Twitter, cyber-violence, and the need for a critical social media literacy in teacher education: A review of the literature

Teaching and Teacher Education 76 (2018) 86e94

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Teaching and Teacher Education journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tate

Twitter, cyber-violence, and the need for a critical social media literacy in teacher education: A review of the literature Joelle Nagle Western University, 1137 Western Road, N6G 1G7, London, Ontario, Canada

h i g h l i g h t s
Literature is reviewed on teachers engaging in new participatory social media practices.
Twitter affords many benefits for teachers through professional learning networks.
Twitter is rife with cyber-violence for women and other marginalized communities.
A critical social media literacy is needed within teacher education.

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history: Received 1 October 2017 Received in revised form 10 August 2018 Accepted 28 August 2018

Multiliteracies and new literacies pedagogies advocate for expanded ideas of literacy, which focus heavily on the use of digital technologies within the classroom. Yet there is little discussion within the discipline regarding the ethical implications of using social media in teacher education. This is of particular concern given the potential for online spaces to be unsafe. In particular, the social media site Twitter, used and promoted by many educators to collaborate within professional learning networks, is rife with misogyny and racial violence. Through a review of the current literature on social media use in teacher education, and a multi-disciplinary perspective on issues of cyber-violence, I will discuss the ethical implications for teacher educators who want to use Twitter as a pedagogical tool and offer strategies to develop critical social media literacy practices. © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Cyber-violence Social media Multiliteracies New literacies Teacher education Misogyny Racial violence

Contents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

7. 8.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Affordances of social media in teacher education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Using Twitter in teacher education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 Cyber-violence and social media . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 Ethical considerations for teacher educators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 Developing a critical social media literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 6.1. Examining and evaluating social media as a tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 6.2. Examining participation: Issues of access and power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 6.3. Participatory technologies as a choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91 6.4. Ways to respond: Witnessing and experiencing cyber-violence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 6.5. Guidance and scaffolding with social media tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

E-mail address: [email protected]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.08.014 0742-051X/© 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

J. Nagle / Teaching and Teacher Education 76 (2018) 86e94

87

Supplementary data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

1. Introduction Participatory technologies have expanded the boundaries of our communities by bridging the local with the global. However, involvement in these online communities are not without risk. Many diverse peoples, specifically women, and especially women of colour, experience violence online. Within social media technologies, such as Twitter and Facebook, cyber-violence has become pervasive. The feminist blogger, Heuchan (2017), poignantly stated: Of course, with visibility comes abuse. That is the case for all women, and double true for black women. Along with the misogyny, there is a persistent racism that shapes both the content and frequency of our abuse online. There is no way to deal with the racial slurs, the graphic racist images, the violent threatsdat least, none that I have found. It's scary. It hurts. It stays with you after you turn off your phone, close your laptop.” (p. 21e22). Thus, if teacher educators are to increasingly promote the use of digital social media technologies with preservice teachers, they must engage in critical conversations about the technology. This is to bring awareness to the diversity of experiences of those who participate online. Using social media as a pedagogical tool holds benefits for engaging collaboratively with others in a global space. However, teacher educators need to consider their ethical responsibility to their students if they are aware these spaces have the potential to be unsafe. In this article, I will review the current research on social media use in teacher education, specifically Twitter, and I will highlight its affordances for teacher professional learning. Further, I will provide an exploration of cyber-violence and the ramifications for students who may be exposed to misogyny and hate online. Lastly, I will discuss the ethical implications of teacher educators who use social media as a pedagogical tool in teacher education, and I will offer strategies to develop a critical approach to social media literacy. 2. Affordances of social media in teacher education Multiliteracies pedagogy (Cope & Kalantzis, 2009; Kalantzis & Cope, 2012; New London Group, 1996) and new literacies (Lankshear & Knobel, 2011) advocate for the expansion of literacy education to include digital technologies. These digital competencies include being adept at using a variety of technological tools, such as the Internet, for the multimodality, global connectivity, and the collaboration it affords. Teacher educators are called upon to design learning environments that reflect the global and local peerto-peer collaborative and participatory technologies students interact within, such as social media spaces. This call to action is with the aim of using digital technologies with a new generation of teachers, so that “teacher education can play a role in transforming school practice” (Cervetti, Damico, & Pearson, 2006, p. 378). Kalantzis and Cope (2010) spoke about this new participatory generation in which students are literate in a multitude of digital, online, and connected technologies; a generation that extends student learning out-of-school, where they are “using the social media to learn anywhere and everywhereea phenomenon called ‘ubiquitous learning’” (p. 204). For teacher educators, incorporating

participatory technologies into practice can be a way to reach a new generation of students and for new teachers to be “fully engaged in new literacies practices” (Knobel & Lankshear, 2014, p. 100). By having in-service and preservice teachers use digital technologies for their own educative purposes, they are better equipped to foster these skills in their students (Benko, Guise, Earl, & Gill, 2016; Collier, Foley, Moguel, & Barnard, 2013; Knobel & Lankshear, 2014). Thus, preservice teachers need to become engaged within these new literacies (Collier et al., 2013) if they are to understand the affordances of digital technologies and the diverse literacies used by their students. Husbye and Elsener (2013) agreed but argued that incorporating digital tools into practice, such as mobile technologies, is a challenge. As such, Greenhow and Gleason (2012) saw the use of social media, such as Twitter, as a way for new teachers to reconcile the bridge between “new and old literacies” (p. 474) by learning how to engage fully in the style of Twitterdthe microblogging, social media platform, with its limit of 280 characters available for one tweetdas a new literacy practice. 3. Using Twitter in teacher education Scholars are now documenting the use of social media technologies, specifically Twitter, in teacher education (Benko et al., 2016; Carpenter & Krutka, 2014, 2015; Carpenter, 2015; Carpenter, Tur, & Marin, 2016; Collier et al., 2013; Cook & Bissonnette, 2016; Husbye & Elsener, 2013; Krutka, Nowell, & Whitlock, 2017; Luo, Sickel, & Cheng, 2016; Preston, Jakubiec, Jones, & Earl, 2015). This research illustrates how social media may be used as a necessary practice for preservice teachers who “must be equipped to draw upon a variety of literacies to tap into the complex social worlds of their future pupils” (Collier et al., 2013, p. 263). Twitter, especially, holds many affordances for teachers looking to engage in participatory online communities of practice (Benko et al., 2016; Kimmons & Veletsianos, 2015). Holmes, Preston, Shaw, and Buchanan (2013), who studied the tweets of 30 top educational Twitter accounts followed by educators, found that this space allowed teachers to filter resources, collaborate with like-minded individuals, and aid in teachers gathering in “online communities of learning” (p. 63). Their research indicated that preservice teachers could use Twitter as a reflective practice tool, which can provide connections between new and experienced teachers, and engage in online professional learning networks (PLNs) that extend beyond teacher education. Carpenter and Krutka (2015), similar to the findings by Holmes et al. (2013), found that for resource sharing, teachers valued Twitter as a means of filtering or vetting web content. Many educators felt this space filtered the negative teacher-talk they experienced within their own working environments, and that Twitter was a place for likeminded educators to gather with others who were identified as “generous, forward-thinking and energetic” in an environment that was “positive and optimistic” (p. 719). In their study of over 700 teachers from the United States, the United Kingdom, and Australia, Carpenter and Krutka (2015) discovered that teachers used Twitter for their own professional development (PD) outside state or district-mandated PD. Within this space, teachers sought out professional learning networks that fit their needs as professionals, and Twitter was a specific venue that offered bite-sized and manageable professional development

