Moreover, the paper adopts the epistemological stance of social scholarship and then through this stance critically examines the practical and policy implications of reconsidering scholarship, as Boyer (1990) defined it. For each dimension of Boyer’s framework, we explain its epistemolo-gies and practices and then inquire how each dimension, reconsidered through the lens of social scholarship values and social media affordances, might be envisioned today. We offer concrete examples of how graduate students and established scholars, especially those in educational technology, might enact social scholarship with what benefits and challenges for future social scholars to consider. To contextualize our definition of social scholarship, we first describe the rise of social media and empirical work on social media in education.

Social media and education

Since the publication of Scholarship Reconsidered over two decades ago, we have witnessed funda-mental shifts impacting scholarship broadly and the context in which education scholars do their work. Internet connectivity and mobile wireless access have become increasingly pervasive, ena-bling expanded sites for research. Technological advancements and pedagogies that emphasize learners as coproducers of knowledge (Selwyn, 2011) have contributed to people’s adoption of social media, a term often used interchangeably with Web 2.0, to indicate online applications that promote users, their interconnections and user-generated content (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008). Typical social media features promote individual users through profile pages (eg, displaying likes, comments, recommendations). Social media can facilitate interconnections with features that allow others’ links or news feeds on one’s page. Social media features enable sharing of user-generated content (eg, photos, ratings, tags) (Cormode & Krishnamurthy, 2008).Pages can be dynamically updated and content embedded (eg, embedding a video). Examples of social media used by scholars (Moran, Seaman & Tinti-Kane, 2011) include social network sites (eg, Facebook), wikis (eg, wikispaces), media-sharing services (eg, YouTube), blogging tools (eg, Blogger), micro-blogging services (eg, Twitter), social bookmarking (eg, Delicious), bibliographic management tools (eg, Zotero) and presentation-sharing tools (eg, Slideshare) (Gruzd, Staves & Wilk, 2012).

Conceptually, social media practices can embody social constructivist values of knowledge as decentralized, accessible and coconstructed among a broad base of users; “knowledge” may become “collective agreement” that “combines facts with other dimensions of human experience” (ie, opinions, values) (Dede, 2008, p. 80). Validity of knowledge in social media environments can be defined through peer review in an engaged community, and expertise involves understanding disputes and offering syntheses accepted by the community (Dede, 2008).

Similarly, connectivism (Siemens, 2005; Kop & Hill, 2008), which views learning as the process of creating connections and articulating a network, also seems well aligned with social media practices. Being knowledgeable can be seen as the capacity to foster and traverse these connections and to access specialized information just in time (Siemens, 2005, p. 4). Connectivism allows for nonlinearity and unanticipated network effects in the learning process within “nebulous environ-ments of shifting core elements—not entirely under the control of the individual” (p. 4).However, we are not suggesting that social media are intrinsically imbued with these or other particular constructions of knowledge that determine practice, but rather technology both shapes and is shaped by practice.

Research on social media in education suggests that integrating social media in learning and teaching environments may yield new forms of inquiry, communication, collaboration, identity work, knowledge development or have positive (or negative) cognitive, social and emotional impacts (Gao, Luo & Zhang, 2012; Greenhow & Burton, 2011; Greenhow & Robelia, 2009a, b; Pimmer, Linxen & Grohbiel, 2012; Ranieri, Manca & Fini, 2012). Studies on scholars’ use of social media, though few, suggest that early career scholars especially are using social media in their professional lives for communication with peers and others outside academia, strengthen-ing relationships, finding collaborators, keeping up with research trends, publishing and reflect-ing on ideas, disseminating information, and discussing issues in an open, public format (Gruzd et al, 2012; Rowlands, Nicholas, Russell, Canty & Watkinson, 2011).

