Some postulate that social media tools, such as Twitter, might be used to support educator professional learning. Drawing upon interviews and tweets from 17 school administrators, this study examined the factors and consequences of administrators’ Twitter use. It finds that administrators’ understandings and uses of Twitter changed over time, subject to influences such as interactions with colleagues, one's sense of online visibility, and abilities to develop workarounds for Twitter's limitations. The discussion explores issues relating to the future of educators’ social media use, as well as how to theorize about the implementation and adoption of technologies in education.
BarkleyC. K. A., & BeckerJ. D. (2013). Connected Principals: In pursuit of social capital via social media. In MiletelloM., & FriendJ. (Eds.), Principal 2.0: Technology and Educational Leadership (pp. 211–232). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
2.
BarleyS. R. (1990). The alignment of technology and structure through roles and networks.Administrative Science Quarterly,35, 61–103.
3.
BarleyS. R., MeyersonD. E., & GrodalS. (2010). E-mail as a source and symbol of stress.Organization Science,22(4), 887–906.
4.
BarleyS. R., & TolbertP. S. (1997). Institutionalization and structuration: Studying the links between action and institution.Organization Studies,18(1), 93–117.
5.
boydd, GolderS., & LotanG. (2010). Tweet, tweet, retweet: Conversational aspects of retweeting on Twitter. Presented at the HICSS-43, Kauai, HI: IEEE.
BurdenK. J. (2010). Conceptualising teachers’ professional learning with Web 2.0.Campus-Wide Information Systems,27(3), 148–161.
8.
CarpenterJ. P., & KrutkaD. G. (2014). How and why educators use Twitter. A survey of the field.Journal of Research on Technology in Education,46(4), 414–434.
9.
ChoV. (2016). Administrators’ professional learning via Twitter: The dissonance between beliefs and actions.Journal of Educational Administration,54(3), 340–356. http://doi.org/10.1108/JEA-03-2015-0024.
10.
ChoV., RoJ., & Littenberg-TobiasJ. (2013). What Twitter will and will not do: Theorizing about teachers’ online professional communities.Learning Landcapes,6(2), 45–61.
11.
ChoV., & WaymanJ. C. (2014). Districts’ efforts for data use and computer data systems: The role of sensemaking in system use and implementation.Teachers College Record,116(2). Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org/library/Abstraet.asp?ContentId=17349.
12.
ChoV., & WaymanJ. C. (2015). Assumptions, strategies, and organization: Central office implementation of computer data systems.Journal of School Leadership,25(6).
13.
CorbinJ., & StraussA. C. (Eds.) (2007). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (3rd ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
14.
DayD., & LloydM. M. (2007). Affordances of online technologies: More than the properties of the technology.Australian Educational Computing,22(2), 17–21.
15.
DijickJ. V. (2011). Tracing Twitter: The rise of a microblogging platform.International Journal of Media & Cultural Politics,7(3), 333–348.
16.
DussaultM., & ThibodeauS. (1997). Professional isolation and performance at work of school principals.Journal of School Leadership,7(5), 521–535.
17.
EisenhardtK. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research.Academy of Management Review,14(4), 532–550.
18.
ErtmerP. A. (2005). Teacher pedagogical beliefe: The final frontier in our quest for technology integration?Educational Technology Research and Development,53(4), 25–39. doi:10.1007/BF02504683.
19.
FoucaultM. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. (A. Sheridan, Trans.) (2nd ed.). New York: Vintage Books.
20.
ForteA., HumphreysM., & ParkT. (2012). Grassroots professional development: How teachers use Twitter, hi Proceedings of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence (pp. 106–113). Dublin, Ireland: Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence.
21.
GibsonJ. J. (1977). The theory of affordances. In ShawR., & BransfordJ. (Eds.), Perceiving, acting, and knowing: Toward an ecological psychology (pp. 67–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
22.
GiddensA. (1984). The constitution of society: Outline of the theory of structuration.Berkley: University of California Press.
23.
GreenhowC., RobeliaB., & HughesJ. E. (2009). Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now?Educational Researcher,38(4), 246–259.
24.
GunawardenaC. N., HermansM. B., SanchezD., RichmondC., BohleyM., & TuttleR. (2009). A theoretical framework for building online communities of practice with social networking tools.Educational Media International,46(1), 3–16. http://doi.Org/10.1080/09523980802588626.
HughesJ. E., GuionJ. M., BruceK. A., HortonL. R., & PrescottA. (2011). A framework for action: Intervening to increase adoption of transformative Web 2.0 learning resources.Educational Technology,51(2), 53–61.
27.
HungD. (2002). Forging links between “communities of practice” and schools through online learning communities: Implications for appropriating and negotiating knowledge.International Journal on E-Learning,1(2), 23–33.
28.
ItoM., GutierrezK., LivingstoneS., PenuelB., RhodesJ., SalenK., … WatkinsS. C. (2013). Connected learning: An agenda for research and design.Irvine, CA: Digital Media and Learning Research Hub.
