Elementos Aleantes

Data were collected in an online survey from elementary schoolteachers who use Twitter. The purpose of the survey was twofold. First, it examined how and what teachers reported learning from their participation in Twitter. Second, the survey was used to understand their reports about how their teaching practices have changed as a result of

their use of Twitter. By using an online method of data collection, this research study was able to offer “an electronic extension of familiar research techniques, widening the scope of data available to the researcher” (Merriam, 1998, p. 128). A further benefit of online surveys includes the capability for participants to “select the time and place for

participation” (p. 8), which can be empowering for them.

Bebell, Russell, and O’Dwyer (2004) have stated that, “although it may seem efficient to ‘borrow’ surveys or items that have been used for other research or

evaluation, doing so may fail to capture the full range in which teachers are using existing and recently acquired technologies for a variety of purposes” (p. 60). It was for this reason, a survey was drafted specifically to elicit responses from teachers about how they used and learned from Twitter.

Iarossi (2006) described four criteria to consider when writing survey questions. First, survey questions should be brief and not include any extraneous words. Second, the questions should be objective and not lean toward or suggest a particular type of

response. Third, survey questions should use simple language that all participants will likely understand. Lastly, the survey questions should be specific, without allowing for open interpretation by the respondents.

The survey that was used in this research study was designed to gather both quantitative and qualitative data simultaneously. Results from the survey were used to gain an understanding of the context in which teachers use Twitter and to guide the development of questions for the follow-up interviews in Phase II. The survey itself was pilot tested and is described in the following section.

Pilot study. A pilot study took place in the fall of 2016. The online survey, Twitter as a Professional Learning Tool for Teachers, was field tested with a convenience sample of teachers who use Twitter (n=24). Teachers self-reported the extent to which they use Twitter for specific purposes using two different rating scales. The first rating scale checked for frequencies based on a 5-point Likert-type scale with response choices

of “everyday,” “a few times per week,” “a few times per month,” “a few times per year,” and “never.”

The second rating scale also used a 5-point Likert-type scale to ask participants to indicate the extent to which Twitter helped them incorporate different teaching strategies in their classrooms. For the questions on this scale, possible responses ranged from “extensively” to “not at all.” At the end of the pilot study, participants were asked about their reactions to the length of the survey and the clarity of the questions. In addition, participants in the pilot study were asked to give any feedback to help improve the overall survey.

The remaining questions in the pilot survey consisted of closed-ended “yes,” “no,” “maybe,” and “I plan to do so in the future” and open-ended questions. The closed-ended questions were typically followed by an open-ended question to acquire more

information regarding the participants’ responses. For example, Question 19 asks, “Have you implemented new teaching methods, ideas or activities that you learned from Twitter in your teaching practice?” The possible responses are “yes,” “no,” and “I plan to do so in the future.” If participants select “yes,” they are prompted to answer a follow-up, open- ended question, “How did your students respond to the new teaching methods, ideas or activities that you implemented in your teaching?” This example demonstrates how the quantitative and qualitative data were gathered simultaneously.

General analyses from the pilot survey of 24 completed responses revealed that the instrument was an appropriate length given that 96% agreed that the length is “just right.” In addition, 82% responded that the questions are “very clear,” with the other 18%

agreeing that they were “moderately clear.”

The final question seeking feedback on the pilot survey allowed participants to offer suggestions for improvement. Five participants responded, with three of them commenting on the importance of this topic. One participant thought the questions may have been repetitive, and another participant felt that some answer choices were hard to

answer with either “yes” or “no.” Lastly, one participant suggested enlarging the text boxes of the open-ended questions to encourage lengthier responses.

Statistical analysis of pilot survey. Exploratory factor analysis was performed on both rating scales to identify “a smaller number of factors underlying a large number of observed variables” (Gaur & Gaur, 2009, p. 131). Gaur and Gaur caution that a sample size of less than 100 is not suitable for factor analysis and that the ideal sample size is greater than 500. However, for purposes of analyzing the pilot study, factor analysis was performed using the sample of 24 completed survey responses.