Toward defining social scholarship

Social scholarship seeks to leverage social media affordances (ie, promotion of users, their inter-connections and user-generated content) and potential values (ie, knowledge as decentralized, co-constructed, accessible and connective) to evolve the ways in which scholarship is accom-plished in academia. Cohen (2007, paragraph 1) defines social scholarship as “the practice [. . .] in which the use of social tools is an integral part of the research and publishing process . . . [and is characterized by] openness, conversation, collaboration, access, sharing and transparent revi-sion.” Social scholars use social media to publish and interact with scholarly output and to join an online community devoted to their topic (Cohen, 2007, April 5, paragraph 4). Although openness has typically referred to open access or freeing the scholarly journal literature from cost barriers, its meaning has expanded to include changes in peer review systems, the blurring of boundaries between articles and data sets, public engagement, and the increasing recognition of different forms of output as legitimate products of research effort (Willinsky, 2006). Like definitions of open scholarship (Pearce, Weller, Scanlon & Kinsley, 2010), we view social scholarship as embodying this broader view of openness. While Cohen conceptualizes social scholarship in relation to SOD, we seek to broaden this definition of scholarly practice, as others have done, to include discovery, teaching, integration and application scholarship as described in more detail hereafter.

Scholarship reconsidered

In 1990, Ernest Boyer’s ground-breaking essay, Scholarship Reconsidered (Boyer, 1990), sought to legitimize the range of academic work being produced. He proposed that scholars work in four interrelated areas, developing knowledge that addresses societal needs: (1) SOD (basic research), (2) scholarship of integration (SOI) (interdisciplinary work), (3) scholarship of teach-ing (SOTL) (informed and studied teaching practices) and (4) scholarship of application (SOA) (applied research). Boyer’s argument moved the conceptualization of scholarship beyond tradi-tional dichotomies (research vs. teaching or theory vs. practice) to align faculty priorities with the historic mission of the American university (Rice, 2002). Although Boyer was writing in the USA, scholars abroad have found his work relevant (Czerniewicz, 2013; Esposito, 2013; Garnett & Ecclesfield, 2012; Heap & Minocha, 2012; Pearce et al, 2010). Pearce et al (2010) and, for instance, state that the discovery and integration strands of scholarship are currently reinforced in frameworks used for promotion at research-intensive universities in the UK (Pearce et al, 2010). In Italy (Esposito, 2013) and South Africa (Czerniewicz, 2013), scholars have situated their evalua-tion of changing research practices within Boyer’s model.

Recently, critics have sought to update the model to reflect contemporary thinking about schol-arly practices (Garnett & Ecclesfield, 2012; Heap & Minocha, 2012; Pearce et al, 2010; Weller, 2011). For instance, Pearce et al (2010) and Weller (2011) suggest a conception of digital schol-arship that values openness, or open access, within the four dimensions: open data, open publish-ing, open education and open boundaries. Garnett and Ecclesfield (2012) argue that Boyer’s framework inaccurately considers research and teaching as two separate spheres of activity, where researchers create knowledge (discovery) that teachers adopt. This “linear flow,” they argue, does not reflect the “cocreative” process of teacher–researchers, students and others collaboratively producing knowledge in “perpetual Beta” (Garnett & Ecclesfield, 2012, p. 6). Others argue that variations on Boyer (1990) to conceptualize “digital” and “open scholarship” could be combined as part of a new “long-term project of revision of scholarship” with emerging teaching and learning enabled by networked environments facilitating iterative knowledge production and distribution (Esposito, 2013, p. 6; Veletsianos & Kimmons, 2012). However, they caution that this vision may overly rely on idealized perceptions of the open digital behaviors of a small group of early adopters in specific disciplines (eg, educational technology).

Extending this debate, this paper takes Boyer’s (1990) model as a starting point while acknowl-edging the limitations and revisions others have suggested. Moreover, our conceptualization focuses on the socio-technical features of social media that afford some forms of social interaction and constrain others—rather than on the range of technologies that might fall under the heading “digital” or “internet.”

Conceptualizing social scholarship

Social SOD

The first dimension of Boyer’s (1990) framework, SOD, is defined as original research that expands or challenges current knowledge in a discipline. Boyer (1990) described it as “following, in a disciplined fashion, an investigation wherever it may lead” (pp. 17–18). Questions asked include the following: What should be known? What has yet to be discovered? SOD may consist of rigorously controlled experimentation, systematic qualitative inquiry, statistical analysis or theoretical speculation. Although SOD is typically the most valued in merit, promotion and tenure reward systems, Boyer argued that this traditional view of scholarship marginalized other forms and served as a powerful disincentive to those pursuing promotion who are more active in teaching, integration and applied scholarship.

