It seems to me that there are a whole bunch of Twitter-based edchats being launched. I don’t get it. My attitude will likely be attributed to various things including being out of date, stuck in the past, inflexible, etc., but I think I have reasonable objections. I do not see Twitter suited to carrying on group conversations.
While I certainly applaud the commitment and the intent, I have two objections. I do not see the real-time, group-based communications value in Twitter and I think the chats introduce unproductive clutter into the Twitter stream for nonparticipants. Given the available options, the interest in Twitter chats seems more a focus on the tool or the trend rather than on the goal of effective communication.
Unproductive communication
As evidence for the suitability of Twitter to group discussion, I would encourage any interested party to examine the transcript from such a discussion. Do you really think the accumulated comments indicate deep thinking or even a reasonable volume of ideas for the collective time invested?
Typically, a Twitter discussion is controlled by one of the participants who posts some predetermined questions intended to generate comments and who makes decisions when to move on from one question to the next. Even with the short responses that are allowed, participants seem to be at different levels when it comes to keyboarding skills and existing thinking regarding the questions. What you get as a consequence is a hodgepodge of replies – some to the question, some in reaction to comments made by other participants, some to a previous question, and some for socializing. Responses are often abbreviated to allow quicker reply and to meet the limited space Twitter allows. It also seems to me that the limits on expression generate overuse of platitudes rather than original personal thoughts. What these platitudes are will vary depending on the makeup of the group, but the comments are predictable “in” things to say and add little beyond restating group values.
For some reason, many of the issues here remind me of the research on wait time in classroom discussions. We know that moderating a classroom discussion is more complicated than most might guess and productive discussions require more than posing a series of questions. Participants need time to think (the wait time issue refers to the common counter intuitive problem of not actually providing sufficient time to think and respond). Participants need to be encouraged to evaluate the responses generated by other participants. Some participants need to be encouraged. While wait time is not a pedagogical skill as such, the lack of wait time (perhaps think time would be more meaningful) changes the nature of the discussion process. Pretty much only “low level” thinking is possible when time is not allowed. My point is that it is important to consider how basic variables may shape the goals that can be achieved.
Annoying presence
Clearly, Twitter encourages a lot of inane comments. Remember the original question – what are you doing? Everyone seems enabled to seek their 140 characters of fame. This is not really a problem for me – the tool was designed assuming such goals.
Within the general Twitter environment why would I claim any given activity is particularly annoying? I have the same reaction to viewing part of a conversation on Twitter that I have to being forced to listen to one side of a cell phone conversation. I think we all have developed some level of tolerance, but beyond some point the partial conversation becomes annoying. We may expect the person on the cell phone to step out of the coffee shop if the conversation is going to be continued for some time. Likewise, we may expect Twitter users to move to some other means of conversation if many back and forth comments are essential.
Alternatives
It is not really fair to be critical unless you can also offer alternatives. I am of the opinion that Twitter is fatally flawed for the purpose of meaningful discussion. I do not see this tool as being designed for this purpose.
I do feel other tools make more sense.
The traditional discussion board makes would seem to be more productive if the approach is to consider several guiding questions. With this tool, there is no time limit allowing for individual differences in speed of response. The reply and reply to reply features allows a way to organize the output in a way that encourages review and extended interaction – connections among ideas are far more obvious.
For real time conversation, I am a fan of Google+ hangouts. With speech rather than text input, we can express ourselves more easily and we can rely on our experience in conversing to connect our comments. Text comments can be integrated/added if necessary. The use of “circles” allows participants to isolate themselves in a way that does not spam nonparticipants.
If I am correct about the utility of Twitter for chats, this fad will pass and we will move on to other tools.
