explores how postsecondary students enrolled in two introductory online self-directed asynchronous courses used social media tools for personal, professional, and academic purposes and how Twitter, as a course evaluation requirement, contributed to interaction and engagement. Relying on 104 pre- and 34 post-semester surveys, our analysis revealed that while Twitter was not used as widely as other social media platforms, a notable proportion of students shared positive perceptions about Twitter’s use. Further analysis revealed some polarizing results with recommendations for successfully implementing Twitter in online learning.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.300
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0060.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.004
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 head0.149
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.210 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and LearningSame topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207