In contrast to social media practices and social constructivist and connectivist values, epi-stemologically, SOD seems to embody a “classical” view of “authenticated” knowledge (Dede, 2008, p. 80); knowledge is compiled by “experts with substantial credentials in academic fields and disciplines,” who through formal, evidence-based argumentation generate and present findings and conclusions (Dede, 2008, p. 80). Validity of knowledge is determined according to certain criteria, of appropriate quality, as agreed upon by experts. Dissemination of expertise is regulated through formal peer review via publications (Dede, 2008).

Reconsidering SOD through the lens of social scholarship values and social media affordances suggests some powerful shifts. First, social SOD entails a blended publication process: scholarly work undergoes a journal’s peer review process and enters an informal, social review process that may help surface inaccuracies and engage a wider, nonspecialist audience. This review using social media tools can take two forms: explicit review and implicit review (Cohen, 2007, April 5). In explicit review, the scholarly work is made openly accessible, and the audience is invited to scrutinize, comment on or rate it. For instance, life science researchers recently used Twitter to criticize an article in the journal, Science, that claimed to have discovered a gene that predicted the human lifespan (Mandavilli, 2011). Through this explicit, public peer review, it was quickly discovered that the methodology used in the study was problematic, calling its findings into question. Social SOD also engages implicit review indicated by metadata (eg, tagging, bookmarking, favoriting, retweeting, page views, download numbers) that can signal the extent of connections the work has generated; however, challenges to implementation are that feedback may be superficial, irrelevant, deliberately misleading or derogatory, and metadata may be an inaccurate indicator of implicit review where people “game the system,” favoriting or downloading content they never read.

Moreover, implementing a social SOD suggests revised norms for data gathering, analysis and reporting with an increased emphasis on transparency and data sharing. Such revisions align with USA and European plans to increase public access to scientific research, including access to digital data and peer-reviewed publications. However, publishing one’s SOD in social media-enabled spaces can change an author’s control over her published content. Online open access journal articles increasingly offer social reading options, such as social highlighting, ratings and links to Facebook, which may change the content that is read in ways that enhance (or miscon-strue) the author’s intended meaning.

For scholars and graduate students who embrace these practices, the benefits may be a better contribution to the knowledge base, a more participatory research process, enhanced reputation, expanded definition of “expert” and democratized access to expertise. As the educational technol-ogy researcher shifts her gaze to her own learning with social media-enabled discovery, through critical reflection, she may better understand her biases and assumptions and her participants’ reported perceptions and experiences. She may identify opportunities or limitations to research practices; recognize new learning technology phenomena, social-mediated methods of inquiry or theoretical frameworks; and develop a connective capacity to know more through her work (eg, benefit from network effects that increase just-in-time access to information).

That said, scholars and graduate students who use social media in these ways will likely find that these practices are considered in performance reviews, and conventional methods continue to determine promotion criteria. Peer-reviewed journals, academic conferences and scholarly mono-graphs remain the most legitimized methods of disseminating research (Housewright, Schonfeld & Wulfson, 2013). Thus, social scholars will have to navigate traditional expectations while embrac-ing novel practices, although the status quo may be shifting in their favor, especially in the social sciences. According to a survey of 2000 researchers in 215 countries, among social scientists, 84% reported using social media in their research practices (Howard, 2011), and recent surveys report that the majority of faculty has a largely favorable view about the quality of online-only scholarship and believe that it should be equally respected (Allen, Seaman, Lederman & Jaschik, 2012).

Social SOI

A second dimension of Boyer’s (1990) framework, the SOI, exists at the boundaries between disciplines. It is concerned with connecting work that can interpret “new intellectual questions” arising from complex, societal problems (Boyer, 1990, p. 21). Scholars practicing the SOI must be able to critically analyze, interpret, integrate knowledge from different disciplines and create novel perspectives that yield more comprehensive understanding. Funding agencies, such as the National Science Foundation in the USA and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) in the UK, champion integration work as important catalysts of innovation. Epistemologically, Boyer’s conception of SOI resonates with social constructivist values of knowledge as accessible and coconstructed by a broad base of users. Boyer’s conception of SOI also resonates with connectivist values of creating and articulating a network of relationships or intellectual patterns across disciplines.