88

J. Nagle / Teaching and Teacher Education 76 (2018) 86e94

opportunities. Ninety-six percent of those surveyed used Twitter for the sharing and acquiring of resources, 86% for collaboration, and 79% for networking globally with other teachers. The authors argued that for teachers who were dissatisfied with their district's PD, Twitter had the potential “to offer an efficient and personalized alternative means of professional learning” (p. 723). Carpenter et al. (2016) found similar data in their comparative study with 153 teacher candidates from across the United States and Spain and discovered that, for preservice teachers, Twitter had the potential to enhance their professional learning experiences. In this way, new teachers can begin to establish their professional networks before they enter the profession. Visser, Evering, and Barrett (2014) found comparable results in their survey research, conducted with over 300 teachers, where participants felt their Twitter PD was “transformative in nature, resulting in improved classroom practice,” where they “learn[ed] about the latest research, pedagogical strategies, and best practices; discovered Web-based resources, lesson plans, and innovative ideas about literacy instruction” (p. 407). Teachers also felt that Twitter aided in their use of technology. Through the online collaboration and sharing of resources, Carpenter and Krutka (2015) identified that teachers felt their practice improved and their use of technology in their classroom practice increased. Teachers claimed this online venue increased their knowledge of technology, but further, increased their use of technology. These findings are significant if, indeed, Twitter provides teachers with the opportunity for transformed practice through their online professional learning. However, not all encounters with Twitter as a professional or pedagogical tool are conducive to positive educational experiences. Carpenter et al. (2016) highlighted that preservice teachers needed assistance to “leverage the learning affordances and mitigate the possible challenges of social media such as Twitter” (p. 139). This finding applied to both using the site as a tool for collaboration within PLNs and in bridging this use into their classroom practices. Correspondingly, Krutka et al. (2017) also reported that preservice students needed assistance to use social media as a learning tool: “Defying the digital native myth that you intuitively know how to use technologies” (p. 225). Their findings suggest that students need to be more sufficiently prepared for how to use Twitter in their teaching practices. As Rheingold (2008) noted, though students have grown up with digital technology, they might be limited in any expanded uses as they are both “self-guided and in need of guidance” (p. 25). In their participatory action research study, Preston et al. (2015) noted the importance of overtly teaching technology to preservice teachers, specifically with their use of Twitter. Findings suggest that though new teachers became more positive after engaging in their Twitter assignments, at first they felt “doubtful and hesitant” (p. 306) to use this technology for educational purposes. Carpenter, Cook, Morrison, and Sams (2017) also recommended guidance for new teachers to help them understand the goals of using Twitter to develop PLNs. In addition, they suggested bringing students' outof-school experiences with the social media into the classroom where they had opportunities to “share, reflect, and write” (p. 58) about those experiences. Findings from these studies suggest Twitter is an important professional learning tool for teachers and holds positive affordances for new teachers within teacher education, but preservice teachers need guidance in framing their use of social media in pedagogical ways. Beyond the beneficial uses of Twitter in preservice education and its importance in affording teachers opportunities to experiences new literacies to establish professional networks, the data reveal a lack of representation in participation online. Carpenter et al. (2016) acknowledged their study lacked the opportunity for more racial diversity and cultural representation. However, in the

literature on Twitter use in teacher education, Visser et al. (2014) were the only researchers who collected demographic data. Interestingly, they found 91% of the teachers surveyed were White, while only 2% were African-American, and 2% were AsianAmerican. In summary, the existing literature suggests that research on Twitter use in teacher education is only being conducted on a narrow demographic of teachers. To understand how different groups of people are engaging and navigating within social media spaces, we must understand a diversity of online users and their experiences. Moreover, if some teachers are not using these spaces, why not? Understanding how teacher educators and preservice teachers use Twitter as a tool for learning is necessary. However, as the research above suggests, the Twitter environment centers around like-minded professionals in spaces of commercially contrived conviviality (Friesen & Lowe, 2012) or friendliness. Friesen and Lowe argued these spaces, in and of themselves, lack the ability to be genuinely educational, even as a professional learning environment, because social media is a commercial enterprise working within a business model of conviviality. In this model, the user and the medium work within a symbiotic relationship where the content offered shapes use, and in turn the user shapes content, because “advertisers' interests subtly but effectively shape online social contexts … content, including non-commercial content, is shaped by commercial interests” (p. 190). Research also suggests educators who are entering these spaces may alter their identities as professionals who become apolitical (Kimmons & Veletsianos, 2015; Kimmons, 2014). Friesen and Lowe (2012) argued becoming apolitical limited the space to be used for educational purposes and stated that “the intentional social community has an inherent block to educationenot disagreeing” (p. 191). Thus, if one cannot engage in constructive critical debate with people who hold a variety of differing perspectives, it defeats the purpose of education altogether. Carpenter and Krutka (2015) aptly acknowledged their concern that Twitter promoted “homophily” (p. 722): the tendency to gather in like-minded groups. These findings may signify why many educators report such positive experiences while using Twitter for educational purposes: It becomes a homogeneous space. Therefore, it is crucial to explore how diverse groups of users in education engage within this cyberspace, as not all user experiences are described as convivial. From a Canadian perspective, provincial curricula and ministry initiatives in K-12 education (i.e., Ontario Ministry of Education, 2015a, 2015b) outline how educators can address the negative pitfalls of using the Internet through protection of personal privacy and ways to address cyberbullying. In post-secondary institutions, digital communication is included in their Codes of Conduct for students, but their policies lack critical strategies to address the harm from exposure to online content created by other users. This issue of harm moves beyond personal responsibility of use by both teachers and students, respectively. While students may be responsible for their own content produced online, it is the exposure to others' content that becomes problematic. For example, Twitter is known to be rife with misogynistic and racial violence, especially for women (particularly Black women), Black Indigenous and People of Colour (BIPOC), and people within LGBTQ communities (Awan, 2014; Banet-Weiser & Miltner, 2016; Eckert, 2017, pp. €si, & 1e21; Jane, 2014; Jane, 2016; Oksanen, Hawdon, Holkeri, Na € s€ Ra anen, 2014; Webb et al., 2015; Whittaker & Kowalski, 2015). Therefore, what are the implications of using social media in educational spaces when we know that our students may be exposed to violent content? The findings from the studies above are significant if the goal of multiliteracies and new literacies is to incorporate participatory technologies into teacher practice. The research highlights the

