# data[].attributes.body
Jeremy's Twitter handle is far more prominent in this analysis than James': this is an unmistakeable 1-2 ranking of the two course tutors among EDC students.

# data[].attributes.body
The most common Twitter handle was Jeremy's, which suggests that most students were simply responding to his questions; engagement with others was merely accidental.

# data[].attributes.body
A large number of students' Twitter handles were employed during the tweetorial, which suggests that there were multiple conversations occurring. Students engaged both with one another and with academics and interested parties from outside the course. This belies both the fascinating nature of some of the discussions as well as the benefits of the public nature of the event.

# data[].attributes.body
The variation in levels of tweeting before and after the event demonstrated that students were simply 'doing as they were told' during the tweetorial, perhaps in an attempt to curry favour visibly with course leaders or demonstrate superiority over other students.

# data[].attributes.body
Although the tweetorial demonstrated a clear spike in the volume of tweets, engagement via Twitter had been comparatively poor, both before and after the event. This suggests that Twitter is not the first platform of choice of the students and that the event had little impact.

# data[].attributes.body
The tweetorial demonstrated a clear spike in the volume of tweets, which is understandable. However, it built upon an already high level of engagement via Twitter, which may have contributed to its success. This suggests that students are engaged and motivated, without the additional push from course tutors, and that the choice of Twitter for such an exercise was an excellent one.

# data[].attributes.body
By blindly following the course leaders' instruction about using Tweetdeck, students demonstrated a lack of critical thought in the choice of platform used, suggesting that the EDC course has had little influence on their thinking.

# data[].attributes.body
Despite the instructions of the course tutors to use Tweetdeck, many students elected not to. This has an implication for the authority of course leaders among this cohort.

# data[].attributes.body
The course leaders strongly recommended to students that they use the Tweetdeck client to keep up with conversations. That so many students did so suggests their enthusiasm for the task. However, it is clear that Twitter was also used on mobile phones, suggesting that students were keen to keep up with the 'tweetorial' even when they were on the move.

# data[].attributes.body
Students are using the terms 'data', 'algorithms' and 'analytics' interchangeably, suggesting a lack of understanding; the top words include no reference to literature, and do not demonstrate higher level engagement with ideas at play here.

# data[].attributes.body
Plagiarism is rife among students, who demonstrated a tendency to copy stock phrases and each other.

# data[].attributes.body
Students were fully engaged with the topics under discussion. The combination of top-used words (algorithms, data, learning, analytics, education) strongly suggests that students are comfortable with the key themes of the ideas for Block 3, and were able to negotiate the restrictions of Twitter as a means of having discussion.

# data[].attributes.body
80% of the top 5 tweeters were white men, which demonstrates how the medium employed incorporated a deliberate and intrinsic bias, privileging only some students.

# data[].attributes.body
There was a large difference between the highest and lowest number of tweets sent by one person which suggests that some participants dominated discussion, and other voices were squeezed out.

# data[].attributes.body
Many people were tweeting! This suggests engagement with the topic, conversations among users, and even immersion in the mode of communication. The high level of tweets suggests students enjoyed the tweetorial.