Reconsidering SOI through the lens of social scholarship values and social media affordances suggests greater opportunities for advancing integration work today. For example, adoption of social media globally has facilitated large-scale data sharing and big data sets that can be mined in collaborative, interdisciplinary teams to illuminate complex issues. In April 2013, the ESRC announced £64 million for a Big Data Network to develop data access, new research methods and innovative research. A similar initiative is underway in the USA (Kalil, 2012). As governments use social media to spur political participation, creating online records that citizens can view, manipulate and even mash up data (Grant, 2012, December 3), and providing and collecting information (Jaeger, Bertot & Shilton, 2012), research teams are seeking ways to visualize the data and document collaboration across disciplines and organizations (Grant, 2012, December 3).

Educational technology scholars who embrace social SOI may benefit from increasing institu-tional, federal and private foundation support for such work. However, research involving big data can also be extremely problematic. It can oversimplify complex human actions and motiva-tions; magnify data errors when data sets are combined; create ethical and Internal Review Board issues when anonymous data are published and then de-anonymized through the inter-rogation process; and create divides between those who have access to big data and those who do not (Boyd & Crawford, 2011). Furthermore, conflicting policies on data privacy, use and security and archiving can prevent integration work as governmental policies often predate the creation of social media technologies, and social media companies have their own policies (Jaeger et al, 2012, p. 15). Additional challenges include establishing norms for collaborating across big data projects while respecting ethical and privacy-related concerns; creating ways to measure and reward individual contributions (Grant, 2012, December 3); and defining the most pressing “grand” challenge problems, ie, the needle from the big data haystack.

Social SOTL

A third dimension of Boyer’s framework, the SOTL, is defined as “stimulating active learning” by encouraging students to be “critical, creative thinkers” (p. 24). Scholars of teaching are expected to “transform and extend” knowledge in ways that push all learners in new directions (p. 24). Thus, SOTL extends beyond simply delivering content to describe a process that transforms and expands students’ learning, their teacher–scholar’s learning and advances knowledge of evidence-based “best” teaching practices. Scholars of teaching take a studied approach to their pedagogy (eg, using classroom research to inform instructional designs). Epistemologically, this conception of SOTL seems well aligned with social constructivist views of knowledge as coconstructed, in this case among teachers and learners; however, the linear instructional design process implied in Boyer’s model (Garnett & Ecclesfield, 2012) seems not well aligned with the nonlinearity and unanticipated network effects implied in connectivist learning environments “of shifting core elements.”

Reconsidering the SOTL through the lens of social scholarship values and social media affordances suggests both amplification and disruption of existing practices. For instance, incorporating social media in one’s teaching can facilitate the kinds of transformative and active learning that Boyer (1990) advocates, leading to higher student engagement and instructor knowledge (Greenhow & Gleason, 2012). Insights gained as teacher–scholars situate their practice in public social media spaces cannot only be fed back into the teaching process and used to improve pedagogy but also foster a new ethos in SOTL that values collaboration and greater public participation in shaping classroom practices.

One example of SOTL facilitated by social media is the City of Lit project, which highlighted Iowa City (USA) as an UNESCO-recognized city of writers and literature. An application constructed by scholars, writers, programmers and students, City of Lit amassed a large digital collection of author interviews, maps detailing fictional and real-life places of interest, and author biogra-phies, photographs and videos—many created by undergraduate students. The instructors collected and analyzed data on students’ motivation and experiences in using City of Lit and gathered feedback on their pedagogy from the online community. They discovered that partici-pating in the City of Lit was an engaging, meaningful experience for students and that creating digital media contributed to students’ development of digital literacies, research methods and writing skills (Draxler, Hsieh, Dudley & Winet, 2012). Insights on learning in City of Lit could then be used to improve the experience for the next group of students.