J. Nagle / Teaching and Teacher Education 76 (2018) 86e94

affordances of social media tools like Twitter are conducive to personalized and productive professional development and learning. However, there is also an assumption that new teachers implicitly know how to navigate through social media, with an ability to leverage its affordances within their teaching practices. Moreover, in the current literature, with its focus on a White demographic, the experiences of BIPOC and people within LGBTQ communities are excluded and under-researched. 4. Cyber-violence and social media In light of new social media technologies, Kellner and Share (2007) proposed a critical media literacy (CML), in which its criticality sought to transform education to uncover more profound issues of power and oppression, including “white supremacy, capitalist patriarchy, classism, homophobia, and other oppressive myths” (p. 62). In their multiperspectival approach, CML attended to emergent technologies and called for a focus on how to teach new media through a critical lens in areas of global communication, popular culture, and technology (Kellner & Share, 2007). Rheingold (2010) also realized that understanding social media as a new literacy was becoming a necessity. In his work, he categorized social media literacies as: Attentionddiscerning where our attention lies when engaged with social media, which experiences need priority; Participationddiscerning when, why, and how we post online, as well as understanding the global implications of our online participation; Collaborationddiscerning our role within participatory spaces, being a part of online communities; Network Awarenessdbeing knowledgeable of the tool itself; and Critical Consumptiondhaving a good dose of “crap detection” (p. 22) in the face of the overwhelming access to information. Though Rheingold's work established a much-needed framework to understand social media literacy, his categories fail to address or confront dominant ideologies within cyberspaces that lead to inequity, misogyny, or racially motivated cyber-violence. Within critical media literacy and social media literacies discourse there are no clear conversations regarding the experiencing of, or exposure to, cyber-violence. Such discussions are happening within other disciplines, such as human computer interaction (i.e., Brahnam, Karanikas, & Weaver, 2011; Bardzell, 2010), cyberfeminism (i.e., Jane, 2014, 2016), feminist media studies, (Banet-Weiser & Miltner, 2016), and criminology (i.e., Lewis, Rowe, & Wiper, 2016), but they are lacking in teacher education. These critical conversations, which deal with gendered cyber-violence, are especially warranted in education given the focus around participatory technologies. Luce-Kapler, Sumara, and Iftody (2010) broached the need for an ethical approach to online experiences. Their discussion focused on how new literacy spaces forced us to be digitally literate to identify and empathize in ethical ways, with the people we encounter online, because: In a media-saturated world where real people's narratives are presented in fictional structures, in what we are calling ‘new literacy spaces,’ readers are responding to those narratives using literacy practices without necessarily considering that these are not fictional characters but real people, a situation that demands a different kind of ethic. (p. 538). As their starting point, the authors used an example of cyberbullying and called for a new “ethical know-how” (p. 539), one based on an empathetic understanding of real material human beings who inhabit spaces within online communities. In these spaces, abuse can affect people in real material ways. This reality connected to one preservice student's inquiry in the study by

89

Preston et al. (2015) when she asked: “What if [students] tweet inappropriate things? What would happen to the feelings of the students in the rest of the class?” (p. 310). This questioning, of what happens to others in the class exposed to inappropriate tweets, is significant. Educators need to consider all facets of interaction online, and the implications to those witnessing inappropriate content. Vasudevan (2010), in her discussion of “digitally mediated spaces” (p. 48), suggested that we move away from the fear of social spaces online and embrace the new literacies youth are engaged within. However, her vision upholds one that views the Internet as “a space where one can be or become anyone” (Brophy, 2010, p. 930). This vision of the affordances of new literacies is what Brophy, a feminist scholar, considered a cyberutopia, which “relies primarily on the principle of disembodiment,” where its “associated sex, gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, religion, (dis)ability, and so onefrees the user to be judged on their online presence, which they are able to carefully construct” (p. 930). The danger Brophy saw here, and one that multiliteracies and new literacies scholarship do not acknowledge, is that if we embrace disembodiment and leave our subjectivities behind, people online “are assumed whiteeand are often assumed male, middle-class, technologically savvy, and on US-based sites, Christian.” (p. 932). The danger posed is that those who dominate these spaces are oblivious to the experiences of those unmasked by these assumptions. Literacy scholars are beginning to conceptualize new literacies in embodied ways. For example, Ehret and Hollett (2014) and their studies on embodied digital composition; Burnett, Merchant, Pahl, and Rowsell (2014) who argued that “meaning-making is embodied,” one where “modal choice calls up feeling, emotion and a felt connection with modes” (p. 97); and Wohlwend and Lewis (2011), with their theory of critical literacies, which included embodiment as “the immersion of bodies and emotions in digital spaces as well as the ways in which bodies and emotions are represented in and shaped by digital spaces” (p. 190). In cyberfeminism, Brophy (2010) considered embodiment in digital spaces and warned that “psychological harm is also physical and social harm, embodied and ‘real’” (p. 770). By not acknowledging the material body as we move online and offline is to limit our understanding of how people are living and fully experiencing life within these spaces. If we are to conceptualize the relationships between technologies and embodiment, then we need to understand the full effects of this relationshipdthat if we enter these cyberspaces in material ways, the harm encountered there is significant and affects real bodies in and out of those spaces. Cyberfeminist and media research, which focuses mainly on how women experience cyberspaces like Twitter, understand these spaces are rife with misogyny and violence. Cyber-violence, according to Hanewald (2008), included “hate speech, threats, stalking, harassment, sexual remarks, vulgar language and cyber bullying” (p. 2). Whereas, Jane (2014) classified the term more specifically as e-bile to describe online vitriol as language “heavily laced with expletives, profanity and explicit imagery of sexual violence” (p. 558), and “gendered e-bile frequently spikes in response to feminist activism and perceived feminist gains” (p. 563). Jane's “unexpurgated” (p. 559) accounts of her own experiences with cyber-violence are raw, and at times hard to read, and for those who have experienced harassment online, “it causes suffering and is likely reducing the inclusivity of the cyberspace” (p. 567). Banet-Weiser and Miltner (2016) referred to online cyberviolence as a “networked misogyny” (p. 171) where “these forms of violence are not only about gender, but are also often racist, with women of colour as particular targets” (p. 171). Banet-Weiser and Miltner supported Jane's assumption that along with feminist visibility online comes violence, as “the heightened visibility of