Both rating scales had incidences where some of the results from the factor analysis revealed that a few questions loaded onto two factors. To deal with a situation such as this, Gaur and Gaur (2009) recommend removing such questions from the analysis or to make changes to the questions “based on theoretical considerations” (p. 143). As a result, those questions were revised in the final survey.

Reliability. To ensure that the results from both rating scales produced reliable measures, internal consistency reliability of scores was investigated using Cronbach’s Alpha (McMillan, 2008). Gaur and Gaur (2009) suggest a Cronbach alpha above 0.70 as a “reasonable test of scale reliability” (p. 134). Three of the four factors from rating scale #1 resulted in a Cronbach alpha greater than 0.70 in the pilot study. For factor 3, the deletion of question Q6_9 that asks, “How frequently do you use Twitter to further explore topics you are comfortable teaching?” resulted in a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.785. Thus, this question was deleted for the final survey.

Rating scale #2 was also tested for reliability in the resulting two scales. For both of these scales, the Cronbach’s alpha was above 0.70. Therefore, these factors met the standards for scale reliability (Gaur & Gaur, 2009).

By asking similar questions both qualitatively and quantitatively, reliability can be obtained if the responses to those questions are similar (Hesse-Biber, 2010). Evidence of this type of reliability appeared in this survey. For example, in the first rating scale

section, a quantitative question asks participants to specify the degree to which they engage in moderated Twitter chats. Later, a qualitative question is asked requiring participants to describe their experience as a result of participating in a moderated Twitter chat. A cross-tabs analysis of these two items revealed a perfect relationship (p-value = 0.00), demonstrating reliability within the survey instrument.

Finally, McMillan (2008) indicates that “reliability should also be established with individuals who are similar to the subjects in the research” (p. 155). The pilot study participants were representative of the sample that comprised this dissertation study. The pilot study participants consisted of educators who actively used Twitter for educational purposes.

Validity. Validity of the survey was done with the face validity test (Gaur & Gaur, 2009). Face validity tests are done by sharing the survey with experts and participants and then analyzing their responses qualitatively (Gaur & Gaur, 2009). For this research study, the piloting of the survey with 24 participants elicited feedback for analysis and informed the final survey design.

Final Survey Design

The pilot study helped identify any methodological changes in all areas of the research design including (a) the survey design, (b) interview questions, and (c) analysis of data. The final survey contained 45 items. These items included both closed-ended and open-ended questions, along with two 5-point Likert rating scales. The items on the rating scales reflected the four main factors that had resulted from the factor analysis of the pilot study. In the case of Rating Scale #1, Frequencies of Twitter Use, the four main factors that resulted from this scale were categorized as: (a) formation of a learning community, (b) reflection on teaching practices, (c) teacher knowledge, and

four categories were kept in the final survey itself. The following table (Table 1) illustrates the survey questions that comprised the first rating scale:

Table 1

Rating Scale #1: Frequencies of Twitter Use Factor 1: Formation of a learning community Factor 2: Reflection on teaching practices Factor 3: Teacher knowledge Factor 4: Collaboration and communication

Support teachers who are new to Twitter Connect with the same teacher on more than one occasion Connect with more experienced teachers Participate in

moderated chats with other teachers

Reflect on my own teaching practices Engage with others who challenge my thinking

Search for higher- order thinking activities

Learn about subjects I am less comfortable teaching

Ask for suggestions on teaching strategies Follow links to articles about education

Connect with experts in the field of education Engage students in collaborative experiences with other students Allow students to post classroom updates

Likewise, for the second rating scale, The Extent to Which Twitter Helps Teachers in their Teaching Practices, two main factors were produced: (1) student learning

opportunities, and (2) personal impact. As a result, only constructs that fit within those two categories remained in the final survey design.

Table 2

Rating Scale #2: The Extent to Which Twitter Helps Teachers in Their Teaching Practices

Factor 1: Student learning opportunities

Factor 2: Personal impact

Design student-centered instruction Create authentic learning opportunities Engage students in critical thinking tasks Involve students in global connections Incorporate technology into curricular objectives

Provide collaborative opportunities for students in the classroom

Expose students to other cultures

Enhance your reputation as an educator Get motivated to teach lessons

Gain confidence in my own teaching abilities