Scholars and graduate students who teach in the domain of technology-enhanced learning may recognize a useful connection between the integration of social media within their teaching and the growing importance of learning analytics across the higher education sector around the world (eg, see Ellis, 2013). Defined as the “measurement, collection, analysis, and reporting of data about learners and their contexts,” learning analytics can identify patterns of student behaviors and activity and be used to improve student learning and university teaching, provide data for program improvement, and support better informed decision-making, transparency and accountability at the institutional level (Ferguson, 2012, n.p. as cited in Ellis, 2013). Educational technology scholars recently advocated using social media such as Twitter in university courses based on research that it can increase students’ engagement in course material, increase student– instructor interactions and help students connect concepts with their application (Greenhow & Gleason, 2012; Junco, Elavsky & Heiberger, 2012). Social analytics—automated methods for examining, filtering and categorizing social media content (eg, TweetReach)—can assist such scholars in examining and improving upon their teaching with social media by revealing stu-dents’ ideas, questions and other online content they find interesting. Social analytics can also reveal the “reach” of course-related Tweets beyond course participants, including how many people have viewed the tweets, who those people are and what they are talking about. This analysis could provide both explicit and implicit feedback to instructors, students and adminis-trators; it could suggest additional content and resources to weave into the course, illustrate the course’s relevance to current issues and, at the program level, indicate how certain courses may be engaging a broader audience and potential future students.

Scholars who practice a social SOTL may benefit from an increased ability to facilitate active, cocreated learning experiences through social analytic feedback. Students and instructors may also benefit from the diversity of perspectives that can be brought into the learning process via social media. Recent surveys suggest that today’s faculty largely favors using technology to support SOTL, such as facilitating student performance feedback loops and increasing collection and analysis of data on teaching and learning (Kolowich, 2012); however, the majority reported they do not regularly create open educational resources or interact with students using social media and are concerned that contributions made to digital pedagogy are not rewarded (Allen et al, 2012). Furthermore, situating learning activities in public or semipublic spaces and thenanalyzing and sharing them in published reports challenges established norms for safeguarding students’ privacy, an important ethical issue that must be negotiated.

Social SOA

A fourth dimension of Boyer’s framework, the SOA, aims to serve the interests of the larger community through a dynamic interaction between theory and practice. Through investigation into intractable social problems, scholars find an application for their unique “skills and insights” (Boyer, 1990, pp. 22–3). Application scholarship links the other forms of scholarship with prac-tice; scholars partner with various stakeholders (eg, practitioners, policymakers, community leaders) to apply theory and research-based insights to designing practical solutions. Of the four dimensions, Boyer’s conceptualization of SOA seems the most aligned with social constructivist views of knowledge potentially enacted in social media. It also seems to align with connectivist views of knowledge as articulated connections; however, the planning process implied in Boyer’s model, where research and theory inform practice, does not seem to allow for the unanticipated network effects implied in connectivism.

Reconsidering SOA through the lens of social scholarship values and social media affordances, therefore, suggests expanded sites and methods for application scholarship that address commu-nity challenges. For scholars and graduate students who study technology-enhanced learning, practicing a social SOA may enhance the reach and quality of their work today. For example, the Engagement Game Lab at Emerson College (USA) aims to facilitate inclusive civic engagement processes by applying game theory to the creation and study of social media-enabled online games. Historically, community distrust has impeded civic participation, leading to low rates of participa-tion and few opportunities for informed deliberation (Gupta, Bouvier & Gordon, 2012). Using an online social game called Community PlanIt (CPI), participants collectively arrived at the most pressing issues facing the city of Boston’s K-12 schools: improving attendance rates, closing the achievement gap and graduating high school. Through multiple forms of social media-enabled participation—users could answer questions, respond directly to other comments, record video commentary, pinpoint learning sites on a map, or suggest new ideas to be discussed—CPI created opportunities for “sustained dialogue” among groups normally excluded from decision-making processes. By removing time constraints—players could edit and revise their responses before uploading and on their own time schedule—CPI facilitated a new avenue for public engagement.

