YouTube as a Digital Resource for Sustainable Education
1
Department of Research Methods and Diagnosis in Education, University of Seville, 41013 Seville, Spain
2
University of Seville, 41013 Seville, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2023, 15(7), 5687; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075687
Submission received: 3 March 2023
/
Revised: 18 March 2023
/
Accepted: 21 March 2023
/
Published: 24 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Digital Learning for Education Sustainability)
Abstract
:The extensive use of social networks by people of all ages and the wide range of freely available content therein can be very useful for sustainable education. This research paper aims to explore informal learning on YouTube from a sociocultural approach, observing the reasons why our subjects select this platform for their self-learning and how they evaluate different actions that mediate their learning. This is achieved through two constructs derived from the sociocultural approach: preference and mediation. The differences are also analysed according to the age, sex, and level of education of the subjects. A quantitative methodology is used, applying the statistical techniques of descriptive and inferential analyses. Data are obtained through an ad hoc questionnaire that collects information on the proposed constructs. The sample consists of 504 people from the Andalusia region in Spain. Our results show the criteria that users apply in their preference of YouTube, as well as mediating actions that should be self-regulated during users’ informal learning process on YouTube. Significant statistical differences are obtained for the age variable but not for the gender variable or the level of education, with respect to the two constructs studied. The relevance and significance of the variables studied indicate the value people attribute to YouTube as a tool for informal learning and its potential for sustainable education. This study has implications in sustainable education, as YouTube is a tool that breaks down barriers and can be adjusted to the needs of a population.
1. Introduction
YouTube, one of the most popular social networks in society at present, provides users with a wide range of learning content, accessible for free virtually [1,2,3], making it a very useful technological resource for sustainable education.
Sustainability, from an educational point of view, involves favouring inclusion, attention to diversity, and the reuse of available resources (digital resources, among others) [4,5]. In this sense, YouTube is a technological resource that can be used for different educational levels to promote inclusion and attention to diversity in education. Its potential is based on its broad and varied content that can cover very diverse educational needs, as well as the fact that it provides free access to learning for populations that lack resources or access to educational institutions. Therefore, these characteristics make YouTube a digital resource that should be considered for incorporation in both formal and non-formal education, thus promoting sustainable education.
The use of YouTube as an educational resource is becoming more frequent in formal education and increasingly widespread at all levels of education. There is a great deal of research on this [6,7,8,9]. However, there are very few studies investigating YouTube as a resource for informal learning [10,11,12,13].
This study focuses on the use of YouTube for informal learning. Informal learning is a learning model in which the personalization of the learning itself and the absence of an institutional structure predominate. Learners must take an active role in this process and self-regulate the learning process. That is, he or she must control all aspects that come into play during learning [14,15].
Although there are studies on the use of YouTube for formal and informal learning [2,6,8,12,16], there have not been empirically compared studies on the value that users place on YouTube specifically for informal learning, and there has been even less research about the criteria that users have which guide their mediation of and preference for this network for their learning. Hence, we set out to understand the internal and personal motivations that lead users to select resources for informal learning and the processes they apply for the self-regulation of their learning on YouTube. In this study, the sociocultural approach is taken as a theoretical reference as well as the constructs of this approach, such as mediation and preference.
Our novel approach, therefore, is to use the sociocultural approach and constructs derived from it as theoretical references to analyse the use of YouTube as a tool for learning. This study also tries to compare the relevance of the variables of gender, education, and age in the use of this social network for informal learning. This last variable has been a common point of reference since the beginning of the millennium in studies linked to technology in general, which coined terms such as digital natives and immigrants [17]. Digital natives are people born after the 1990s. In contrast, a digital immigrant refers to people born before this date. The former grew up fully immersed in the technological heyday and it is a common part of their cultural ecosystem [18]. However, in the case of digital immigrants, the opposite is true, as they must adapt and assimilate to digital phenomena to introduce these tools into their daily lives and get the most out of them, for example, by using Youtube for online learning. Analysing age-based differences is one of the main objectives of this research paper, and our main hypothesis is that there is a great difference in users’ perception of YouTube as a means of informal learning according to age.