90

J. Nagle / Teaching and Teacher Education 76 (2018) 86e94

popular feminism and its accompanying message of confidence has been met by another popular discourse: popular misogyny” (p. 172). Lewis et al (2017) and Eckert (2017, pp. 1e21) each suggested that feminist women who actively occupied online spaces as venues for their activism and political critiques were at a greater risk and therefore “restrict[ed] women's civic engagement” (Lewis et al., 2016, p. 1464). According to Jane (2016), such experiences lead women to self-censor and limit their interactions online, “writing anonymously or under pseudonyms or withdrawing from online domains altogether to avoid abuse” (p. 286). Zembylas and Vrasidas (2005), similar to Brophy's cyberutopia, considered the dangers of the “global-village narrative,” and argued that “erasing cultural differences and national boundaries” (p. 66) is a variety of colonialism. Alongside women, BIPOC and people within LGBTQ communities are subjected to hate speech in online spaces, sometimes for simply identifying themselves as being other, which includes: sexual orientation, appearance, ethnicity or nationality, religion, and disability (Oksanen et al., 2014). Awan (2014), in his study on Islamophobia online, concurred and also argued that “online abuse is not restricted to online Islamophobia, for example, it could be online anti-Semitic abuse, homophobic abuse, gender-based abuse and antidisability abuse” (p. 134). Diverse groups of people and their experiences online, needs to be examined. Researchers have tried to understand cyber-violence by exploring the behaviour of those who engage in and instigate abusive behaviour. A troll, one who purposefully creates conflict on social media sites, has the sole intention to “disrupt and annoy” (Binns, 2012, p. 547) people online, and Maltby et al. (2016) described trolls as “attention seeking, have low self-confidence, are vicious, are uneducated” (p. 461). These researchers suggested that once people understood the disruptors and saw them with those qualities previously mentioned, those targeted may have potential to “ameliorate the negative effect” (p. 462). In other words, perhaps by understanding and empathizing with perpetrators, one could lessen the adverse psychological effects. However, it is not just those who experience cyber-violence that are at risk. Whittaker and Kowalski (2015) created a taxonomy of cyberbullying to understand the types of cyber-abuse that exist. Their categories included adolescents who cyberbullied their peers, strangers who were unknown to the cyberbully, and cyberbullying against specific religious or ethnic groups. They also examined witnesses to these different types of abuse; online users witnessing the cyberbullying of peers versus the bullying of people unknown to them. Data revealed that adolescents who witnessed cyberbullying were less likely to view the abuse of strangers as real abuse in online social media spaces as, “people known only online were victimized most frequently on every venue” (p. 25). This finding refers back to Luce-Kapler et al. (2010), who suggested we need a new kind of empathetic ethic in these new literacy spaces: We need to recognize that the abuse we witness online is happening to real people, not merely to fictional characters in a book. According to the PEW Research Center (2014), two thirds (66%) of online harassment comes from social network sites where the perpetrators are strangers and are unknown to the victim. In the PEW report on Online Harassment, Duggan et al. (2014, pp. 1e65) reported that in the United States more people witness abuse online than experience it as, “40% of users have personally been harassed on the Internet, while 73% have witnessed it happen to others” (p. 2). Of that percentage, 60% of internet users said they had witnessed someone being called offensive names; 53% had seen efforts to purposefully embarrass someone; 25% had seen someone being physically threatened; 24% witnessed someone being harassed for a

sustained period of time; 19% said they witnessed someone being sexually harassed; 18% said they had seen someone be stalked.” (p. 2). More importantly, White people were most likely to witness harassment than were African-Americans or Hispanics (Duggan et al., 2014, pp. 1e65). Further harm to witnessing online cyberviolence was illustrated by Oksanen et al. (2014), who found that “the long-term effects of exposure to hateful online material may include reinforcing discrimination against vulnerable groups” (p. 258). Aguilera-Carnerero and Azeez (2016) agreed that being exposed to “online hate speech in general is the normalization of hate speech aimed at making the hate against the target group appear acceptable” (p. 24). Witnessing violence can aid in normalizing hate and discrimination, and it is important, for example, to understand that once preservice students step outside the safe spaces of educational professional learning networks there is the potential for harm. As Berson, Berson, and Ferron (2002) aptly identified, “the increased immersion of students into a digital age has also contributed to the evolution of new participants in and witnesses to the emergence of social problems in the cyberworld” (p. 52). Teacher educators, therefore, need to interrogate the ethical implications of putting students into these spacesdand explore how to respond in critical ways to this issue with their students. 5. Ethical considerations for teacher educators As teacher educators, we must be continually aware of our ethical responsibilities to our students. We must also consider how these ethical issues change the way we think of new digital spaces as a new literacy. In an era of #MeToodthe social media campaign bringing awareness to the sexual, sexualized, and gendered violence online against women of colour, started by Tarana Burke (Adetiba, 2017)dentering into digital spaces, now more than ever, needs to be considered critically and with care. Further, the discourse around trigger warnings (alerting students to material that may be distressing and cause relived trauma) in higher education warrants attention and discussion in teacher education classrooms when we ask students to inhabit social media spaces. ^ncio Though, trigger warnings are not without controversy. Flore (2016) suggested that using trigger warnings may limit discussions that challenge students such as “violence, gender inequality, racial discrimination, or sexuality” (para. 7), which may keep students from attending classes that attempt to deal with such sensitive topics. On the other hand, Carter (2015) argued that these discussions around trauma-informed education belong to “the able-body minded among us; ” pedagogical discussions that are privileged only for those “whose lives are not already shaped by trauma” (para. 2). Meanwhile, Godderis and Root (2016) suggested that teachers need to develop a “culture of informed learning” (p. 131) where they acknowledge trauma within their classrooms and that by not doing so, the “experiences of marginalization, oppression, and injustice” (p. 133) becomes a form of censorship. While these discussions may be difficult, we as teacher educators would be remiss not to open ourselves and our students up to such discussions to uncover the diversity of experiences online. Entering into these discussions, and honouring them as a trauma-informed pedagogy, is crucial. Zembylas and Vrasidas (2005) underscored the need for this criticality, especially with new and emerging technologies. Teachers should not shy away from these difficult conversations and can develop a pedagogy of discomfort (Zembylas, 2015), one that may help students discern their role within these social media cyberspaces. Through “collective witnessing” students can challenge the “global-village”