Scholars and graduate students doing social SOA may benefit greatly from such social media-enabled application projects. Instead of specialized knowledge flowing “down” from universities to be adopted (or not) by communities, such scholarship facilitated by social media becomes a joint venture that breaks down traditional binaries like research/practice, scholar/participant, inside/outside and contributor/user. Challenges, however, to conducting applied social scholar-ship are that its products may disproportionally benefit those with the resources (leisure time, internet and social media skills) to reap the rewards, whereas those lacking resources, who could potentially most benefit from application scholarship (eg, those with low socio-economic status and users with few Internet skills), may be least engaged (Hargittai, 2010).

Conclusion

This paper reconsidered scholarship in light of today’s social media adoption, trends in scholars’ usage of social media and social media affordances for scholarship to outline a conceptualization of social scholarship that encompasses Boyer’s (1990) four dimensions (eg, discovery, integra-tion, teaching and application). As we look across the four dimensions of scholarship to consider the relationships between them, we see that conducting scholarship in the age of social media facilitates the interdependence between scholars’ work and the society in ways anticipated by Boyer over two decades ago. Although the SOD, including the dissemination of discovery via traditional outlets, still dominates faculty lives at most universities, there is some evidence that the academy, and our culture, is becoming more open to data sharing, democratization of exper-tise, and alternative models of peer review and reputation management. We see instances of this every day. Scientists measuring and reporting insights on an earthquake in real time are working alongside public Twitter feeds from people on the ground, experiencing it.

On the other hand, we acknowledge the complexities of shifting entrenched interests, practices and power structures as new forms of social media become part of scholarly activities (Selwyn, 2011; Veletsianos & Kimmons, 2012). Costa (2013, unpublished data) noted how her study of the Participatory Web revealed “conflicts between modern and conservative approaches to schol-arship,” placing researchers who use innovative methods “in contention” with traditional schol-arly practice (p. 7). Without departmental and institutional policies for promotion and tenure that recognize, support and reward social scholarship practices, they are unlikely to become widespread in academia, and even with support, some fields may be more likely to integrate them than others. The steps stakeholders might take to develop such policies include critically reflecting on the list of acceptable publishing outlets and expanding them to include open access journals while recognizing that not all OA journals are truly open (eg, pay-to-publish journals) (Veletsianos & Kimmons, 2012). Similarly, departments and universities may consider alternative approaches to evaluating scholarly outputs and measuring impact. Research has shown that traditional indicators of performance (ie, Web of Science ISI citation counts) disadvantage schol-ars in educational technology, in particular, relative to scholars in other disciplines, whereas alternative measures (eg, Google Scholar citation counts) do not (Van Aalst, 2010). Alternative approaches alongside conventional measures may provide a matrix of authority or more com-prehensive valuing of scholarship’s impact on research and practice (eg, PDF downloads, Page views), mentions (eg, news media hits, blog mentions, online comments) and ratings (likes, retweets, favorites) (Czerniewicz, 2013).

Furthermore, programs for preparing doctoral students as future faculty and ongoing faculty development that introduce social scholarship will be important in mitigating the participation gap between early adopters, such as those in educational technology, and those who seek to benefit from social scholarly practices but are not yet literate in them (Veletsianos & Kimmons, 2012).As institutions create social media guidelines for employees, and social media platforms themselves have terms of service, scholars and programs for those who study technology-enhanced learning might introduce tools for managing social scholarly participation (eg, tools to manage digital identity, analytics to record impact). They might engage participants in critical evaluation of their surrounding issues, such as benefits and challenges to social, informal review, revised evaluation and impact measures, data sharing and working with big data in social media spaces like Facebook, and community engaged scholarship. Finally, we need more examples of social scholarship in action, within each of the four domains and across them, by graduate students, early career scholars and those in the late stages of their career to most fully evaluate its potential and limitations.

