Twitter – Learning Aloud

The Rise and Fall of the Twitter EdChat

For over a decade, the hashtag #Edchat allowed educators using Twitter to gather, share, and commiserate. However, as the platform formerly known as Twitter transitioned into X, the landscape of this digital discussion site shifted dramatically. Drawing from recent research, this post explores how educators have used #Edchat over time, the stressors inherent in this social media use, and the history of a community in transition. Researchers understand that for a variety of reasons, Twitter and Twitter chats are far less influential than they were a few years ago. They argue that studying the edchat phenomenon historically may have value for other social media platforms generally and specifically, should they hope to involve educators.

The Golden Era of #Edchat: Purpose and Participation

In its prime, #Edchat provided a means for informal professional development. Research by Willet (2019) and later Willet and colleagues analyzed hundreds of thousands of tweets to understand exactly how and why educators were using the platform. The study identified several key types of engagement:

Resource Sharing: The most common use case, where teachers curated and distributed lesson plans, EdTech tools, links, and articles.
Pedagogical Debate: Scheduled weekly chats allowed for deep dives into specific topics, from classroom management to the integration of AI.
Social Support: Perhaps most importantly, it provided a space for “digital social support,” helping teachers feel less isolated in their professional struggles.

This era was defined by a sense of “augmented intelligence,” in which the collective knowledge of the network enhanced individual teachers’ expertise.

2008–2014: The Golden Era of Synchronous Twitter Connection

The #Edchat phenomenon began in October 2008. This early era was defined by the weekly Tuesday night chat, a highly structured synchronous event that became a must for thousands of educators. An agreement on Tuesday night did not result from any official declaration, but once started, Tuesday night became the default for those wanting to participate in a common chat.

I encourage anyone interested in the topic of teacher use of social media to read the two references to Willet and colleagues I provide here. These researchers had access to what I have heard described as the Twitter firehose, which was available until 2023, and downloaded over 15 million tweets for analysis using the #edchat hashtag as used over 15 years. Unlike researchers who implemented projects of a much smaller scale and made use of human raters to classify and quantify characteristics of such chats, Willet and colleagues used data analysis tools that quantified specific characteristics (questions, responses, links, secondary tags, retweets) and even tools that attempted to identify themes based on terms appearing in the tweets. These characteristics were mapped against years to identify trends.

This approach allowed certain questions that could only be addressed by this massive scale. What trends could be observed over the history of the edchat phenomenon, but may have been overlooked in the data? For example, the way in which edchats evolved interacted with the capabilities of the Twitter platform. Tags were a user-applied innovation that was later integrated into the tool as a capability. Tuesday night became the impromptu time for edchats, which took on a formalized approach. A chat leader would provide a series of prompts identified as Q1, Q2, Q… and participants would respond using R1,R2, R… . Other tweets could be added within the rough synchronous time frame defined by the prompts. Because chats were stored, others might review the session at their leisure and add their own contributions.

Just to be clear for those unfamiliar with the reason for this format, this experience was based on a kludge of sorts. By searching for #edchat, you could follow the sequence of questions, responses, and related comments in real time, separate from other Twitter chatter. The hashtag functions as a sort of portal, focusing Twitter use on the chat content and turning Twitter from an asynchronous to a synchronous tool. Tools other than Twitter, such as Tweetdeck (no longer available), even allowed users to create a multi-column display, with individual columns focused on specific tags and updated automatically. Only the #echat contributions would then be displayed within one column. These tools became popular as an easy way to turn the Twitter feed into a synchronous experience unique to those using the #edchat hashtag.

Research shows that between 2009 and 2014, these Tuesday sessions saw significantly higher engagement than other days, characterized by genuine dialogue and a high volume of questions and replies. Teachers weren’t just “knowledge telling”; they were building communities of practice and exploring new pedagogical ideas in real-time.