J. Nagle / Teaching and Teacher Education 76 (2018) 86e94

(Zembylas & Vrasidas, 2005, p. 66) and cyberutopia narratives, which erase individual subjectivities, and preservice students can begin to understand that “learning to see differently involves recognizing that the Internet teaches people to view the world through a ‘partisan lens’” (p. 74), as it is “an important step in identifying exploitation, alienation, and disparities between the haves and the have-nots” (p. 75). These conversations need to happen within teacher education, specifically within the discipline of multiliteracies and new literacies, where digital literacies are a priority and frequently discussed in cyberutopian ways. Murray, Gillese, Lennon, Mercer, and Robinson (1996) outlined nine principles for ethics in university teaching. The following are important ethical considerations for teachers who are using social media tools in their practice. Relevant to the conversation within this paper, are the following principles: Principle 3: Dealing with sensitive topics, “the teacher acknowledges from the outset that a particular topic is sensitive, and explains why it is necessary to include” (p. 6) and Principle 4: Student development, “the teacher's most basic responsibility is to design instruction that facilitates learning and encourages autonomy and independent thinking in students, to treat students with respect and dignity” (p. 7). For preservice teachers to understand the experiences of their peers and future students within online spaces, it is crucial that they be fully aware of how these spaces can be platforms for hate speech and misogyny. 6. Developing a critical social media literacy Critical social media literacy is needed within teacher education because social media spaces are not neutral. Students need strategies and tools to work within these spaces and to leverage their affordances for professional learning. They also need to be aware of how a diversity of people (including their peers) use and experience social media. Social media spaces cannot simply be used as alternative venues where literacy events occur. Social media, by design, and how it can be used to promulgate violence, needs to be critically examined, to “expose the dominant patterns of power and authority that remain hidden from view or become normalised through routine of everyday activity” (Burnett & Merchant, 2011, p. 43). The following strategies for teacher educators can be used to complement pedagogical approaches to developing a critical social media literacy with preservice students. 6.1. Examining and evaluating social media as a tool It is crucial to understand the digital tools we are using in teacher education. Similar to a critical digital literacy, where importance is placed on the examination of various digital media, teachers and students need to learn about the social media technologies they use. A critical social media approach attempts to understand how the technology influences our communication literacy practices through its specific values and norms of behaviour (Kimmons, 2014). This approach acknowledges that Twitter is based on a business model, where advertisers seek to attract the attention of the user (Friesen & Lowe, 2012). Students need to understand specific media manipulate our attention and shape our communications in order to end up in groups of like-minded people. However, more profoundly, we need to ask: Who is excluded from our network based on algorithms that continually suggest new connections between like-minded people? Our attention, like Rheingold (2010) suggested, needs to become focused. Educators and new teachers need to become aware of where our attention lies, how our communication tools work, and what indeed are the affordances and pitfalls of each type of social media. As teacher educators, we need to ask: Is this the best tool? It

91

would be pertinent to examine critically, the values and norms of various social media tools with preservice teachers; to frame students' personal uses, as well as to gain an understanding of how these uses may be altered as an educational tool. 6.2. Examining participation: Issues of access and power Not all students have the same access or experiences within social media. Kimmons (2014) spoke about a participation gap where not everyone had the opportunity, knowledge, or understanding of how to use social media effectively. In a critical social media, students are aware that the participation gap is widened further when there are attempts to exclude people who are harassed, who witness violence online, or who self-censor and therefore leave social media due to the harmful effects of cyberviolence. In a critical social media literacy, teacher educators and new teachers need to discuss their personal experiences with social media and confront ways in which BIPOC and people within LGBTQ communities, might also be experiencing these spaces. Just as we need to be aware of how younger students might be experiencing social media in ways unknown to us, we need to be aware of how preservice students are experiencing social media. Teacher educators can instigate in-depth discussions about who has access, who is excluded, and why. Discussions could be initiated through critical self-reflection (Pangrazio, 2016) by reflecting on students' own “digital histories” and focusing on “how these are shaped by particular digital discourses” to question “dominant ideologies” (p. 171). These reflections are with the understanding, as Cook and Bissonnette (2016) mentioned, to bring those difficult conversations back into the classroom after students have been online. Discussions can extend beyond curriculum content, or professional learning networks created, and delve deeper into conversations regarding other types of experiences students encounter when they stray away from like-minded, convivial communities. This commitment is to remain critical of how and in what ways the medium is shaping their experiences and how their experiences within it are shaping them as students and as educators. We need to ask: How are people being positioned (both the user and others within that space) and why? (Burnett & Merchant, 2011, p. 43). 6.3. Participatory technologies as a choice Using social media is only one of many digital tools we can offer our students. While there are benefits for new teachers to create professional learning networksdconnecting with seasoned teachers, and the gathering and sharing of resourcesdwe must acknowledge not all experiences are the same. Thus students need to have a choice whether or not to enter (or remain) in these spaces: Students need to understand the affordances as well as the risks. When you join Twitter, you are agreeing to the risks of participation, as Twitter's 2018 Terms of Service stated: “You may be exposed to Content that might be offensive, harmful, inaccurate or otherwise inappropriate.” Therefore, it is with informed consent that you enter into a space like Twitter and accept these risks. Some suggestions for practice are to offer other venues that provide opportunities for creating a participatory, collaborative, peer-to-peer experience, such as blogging sites more conducive to in-depth conversations (e.g., Medium or Tumblr). As such, using social media sites can also be an asset for introverted students, as they are conducive to including these students who are more “reticent” (Carpenter et al., 2017) to participate in large groups. Offering an exploration of diverse social media with preservice teachers, for the best digital tool to leverage benefits to diverse students, is important. However, in a critical social media literacy,