References

Allen, I. E., Seaman, J., Lederman, D. & Jaschik, S. (2012). Digital faculty: professors, teaching and technology 2012. Babson Survey Research Group and Quahog Research Group, LLC. Retrieved October 15, 2013, from http://www.insidehighered.com

Boyd, D. & Crawford, K. (2011). Six provocations for big data: a decade in internet time. Proceedings of the Symposium on the Dynamics of the Internet and Society. Symposium conducted at the University of Oxford,Oxford, England, September 2011. Retrieved October 21, 2013, from http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1926431

Boyer, E. L. (1990). Scholarship reconsidered: priorities of the professoriate. Princeton, NJ: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

Cohen, L. (2007). Social scholarship on the rise. Retrieved June 5, 2008, from http://liblogs.albany.edu/ library20/about.html

Cormode, G. & Krishnamurthy, B. (2008). Key differences between web 1.0 and web 2.0. First Monday, 13, 6. Retrieved January 10, 2009, from http://www.firstmonday.org

Czerniewicz, L. (2013). Power and politics in a changing scholarly communication landscape. Proceedings from IATUL Conference. Cape Town, South Africa, April 2013.

Dede, C. (2008). A seismic shift in epistemology. EDUCAUSE Review, 43, 80–81. Retrieved January 15, 2009, from http://net.educause.edu

Draxler, B., Hsieh, H., Dudley, N. & Winet, J. (2012). “City of lit”: collaborative research in literature and new media. Journal of Interactive Technology & Pedagogy, 1, 1. Retrieved November 10, 2013, from http:// jitp.commons.gc.cuny.edu

Ellis, C. (2013). Broadening the scope and increasing the usefulness of learning analytics: the case for assessment analytics. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44, 662–664. ISSN 0007-1013; in press.

Esposito, A. (2013). Neither digital or open. Just researchers: views on digital/open scholarship practices in an Italian university. First Monday, 18, 1. Retrieved November 27, 2013, from http://firstmonday.org/ ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/3881/3404

Ferguson, R. (2012). The state of learning analytics in 2012: a review and future challenges. (technical report). Milton Keynes, UK: Knowledge Media Institute, The Open University.

Gao, F., Luo, T. & Zhang, K. (2012). Tweeting for learning: a critical analysis of research on micro-blogging in education published 2008–2011. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43, 5, 783– 801.

Garnett, F. & Ecclesfield, N. (2012). Towards a framework for co-creating open scholarship. Research in Learning Technology, 19. Retrieved December 10, 2013, from http://www.researchinlearningtechnology.net/index.php/rlt/article/view/7795/10499

Grant, S. (2012, December 3). Big data meets collaboration by difference: HASTAC goes CIBER. Retrieved from HASTAC Blog. Retrieved October 15, 2013, from http://hastac.org/blogs/slgrant/2013/01/15/ socializing-big-data-collaborative-opportunities-computer-science-social-sc

Greenhow, C. & Burton, L. (2011). Help from my “friends:” social capital in the social network sites of low-income high school students. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 45, 2, 223–245.

Greenhow, C. & Gleason, B. (2012). Twitteracy: tweeting as a new literacy practice. The Educational Forum, 76, 463–477.

Greenhow, C. & Robelia, E. (2009a). Old communication, new literacies: social network sites as social learning resources. Journal of Computer-mediated Communication, 14, 1130–1161.

Greenhow, C. & Robelia, E. (2009b). Informal learning and identity formation in online social networks. Learning, Media and Technology, 34, 2, 119–140.

Greenhow, C., Robelia, E. & Hughes, J. (2009). Web 2.0 and classroom research: what path should we take now? Educational Researcher, 38, 4, 246–259.

Gruzd, A., Staves, K. & Wilk, A. (2012). Connected scholars: examining the role of social media in research practices of faculty using the UTAUT model. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 2340–2350.

Gupta, J., Bouvier, J. & Gordon, E. (2012). Exploring new modalities of public engagement. An evaluation of digital gaming platforms on civic capacity and collective action in the Boston Public School District.Retrieved from Mayors Innovation Project. Retrieved November 5, 2013, from http://www.mayorsinnovation.org/pdf/3newmodalititesof.pdf

Hargittai, E. (2010). Digital Na(t)ives? Variation in Internet skills and uses among members of the “Net Generation”. Sociological Inquiry, 80, 1, 92–113.