29.
JohnsonC. M. (2001). A survey of current research on online communities of practice.The Internet and Higher Education,4(1), 45–60. http://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(01)00047-1.
30.
JonesM. R., & KarstonH. (2008). Giddens's structuration theory and information systems research.MIS Quarterly,32(1), 127–157.
31.
KennewellS. (2001). Using affordances and constraints to evaluate the use of information and communications technology in teaching and learning.Journal of Information Techology for Teacher Education,10(1-2), 101–116.
32.
KoehlerM., & MishraP. (2009). What is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)?Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education,9(1), 60–70.
33.
LatourB. (2004). Nonhumans. In HarrisonS., PileS., & ThriftN. (Eds.), Patterned ground: Entanglements of nature and culture (pp. 224–227). London: Reaktion Books.
34.
LeonardiP. M. (2009a). Crossing the implementation line: The mutual constitution of technology and organizing across development and use activities.Communication Theory,19, 278–310.
35.
LeonardiP. M. (2009b). Why do people reject new technologies and stymie organizational changes of which they are in favor? Exploring misalignments between social interactions and materiality.Human Communication Research,35, 407–441.
36.
LeonardiP. M. (2012). Materiality, sociomateriality, and socio-technical systems: What do these terms mean? How are they related? Do we need them? In LeonardiP. M., NardiB. A., & KallinikosJ. (Eds.), Materiality and Organizing: Social Interaction in a Technological World (pp. 25–48). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
37.
MarkusM. L., & RobeyD. (1998). Information technology and organizational change: Causal structure in theory and research.Management Science,34(5), 583–598.
38.
MarwickA. E., & boyddana (2010). I tweet honestly, I tweet passionately: Twitter users, context collapse, and the imagined audience.New Media & Society,13(1), 114–133.
39.
McLeodS., BathonJ. M., & RichardsonJ. W. (2011). Studies of technology tool usage are not enough: A response to the articles in this special issue.Journal of Research on Leadership Education,6(5), 288–297.
40.
McLeodS., & RichardsonJ. W. (2011). The dearth of technology leadership coverage.Journal of School Leadership,21(March), 216–240.
41.
MilesM. B., & HubermanA. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). SAGE.
42.
O'DayJ. A. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement.Harvard Educational Review,72(3), 293–329.
43.
OrlikowskiW. J. (1996). Improvising organizational transformation over time: A situated change perspective.Information Systems Research,7(1), 63–92.
44.
OrlikowskiW. J. (2000). Using technology and constituting structures: A practice lens for studying technology in organizations.Organization Science,11(4), 404–428.
45.
OrlikowskiW. J., & BarleyS. R. (2001). Technology and institutions: What can research on information technology and research on organizations learn from each other?MIS Quarterly,25(2), 145–165.
46.
OrlikowskiW. J., & IaconoC. S. (2001). Research commentary: Desperately seeking the “IT” in IT research - A call to theorizing the IT artifact.Information Systems Research,12(2), 121–135.
47.
PeckC. M., & MullenC. A. (2008). New media, new voices: A complex school public relations and human resources challenge.Journal of School Public Relations,29(3), 401–424.
48.
PinchT. J., & WeibeE. B. (1984). The social construction of facts and artefacts: Or how the sociology of science and the sociology of technology might benefit each other.Social Studies of Science,14, 399–441.
49.
RichardsonW., & MancabelliR. (2011). Personal learning networks: Using the power of connections to transform education.Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree.
50.
RivkinJ. W., & SiggelkowN. (2002). Organizational sticking points on NK landscapes.Complexity,7(5), 31–43.
51.
SauersN. J., & RichardsonJ. W. (2015). Leading by following: An analysis of how K-12 school leaders use Twitter.NASSP Bulletin.http://doi.org/10.1177/0192636515583869.
52.
ScottW. R., & DavisG. F. (2007). Organizations and organizing: Rational, natural, and open systems perspectives.Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education.
53.
SewellW. H. (1992). A theory of structure: Duality, agency, and transformation.American Journal of Sociology, 1–29.
54.
ToomsA. K., LuggC. A., & BogotchI. (2010). Rethinking the politics of fit and educational leadership.Educational Administration Quarterly,46(1), 96–131. http://doi.org/10.1177/1094670509353044.
55.
VisserR. D., EveringL. C., & BarrettD. E. (2014). #Twitterforteachers: The Implications of Twitter as a self-directed professional development tool for K-12 teachers.Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(4), 396–413. http://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2014.925694.
56.
Watson-ManheimM. B., & BelangerF. (2007). Communication media repertoires: dealing with the multiplicity of media choices.MIS Quarterly,31(2), 267–293.
57.
WaymanJ. C., ChoV., & JohnstonM. T. (2007). The data-informed district: A district-wide evaluation of data use in Natrona County School District.
58.
ZhaoY., & FrankK. A. (2003). Factors affecting technology uses in schools: An ecological perspective.American Educational Research Journal,40(4), 807–840.