92

J. Nagle / Teaching and Teacher Education 76 (2018) 86e94

students need to be well informed (Blankenship, 2010) about the sites they participate within, and teacher educators need to offer a range of materials and tools for students to use to engage with course content and their peers in multiple ways. 6.4. Ways to respond: Witnessing and experiencing cyber-violence Students need to be made fully aware of the risks, not only to themselves but to others, when entering a social media environment. They also need supportive tools to deal with harmful content. It is evident that White and Black women, specifically, are “making changes to the places they go, the debates they join, the material they post” (Jane, 2017, p. 45) all to avoid cyber-violence. Twitter offers users the ability to mute or block users, and there are ways of reporting offensive content, but that does not mean the content is removed. Reporting content implies the risk of exposure has already occurred, which can have harmful effects on students. However, students and teacher educators need ways to respond when witnessing or experiencing cyber-violence if they choose to enter into or remain within social media spaces. Though social media purports itself to be constructed around a community, trolls seek to disrupt these communities. One popular way to combat this disruption is to stop feeding the trolls (Woodward, 2016): simply ignoring the vitriol. Having some understanding of the purpose of trolling or flaming, which sole purpose is to instigate and conflagrate a response, positions the abuse in a way separate from the user who is either receiving the abuse or witnessing it. Trolls want a reaction, and if they do not get one, the idea is they will move to another target. Another way to respond is by outing trolls. Outing is done by republishing (retweeting) their noxious tweets for the public to see, and a public shaming ensues. Unpleasant as witnessing this violent content can be, those who use this strategy want the public to understand their online reality and rally assistance from their online community. Though outing exposes other users to the abusive content, it can provide a community of support. While focusing specifically on women in academia, Veletsianos, Houlden, Hodson, and Gosse (2018, pp. 1e20) also found that women were experiencing cyber-violence online. Their findings suggest that women, whether in academia or not, cope with the harassment and abuse in similar ways. One suggestion for coping with online violence was sharing these experiences with “partners, friends, colleagues, their institution and law enforcement” (Veletsianos & Hodson, 2018, n.p.). In this way, the onus is placed on the institution and urges them to develop clear and supportive ways to deal with cyber-violence. As Velesianos and Hodson mentioned, institutions need to develop training and policies to support professors being harassed. Though recommended for the academy, these recommendations could be applied to its students as well, as a further venue of advocacy and care for students experiencing or witnessing cyber-violence. Others avoid witnessing abusive content by not reading public comments, self-filtering the content, or focusing their attention elsewhere. However, responses to cyber-violence are personal, and there are no definitive ways to combat it. Discussions around ways to address it may help those students experiencing violence, and may also help students unfamiliar with cyber-violence begin to understand differing online realities. 6.5. Guidance and scaffolding with social media tools In education, digital tools are just that, tools. Digital tools assist teachers and students in being able to communicate and represent knowledge and understanding in new, multimodal ways. However, when we allow the tool to take over, without both teacher and student awareness of the affordances or drawbacks, the tool

becomes ineffective. We cannot make any assumptions that students know how to leverage the affordances of a multiplicity of digital tools simply because they grew up in a digital era. The concept of the digital native is a myth (Brown & Czerniewicz, 2010), and just because students are immersed in a digital culture does not signify their competence with it or an understanding of how to leverage their knowledge of various technologies for use in educational ways. Guidance and scaffolding are necessary inclusions to introducing any digital tool, even social media tools, within teacher education. In a critical social media literacy, teacher educators teach the tool first. It is also important to keep in mind that students may not even be using popular technologies, and as Cook and Bissonnette (2016) cautioned, some technologies may be popular, but “popularity does not guarantee that all students will enjoy the experience equally.” (p. 104). Teacher educators, therefore, assist preservice teachers to bridge personal uses of social media to uses conducive within an educational space. Teacher educators also need to monitor the tool to provide guidance with the variety of ways it can be used and experienced, perhaps in unintended ways. As Carpenter et al. (2017) suggested, extending discussions of Twitter use within the classroom, where students can reflect and share their experiences, is needed. Together, teacher educators and new teachers can use Twitter to engage and support their professional learning, and to use it as a tool to “try on and practice a professional identity” (p. 54). But this use for professional learning needs to be implemented with guidance and continued support, while feeling supported in using these new technologies. These strategies to develop a critical approach to social media literacy is not meant to be exhaustive. Further strategies can be developed together with preservice students as a way to attend to differing needs of student groups. Through this development, preservice students can be offered opportunities to participate in a digital technology that enhances and supports their professional learning. 7. Implications By exploring the issue of how diverse peoples experience social media, specifically on Twitter, data show a participation gap that extends far beyond online spaces. Research conducted on the social media practices of preservice teachers highlight the experiences of Whiteness. In the U.S. and Canada, there are significantly more White teachers in our classrooms even though our students are becoming ever more racially diverse. In 2011 in the U.S., 82% of teachers were White, while only 18% of teachers represented people of colour, and specifically, only 8% of teachers were Black, and 7% of the teachers were Hispanic (Allen, 2017; U.S. Department of Education, 2016). For Canada, in Ontario alone, which yields the largest provincial population, 26% of the student population are racialized while only 13% are represented in the teaching profession (Ontario Alliance for Black School Educators, 2015). Given the increasing nature of globalization, there is a lack of representation of a culturally and linguistically diverse student population. This gap will continue to widen if it is not addressed. Thus, the teaching profession needs to recruit and retain more women and men of colour (Allen, 2017). This lack of representation also poses a problem when considering diverse experiences online. As research shows, White teachers are more likely to be experiencing positive community and conviviality, while those peoples outside this community (including White women who become vocal in feminist and political discourse but are harassed in other disciplines as well [Veletsianos & Hodson, 2018]) experience and witness cyberviolence. Without a diversity of perspectives and experiences

J. Nagle / Teaching and Teacher Education 76 (2018) 86e94

within teacher education, to uncover and make aware the dangers of cyber-violence, we are at risk of colonizing digital spaces and creating an imaginary cyberutopia; a space limited in its educational or pedagogical scope, and one that continues to perpetuate the exclusion and marginalization of Black women, Indigenous Peoples, People of Colour, and those in LGBTQ communities. As shown in the recent literature, Twitter affords many benefits to preservice teachers. While the experiences of those who choose to remain outside of social media need to be respected, it is with pedagogical expertise that teacher educators create diverse opportunities for new teachers to remain an integral part of the classroom community and broader professional learning networks. Social media sites offer the potential for a global audience to engage in local and global participation. Expanding our networks, beyond the like-minded, to include a diversity of perspectives is imperative to what a multiliteracies and new literacies education seek to provide. Twitter is a new space, which is open to vast and differing experiences. Twitter provides an opportunity for teacher educators and their preservice teachers to open themselves up to those outside their like-minded communities. However, the risks associated with this specific social media are real and can inflict material harm. Social media must not be used unethically or irresponsibly as an off-hand tool within diverse pedagogies. Teacher educators, themselves, need to be made aware of the risks and decide, perhaps with their students, whether the risks outweigh the benefits. Those conversations need to happen collaboratively and respectfully with students. 8. Conclusion Current research into Twitter use in teacher education suggests there are many benefits of using it as an educational tool. Benefits include the creation and collaboration found within professional learning networks, the connection with seasoned educators, the sharing and gathering of resources, and finding new ways of using technology within their practice. However, Twitter is also used as an apolitical space for teachers where real debate is muted and what is left is what the social media sites are inherently designed fordconviviality. To stay in these spaces in this way is to inhabit a space devoid of the abuse witnessed and experienced by others outside of that community, and one that is at risk of understanding itself as a cyberutopia. Current studies on Twitter use with preservice teachers and teacher educators suggest there is limited research on the diversity of peoples and communities who use these spaces, as well as research on those who leave and self-censor their participation. Teacher educators need to engage with their preservice students in critical ways to examine, understand, and be aware of who has access to social media spaces and whose online presence is being excluded. They need to be aware of the risks of exposure to cyber-violence in the form of misogyny and racial hate, especially for women of colour, and the material harm that ensues. Teachers have an ethical responsibility to protect their students, yet they also have an ethical responsibility to enter into difficult conversations with their students to uncover dominant narratives, which exist and shape our existing communications via social media. By using a critical social media literacy, teachers and preservice teachers alike can enter into a necessary dialogue to become informed by examining the social media sites they use and by examining diverse participation. This dialogue must acknowledge that not everyone is experiencing cyberspace in the same ways. Such conversations will also create an understanding that participatory technologies are a choice with risks, which need informed consent. There needs to be open dialogue in teacher education about how to respond to cyber-violence and an awareness that the teacher educator will be their guide through the process, to scaffold