Heap, T. & Minocha, S. (2012). An empirically grounded framework to guide blogging for digital scholarship. Research In Learning Technology, 20. Retrieved December 10, 2013, from http://www.researchinlearningtechnology.net/index.php/rlt/article/view/19195

Housewright, R., Schonfeld, R. C. & Wulfson, K. (2013). US Faculty Survey 2012, Ithaka S + R. Retrieved June 8, 2013, from http://www.sr.ithaka.org

Howard, J. (2011, February 20). Social media lure academics frustrated by journals. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved April 8, 2013, from http://chronicle.com

Jaeger, P., Bertot, J. & Shilton, K. (2012). Information policy and social media: framing government-citizen web 2.0 interactions. In C. G. Reddick & S. K. Aikins (Eds), Web 2.0 technologies and democratic governance (pp. 11–25). New York: Springer.

Junco, R., Elavsky, C. M. & Heiberger, G. (2012). Putting twitter to the test: assessing outcomes for student collaboration, engagement and success. British Journal of Educational Technology, 44, 273–287.

Kalil, T. (2012). Big data is a big deal. Retrieved from the USA Office of Science and Technology Policy Blog. Retrieved April 8, 2013, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2012/03/29/big-data-big-deal

Kolowich, S. (2012). Digital faculty: professors and technology 2012. Inside Higher Education. Retrieved April 8, 2013, from http://www.insidehighered.com

Kop, R. & Hill, A. (2008). Connectivism: learning theory of the future or vestige of the past? International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 9, 3, 1–13.

Mandavilli, A. (2011). Trial by twitter. Nature, 469, 286–287.

Moore, S. L. & Ellsworth, J. B. (2014). Ethics of educational technology. In J. M. Spector, M. D. Merrill, J. Elen & M. J. Bishop (Eds), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (pp. 113– 127). New York: Springer.

Moran, M., Seaman, J. & Tinti-Kane, H. (2011). Teaching, learning, and sharing: how today’s higher education faculty use social media for work and for play. Pearson Learning Solutions the Babson Survey Research Group and Conversion Research Report. Retrieved September, 2013, from http://www.pearsonlearningsolutions.com/educators/ pearson-social-media-survey-2011-bw.pdf

Pearce, N., Weller, M., Scanlon, E. & Kinsley, S. (2010). Digital scholarship considered: how new technolo-gies could transform academic work in education. In Education, 16, 1. Retrieved December 5, 2013, from http://ineducation.ca/ineducation/article/view/44

Pimmer, C., Linxen, S. & Grohbiel, U. (2012). Facebook as a learning tool? A case study on the appropria-tion of social network sites from mobile phones in developing countries. British Journal of EducationalTechnology, 43, 5, 726–738.

Preston, J. (2012). If Twitter is a workplace necessity. The New York Times. Retrieved April 8, 2013, from http://www.nytimes.com

Ranieri, M., Manca, S. & Fini, A. (2012). Why (and how) do teachers engage in social networks? An exploratory study of professional use of Facebook and its implications for lifelong learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43, 5, 754–769.

Rice, R. E. (2002). Beyond scholarship reconsidered: toward an enlarged vision of the scholarly work of faculty members. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 2002, 90, 7–18.

Rowlands, I., Nicholas, D., Russell, B., Canty, N. & Watkinson, A. (2011). Social media use in the research workflow. Learned Publishing, 24, 3, 183–195.

Selwyn, N. (2011). Social media in higher education. In A. Gladman (Ed.), The Europa world of learning (pp. 1–9). London: Routledge.

Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: a learning theory for the digital age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning, 2, 10, 3–10.

Taraborelli, D. (2008). Soft peer review: social software and distributed scientific evaluation. Paper presented at The 8th International Conference on the Design of Cooperative Systems, Carry-Le-Rouet, France.

Van Aalst, J. (2010). Estimating the impact of journal articles in education. Educational Researcher, 39, 387–400.

Veletsianos, G. & Kimmons, R. (2012). Assumptions and challenges of open scholarship. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 13, 4, 166–189.

Weller, M. (2011). The digital scholar: how technology is transforming scholarly practice. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Willinsky, J. (2006). The access principle. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.