The researchers had a special interest in the frequency of questions and replies, and the ratio between the two, assuming these variables would be a good way to assess interaction. In addition, how did these variables differ between Tuesday and other days, assuming this would be related to the higher likelihood of synchronous interaction on Tuesdays? Replies made up a higher proportion on Tuesdays and were significantly higher in the earlier years. My interpretation differs from the researchers’. They argued that there was a decrease in interaction in later years. My interpretation is that the chats drifted away from the formal structure of questions interspersed with participants’ answers. Relying on the massive scale and automated methods employed rather than human raters following the give and take of individual sessions may have led to different interpretations.

2014–2018: The Shift from Dialogue to Broadcasting

At its peak in 2017–2018, #Edchat was a massive digital footprint, averaging 120,000 tweets per month and involving roughly 200,000 different users. However, beneath these impressive numbers, the nature of the interaction was shifting. Starting around 2014, Willet and other researchers observed a transition from authentic conversation toward broadcast-style communication.

Several key trends marked this transformation:

• The Rise of the Link: While early chats focused on natural discussion, later years saw a sharp increase in posts containing hyperlinks to external content, suggesting the platform was becoming a repository for resource sharing rather than deep discussion.

• Retweet Dominance: Retweets began to outnumber original posts, and the percentage of questions receiving replies dropped significantly. Retweets could be used by individuals to bring those who followed these individuals but were not chat participants to experience the content.

• Exploitation: As the hashtag grew in popularity, it became a target for spam and self-promotion. By 2018, the community faced a spike in problematic content and a decline in “authenticity scores” as commercial interests exploited the tag for marketing.

The transition to less interaction and greater influencer dominance may also be related to the active/passive distinction that researchers have begun to study in social media activity. A focus on Twitter chats as a source of resources is consistent with this research topic.

You can still find the use of #edchat on X, Bluesky, and Mastodon instances. The tag is typically used now to indicate educational content and is seldom used in the same way within a chat sequence. A few chats can still be found, often now, using more idiosyncratic tags.

The Paradox of Digital Support

I wrote a series of posts beginning in 2013, focused on edchats, mostly questioning the information value of the process. I appreciated the camaraderie the chats offered, but the limit on the number of characters Twitter allowed, along with my reaction to the content included in such chats, led me to believe the experience was very inefficient, and I thus proposed tactics I thought would increase the professional development value of the experiences.

Edchats were often included as one experience within the grad course on technology class I taught, and I proposed, without success, that students might analyze the content of such chats as a potential thesis project. My suggestion at that time was that video-based systems (e.g., Skype, Zoom) would allow a much more productive approach.

2018–2023: Volatility, X, and Fragmentation

The decline of #Edchat accelerated after 2018, driven by platform volatility and the eventual transition of Twitter into X. Changes in leadership and algorithm priorities disrupted the organic reach of educational hashtags. As the environment became more polarized, many educators began to migrate to other platforms like Instagram, Mastodon, or niche, specialized communities that better served their specific needs.

By 2023, the once-unified #Edchat community had largely fragmented. This decline highlights a critical vulnerability: digital spaces on commercial platforms often lack the stability and continuity of traditional professional development. When profit extraction and algorithmic shifts override user experience, the community suffers.

Lessons for the Future

The history of #Edchat is a reminder that while platforms change, the human need for collaboration remains constant. The legacy of this 15-year experiment suggests that for future digital communities to succeed, they must:

1. Prioritize Active Participation: Moving beyond passive consumption is essential to avoid the stress of social comparison.

2. Foster Authentic Dialogue: Successful communities require mechanisms that encourage genuine interaction over simple content broadcasting.

3. Shift to Knowledge Building: The goal of any digital faculty lounge should be to move from merely “telling” knowledge to collaboratively building it.

Perhaps online interaction among educators isn’t gone; it is simply evolving. As educators move toward new tools, the story of #Edchat serves as both a testament to the power of digital connection and a cautionary tale about the challenges of sustaining authentic community in commercial environments.

I have tried to identify where those educators interested in online interaction with peers went. I could not find the type of quantified data provided by Willett, but other researchers (Greenhow and colleagues) have suggested that Facebook groups and Instagram have become favorite sites for interaction.

Sources:

Greenhow, C., Galvin, S. M., Brandon, D. L., & Askari, E. (2020). A decade of research on K–12 teaching and teacher learning with social media: Insights on the state of the field. Teachers College Record, 122(6), 1-72.