93

and model ways of using social media as a pedagogical tool, despite these risks. From the research reviewed in this paper and the exploration of cyber-violence in the social media space, specifically Twitter, it is apparent that more research is needed on the diverse social media sites that students use to understand how the affordances of these social media can be leveraged educationally, if at all. Acknowledgements This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. There are no competing interests in the submission of this work. Appendix A. Supplementary data Supplementary data related to this article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.08.014. References Adetiba, E. (2017, November 17). Tarana Burke says #MeToo should center on marginalized communities: An interview with the woman who launched the Me Too campaign over a decade ago. Retrieved from https://www.thenation.com/ article/tarana-burke-says-metoo-isnt-just-for-white-people/. Aguilera-Carnerero, C., & Azeez, A. H. (2016). ‘Islamonausea, not Islamophobia’: The many faces of cyber hate speech. Journal of Arab & Muslim Media Research, 9(1), 21e39. Allen, R. (2017). Recruiting and retaining teachers of color. Retrieved from ireeinc. com/file_download/71792e0a-50d3-4f03-bbe1-33c25aa54d10. Awan, I. (2014). Islamophobia and Twitter: A typology of online hate against muslims on social media. Policy & Internet, 6(2), 133e150. Banet-Weiser, S., & Miltner, K. M. (2016). # MasculinitySoFragile: Culture, structure, and networked misogyny. Feminist Media Studies, 16(1), 171e174. Bardzell, S. (2010). Feminist HCI: Taking stock and outlining an agenda for design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1301e1310). ACM. Benko, S. L., Guise, M., Earl, C. E., & Gill, W. (2016). More than social media: Using Twitter with preservice teachers as a means of reflection and engagement in communities of practice. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(1), 1e21. Berson, I. R., Berson, M. J., & Ferron, J. M. (2002). Emerging risks of violence in the digital age: Lessons for educators from an online study of adolescent girls in the United States. Journal of School Violence, 1(2), 51e71. Binns, A. (2012). Don't feed the trolls! Managing troublemakers in magazines' online communities. Journalism Practice, 6(4), 547e562. Blankenship, M. (2010). How social media can and should impact higher education. The Education Digest, 76(7), 39. Brahnam, S., Karanikas, M., & Weaver, M. (2011). (Un)dressing the interface: Exposing the foundational HCI metaphor “computer is woman. Interacting with Computers, 23(2011), 401e412. Brophy, J. E. (2010). Developing a corporeal cyberfeminism: Beyond cyberutopia. New Media & Society, 12(6), 929e945. Brown, C., & Czerniewicz, L. (2010). Debunking the ‘digital native’: Beyond digital apartheid, towards digital democracy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(5), 357e369. Burnett, C., & Merchant, G. (2011). Is There a space for critical literacy in the context of social media? English Teaching: Practice and Critique, 10(1), 41e57. Burnett, C., Merchant, G., Pahl, K., & Rowsell, J. (2014). The (im)materiality of literacy: The significance of subjectivity to new literacies research. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 35(1), 90e103. Carpenter, J. (2015). Preservice teachers' microblogging: Professional development via Twitter. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 15(2), 209e234. Carpenter, J. P., Cook, M. P., Morrison, S. A., & Sams, B. L. (2017). “Why haven't I tried Twitter until now?”: Using Twitter in teacher education. Learning Landscapes, 11(1), 51e64. Carpenter, J. P., & Krutka, D. G. (2014). How and why educators use Twitter: A survey of the field. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 46(4), 414e434. Carpenter, J. P., & Krutka, D. G. (2015). Engagement through microblogging: Educator professional development via Twitter. Professional Development in Education, 41(4), 707e728. Carpenter, J. P., Tur, G., & Marin, V. I. (2016). What do U.S. and Spanish pre-service teachers think about educational and professional use of Twitter? A comparative study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 60, 131e143. Carter, A. M. (2015). Teaching with trauma: Trigger warnings, feminism, and disability pedagogy. Disability Studies Quarterly, 35(2). Cervetti, G., Damico, J., & Pearson, P. D. (2006). Multiple literacies, new literacies, and teacher education. Theory Into Practice, 45(4), 378e386. Collier, S., Foley, B., Moguel, D., & Barnard, I. (2013). Write for your life: Developing