Willet, K. (2019). Revisiting how and why educators use Twitter: Tweet types and purposes in# Edchat. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 51(3), 273-289.

Willet, K., Carpenter, J., & Na, H. (2025). Ex-Edchat: Historic retrospective of X/Twitter# Edchat. Computers & Education, 241, 1-18.

If not RSS, then Twitter

I promote users making use of RSS and a RSS reader to control the blog content they consume. It is the best way to not give control of what you read to the vague algorithms of search and social media. However, I pay some attention to how folks get to my own posts and recognize that search and social media account for a substantial proportion of the page views. If not RSS, I suggest you follow me on Twitter to identify the headlines from posts you may find interesting. Twitter does not select content for you and you see the content of those you follow. Following Twitter link recommendations offers a form of discovery based on your trust in those you follow.

My Twitter posts can be located at @grabe. I do tweet about many topics and some political comments. However, all my blog posts automatically generate a tweet (as did this one).

Nuzzel Improvements

I first became interested in Nuzzle as a way to track the links provided by the Twitter users I followed. I am not a big Facebook users so my experience was limited to Twitter. Nuzzle would provide me a list of the most frequent links included in the Tweets of this group.

This approach made great sense but was not particularly useful for me. The problem was mostly a matter of scale. I did not follow enough individuals to get a benefit from the service. The most frequent links from my friends might total 3 or 4 for a given day. There was little differentiation among the more popular links and I would probably note these links on my own by scrolling recent tweets in my feed and so did not benefit in the way someone who would miss thousands of tweets might benefit.

The folks at Nuzzle probably understood this issue and now offer some new possibilities. Using their “Discover” feature, I can offer a topic I want to explore (say educational technology) and receive a list of “influencers” and popular recent links. Either offers an interesting approach to discovery (as opposed to search). As I understand the role of “influencers”, these individuals might represent individuals with a more productive friend list than my own and I would be able to share what this larger or more prolific group might surface.

Nuzzel offers many existing categories, but I find using search to identify my interests to be more useful.

So here, I locate stories and influencer feeds I can follow on the topic of educational technology.

Better edchat tools and tactics

Since I have been critical of the value of “edchats”, I thought it appropriate I do more than criticize and offer potential ways the group experiences could be more beneficial.

I have fallen into analyzing educational technology experiences in terms of tools and tactics and this approach may be useful here. The idea is to consider the potential of the tool (the specific service or application) and tactics (the strategies of use). My assumption is that the general goal is professional development – the acquisition by professionals of new knowledge and skills. The existing tool is Twitter and the tactic is participant responses to a series of approximately 10 questions within an hour block of time.

Assumed advantages of tool (twitter) – free, easy to learn, large installed base of users

Assumed advantages of tactic (I am having a little more difficulty here) – educators are familiar with a question and answer format

One interesting issue associated with social media is that once a platform (tool) has attracted a user base, new and better tools fail to gain participants because individuals are reluctant to migrate for fear their social connections will be lost. I think this is the case with Twitter in the education community. I think Twitter has inherent issues because of the brief comments it allows. This limitation, in my opinion, leads to rather shallow interactions. It may be a great way to learn about new things via links, but it is not a tool suited to meaningful, synchronous discussion.

The edchat format (the tactic) has taken hold and it seems popular to have such chats. There is a certain momentum here. There is also the issue of doing it like everyone else. Conformity seems to limit a consideration of both tool and tactic.

I tend to look at this setting as if it were a class I was facilitating. As educators, does the typical edchat generate the type of interaction you would want to see in your class. What would you change?

How to improve edchats:

Prepare beyond review of a lengthy series of questions. Either come up with 2-3 questions of greater depth or offer a common preparation task (read this post, read this book, etc.). Perhaps the moderator for the week should either find a resource or write a position statement. I also find the questions and topics to be too general. As an academic I understand that since we are frequently described as being abstract and not getting the level of actual application this would seem a strange concern, but review chats and see what you think. The questions seem to generate few specific suggestions or examples. When a specific detail is provided (often via reference to a recently popular book or author) just exactly what this reference is to imply for the classroom.