94

J. Nagle / Teaching and Teacher Education 76 (2018) 86e94

digital literacies and writing pedagogy in teacher education. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 13(3), 262e284. Cook, M. P., & Bissonnette, J. D. (2016). Developing preservice teachers' positionalities in 140 characters or less: Examining microblogging as dialogic space. Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 16(2), 82e109. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (2009). “Multiliteracies”: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4, 164e195. Duggan, M., Rainie, L., Smith, A., Funk, C., Lenhart, A., & Madden, M. (2014). Online harassment. PEW Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. Eckert, S. (2017). Fighting for recognition: Online abuse of women bloggers in Germany, Switzerland, the United States, and the United Kingdom. New Media & Society. Ehret, C., & Hollett, T. (2014). Embodied composition in real virtualities: Adolescents' literacy practices and felt experiences moving with digital, mobile devices in school. Research in the Teaching of English, 48(4), 428e452. ^ncio, J. (2016, October 19). Why I won't be issuing trigger warnings to students. Flore Retrieved from http://theconversation.com/why-i-wont-be-issuing-triggerwarnings-to-students-66624. Friesen, N., & Lowe, S. (2012). The questionable promise of social media for education: Connective learning and the commercial imperative. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28, 183e194. Godderis, R., & Root, J. L. (2016). Trigger warnings: Compassion is not censorship. Radical Pedagogy, 13(2), 130e138. Greenhow, C., & Gleason, B. (2012). Twitteracy: Tweeting as a new literacy practice. The Educational Forum, 76(4), 464e478. Hanewald, R. (2008). Confronting the pedagogical challenge of cyber safety. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 33(3), 1e16. Heuchan, C. L. (2017). Black feminism online: Claiming digital space. In L. Jones, & H. McDaid (Eds.), Nasty women: A collection of essays and accounts on what it is to be a woman in the 21st century (pp. 21-23). Great Britain, 404 Ink. Holmes, K., Preston, G., Shaw, K., & Buchanan, R. (2013). ‘Follow’ me: Networked professional learning for teachers. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 38(12), 55e65. Husbye, N. E., & Elsener, A. A. (2013). To move forward, we must be mobile: Practical uses of mobile technology in literacy education courses. Journal of Digital Learning in Teacher Education, 30(2), 46e51. Jane, E. A. (2014). ‘Back to the kitchen, cunt’: Speaking the unspeakable about online misogyny. Continuum, 28(4), 558e570. Jane, E. A. (2016). Online misogyny and feminist digilantism. Continuum: Journal of Media & Cultural Studies, 30(3), 284e297. Jane, E. A. (2017). Feminist flight and fight responses to gendered cyberhate. In M. Seagrave, & L. Vitis (Eds.), Gender, technology and violence (ch. 3). Taylor & Francis. Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2010). The teacher as designer: Pedagogy in the new media age. E-Learning and Digital Media, 7(3), 200e222. Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2012). Literacies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kellner, D., & Share, J. (2007). Critical media literacy is not an option. Learning Inquiry, 1, 59e69. Kimmons, R. (2014). Social networking sites, literacy, and the authentic identity problem. TechTrends, 58(2), 93e98. Kimmons, R., & Veletsianos, G. (2015). Teacher professionalization in the age of social networking sites. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(4), 480e501. Knobel, M., & Lankshear, C. (2014). Studying new literacies. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(2), 97e101. Krutka, D. G., Nowell, S., & Whitlock, A. M. (2017). Towards a social media pedagogy: Successes and shortcomings in educative uses of Twitter with teacher candidates. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 25(2), 215e240. Lankshear, C., & Knobel, M. (2011). New literacies: Everyday practices and social learning (3rd ed.). New York: Open University Press. Lewis, R., Rowe, M., & Wiper, C. (2016). Online abuse of feminists as an emerging form of violence against women and girls. British Journal of Criminology, 57(6), 1462e1481. Luce-Kapler, R., Sumara, D., & Iftody, T. (2010). Teaching ethical know-how in new literacy spaces. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Education, 53(7), 536e541. Luo, T., Sickel, J., & Cheng, L. (2016). Preservice teachers' participation and perceptions of Twitter live chats as personal learning networks. TechTrends, 61(3), 226e235. Maltby, J., Day, L., Hatcher, R. M., Tazzyman, S., Flowe, H. D., Palmer, E. J., et al. (2016).

Implicit theories of online trolling: Evidence that attention-seeking conceptions are associated with increased psychological resilience. British Journal of Psychology, 107, 448e466. Murray, H., Gillese, E., Lennon, M., Mercer, P., & Robinson, M. (1996). Ethical principles for college and university teaching. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 1996(66), 57e63. https://doi.org/10.1002/tl.37219966611. New London Group. (1996). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 60e92. Oksanen, A., Hawdon, J., Holkeri, E., N€ asi, M., & R€ as€ anen, P. (2014). Exposure to online hate among young social media users. Sociological Students of Children and Youth, 18, 253e273. Ontario Alliance of Black School Educators. (2015). Voices of Ontario Black educators: An experiential report. Retrieved from http://onabse.org/ONABSE_VOICES_OF_ BLACK_EDUCATORS_Final_Report.pdf. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2015a). Health and physical education. In The Ontario curriculum grades 1-8. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/ curriculum/elementary/health1to8.pdf. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2015b). Safe schools: Cyberbullying. Retrieved from http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/safeschools/respect.html. Pangrazio, L. (2016). Reconceptualizing critical digital literacy. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 37(2), 163e174. PEW Research Center: Internet, Science & Tech. (2014). Victims of online harassment describe their experiences. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/ 22/online-harassment-experiences-in-their-own-words/. Preston, J. P., Jakubiec, B., Jones, J., & Earl, R. (2015). Twitter in a bachelor of education course: Student experiences. Learning Landscapes, 8(2), 301e316. Rheingold, H. (2008). Using social media to teach social media. The New England Journal of Higher Education, 23(1), 25e26. Rheingold, H. (2010). Attention, and other 21st-century social media literacies. Educause Review, 45(5), 14. Twitter. (April 2018). Twitter terms of service. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/en/ tos#updateintlWho. U.S. Department of Education. (2016). The state of racial diversity in the educator workforce. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/highered/racialdiversity/state-racial-diversity-workforce.pdf. Vasudevan, L. (2010). Literacies in a participatory, multimodal world: The arts and aesthetics of web 2.0. Language Arts, 88(1), 43. Veletsianos, G., & Hodson, J. (2018, May 29). Social media as a weapon to harass women academics. In Inside higher. Retrieved from https://www. insidehighered.com/views/2018/05/29/dealing-social-media-harassmentopinion?utm_source¼AcademicaþTopþTen&utm_campaign¼ac43c0b308EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_06_04_04_07&utm_medium¼email&utm_term¼0_ b4928536cf-ac43c0b308-51904657. Veletsianos, G., Houlden, S., Hodson, J., & Gosse, C. (2018). Women scholars' experiences with online harassment and abuse: Self-protection, resistance, acceptance, and self-blame. New Media & Society. Visser, R. D., Evering, L. C., & Barrett, D. 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), 396e413. Webb, H., Jirotka, M., Stahl, B. C., Housley, W., Edwards, A., Williams, M., et al. (2015). Digital wildfires: Hyper-connectivity, havoc and a global ethos to govern social media. Computers & Society, 45(3), 193e201. Whittaker, E., & Kowalski, R. M. (2015). Cyberbullying via social media. Journal of School Violence, 14, 11e29. Wohlwend, K. E., & Lewis, C. (2011). Critical literacy, critical engagement, and digital technology: Convergence and embodiment in glocal spheres. In D. Lapp, & D. Fisher (Eds.), Handbook of research on teaching the English language arts (3rd ed., pp. 188e212). New York: Taylor & Francis. Woodward, D. (2016, October 6). ‘Don't feed the trolls' really is good advice: Here's the evidence. Retrieved from http://theconversation.com/dont-feed-the-trollsreally-is-good-advice-heres-the-evidence-63657. Zembylas, M. (2015). ‘Pedagogy of discomfort’ and its ethical implications: The tensions of ethical violence in social justice education. Ethics and Education, 10(2), 163e174. Zembylas, M., & Vrasidas, C. (2005). Globalization, information and communication technologies, and the prospect of a ‘global village’: Promises of inclusion or electronic colonization? Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37(1), 65e83.