I see very little interaction. Sometimes a response from another participant is praised, but there are few reactions, counter examples, requests for clarification, etc. If this was a FTF classroom, the typical edchat would be similar to choral responding rather than a discussion. I would propose these limitations are the result of both the tool (lack of room for depth) and the tactic (tool many questions and responding without preparation).

Some comments on tools. I admit at this point that it is difficult to isolate tool and tactics. I think moving beyond Twitter would be helpful. Blogging before discussing might be helpful. Taking a position on an issue before interacting can be productive. Give some thought to your position before you are tainted by what others have to say. Offer an example. Process your own experiences and externalize a position for others to consider. A moderator and other participants might then use these comments to request clarification or note differences of opinion.

Beyond the inclusion of pre-session comments, I think it is time to consider other tools. I have always had access to discussion tools and I see greater opportunity for depth in synchronous commenting and responding in using these tools. I understand that folks enjoy the social experience of Twitter chats, but I think it important to think carefully whether group socializing is the primary goal.

I am not familiar with all of the tools available to educators. Does the state offer a general set of tools (a discussion option, a blogging option)? I think groups should more actively consider other tools. For example, Slack offers some interesting opportunities. My concern with so many such tools is that the jump between the free and the lower paid version seems so great.

Summary:

1) Reduce the number of questions and give more thought to the type of questions used

2) Have a pre-session expectation for preparation of some type. I think expecting a product is always helpful related to this preparation is always helpful. Somehow, the popularization of “flipping” various education experiences should apply here.

3) The moderator needs to encourage more give and take rather than limiting “discussion” to call and response. As I have already suggested, existing positions statements that can be contrasted would be a great place to start. I understand the concern with how stating a different position will be received, but the generic positive reactions add little.

4) Consider other technology tools. What about Google hangouts? etc.

5) Generate a discussion summary (perhaps the moderator or a designated discussant). Did the summarizer learn anything?

Why Twitter for edchats?

Why has the Twitter “edchat” become so popular? There are so many characteristics of the tool and the way it is used that are either limiting or annoying. This drives me crazy. I think online discussions are so valuable, but I am bewildered by the selection of Twitter for an opportunity that is being squandered.

140 characters is too limiting. I wish some grad student would analyze the responses in a Twitter chat? What % are “borrowed” platitudes? How many individuals actually participate in an hour session? I get the feeling many are multi-tasking and watching television or reading their email while “participating”.

The process moves too slowly. So many questions seem superficial and then there is the delay for the combination of response generation and reading. This issue in combination with the limited nature of the responses is deadly. A format based on a few general questions and a more free flowing approach would seem more productive. I just don’t think the tool is suited to a flexible approach.

The public nature of the process is self-centered and annoying to nonparticipants. Any Twitter user has been on the receiving end of a Twitter feed when one or two of their “follows” are participating in a chat. A3 – use it or lose it. It is very much like being trapped in close proximity to someone talking on a cell phone. It is inescapable spam.

Most educators have likely heard of the term affordance. It is the notion that the characteristics of a situation or tool make certain actions easier. This notion is seldom considered in the negative, but the opposite of an affordance also applies. Certain characteristics make things more difficult.

What is wrong with a Google hangout? If some members of a group are bandwidth deprived, you can still rely on text. The length of comments is not limited and the general public is protected by circles and invitations from numerous comments out of any meaningful context. Of course, the audio/video option would offer the opportunity for conversations of greater depth.

If not a hangout, there are so many other free or inexpensive options. I applaud the effort, but wish educators would show more creativity and/or independence and move to a more effective tool. It seems folks want to be part of a club based on a given approach rather than considering the purpose to which they have committed and being willing to recognize better options are available.

Why I think Twitter chats are unproductive

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.

Use Paper.li for your ISTE morning read

Paper.li takes Twitter data and fashions into a single display resembling a newspaper. You create a free account and in this case enter the tag (#iste2010) you want the service to use in collecting information. The screen capture below shows part of the resulting display.

Of course, my example was selected to take advantage of the interest in the ISTE conference and the tool could be used to follow whatever specific topic you like.