2. YouTube, an Informal Learning Tool
From a strictly technological perspective, YouTube was a breakthrough for the acquisition of knowledge outside the walls of the traditional classroom. This was possible thanks to the use of electronic devices such as computers and especially smartphones. These media are conceived as new pedagogical scaffolds [19,20]. There are several characteristics that favour the use of social networks to meet the educational needs of users in their self-regulated informal learning [21]. Among them, two stand out: (1) adaptability and response to technological social demands; and (2) the personalization of learning.
Youtube’s ability to evolve and adapt to the demands of different populations has been key to its rise as a pedagogical resource [22], offering alternatives and solutions for all types of educational needs (use on smartphones, longer videos, thematic diversity, 4K quality, etc.). On the other hand, in the personalization of learning, YouTube provides learners with the possibility of asynchronously adjusting different pedagogical action spaces [23,24]; that is, the acquisition of learning can occur in multiple places and moments. The same happens with videos selected for learning, which are chosen by the user. Therefore, the user becomes an active agent, responsible for the management and control of all the factors involved in the process [10,11,12,13], opening the door to the development of greater autonomy and critical thinking [25,26]. It involves a constructive and motivating way of learning [27,28].
YouTubers are key figures that have made YouTube one of the main informal learning tools. YouTubers are individuals dedicated to the development of content for YouTube. Through their videos and by interacting with their users, they enable the latter to learn through the creation of virtual learning communities [29]. Informal learning is not an individual but a social process, which requires collective feedback. Therefore, interaction is one of the pillars for our understanding of learning through YouTube. It is a learning model based on the transmission of information between content generators and users, who consider these offers to be of value [30,31]. For this reason, two fundamental parties for learning are distinguished: YouTubers and consumers.
This study focuses on users’ use of YouTube for learning. With this aim in mind, the learning process has specific characteristics, such as the ability of the recipient to manage his/her own educational experience. The contribution of this study lies in that it takes the sociocultural theory as a theoretical basis as well as constructs derived from it to analyse the informal learning process on YouTube. In this approach, YouTube is a mediator in learning itself. Although there is research that addresses the use of YouTube for learning, there is practically no research from a sociocultural approach. Therefore, the main contribution of this study is in identifying how YouTube mediates informal learning processes, determining differences according to users’ age, gender, and education.
3. YouTube from a Sociocultural Approach
Learning through technology, as is the case with social networks, poses new challenges to researchers. In this sense, given that networks are social learning environments [32], a sociocultural approach seems to be a timely and relevant research method. The sociocultural theory or approach was developed by Vygotsky and posits that learning is the result of social interaction. Thus, learning appears first on a social level (interpsychological) and later a personal level (intrapsychological), with collective behaviour as a key factor as well as individual behaviour, which is involved in process regulation. In the case of YouTube, interaction is a determinant for the construction of learning, but users also play an active role. All this explains the appropriateness of applying the Vygotskian sociocultural approach for this study. This approach provides constructs derived from the original theory. In the present research work, two stand out: mediation and preference [33,34,35].
In the sociocultural theory, the term mediation refers to the use of instruments derived from human activity and their interaction with the environment, whether material or psychological. When talking about learning on YouTube, mediation refers to the specific actions users carry out for their learning. In our society, technologies are instruments that exercise a mediating function between YouTubers and consumers to fulfil the purposes of these agents. However, at the same time, they exercise a mediational role in the internal psychological processes that take place in knowledge acquisition.
On the other hand, the concept of preference [34,35] refers to the selection of the most suitable tool to achieve a certain purpose. In the case at hand, YouTube as a tool is a psychological instrument for learning. Users’ motivations and criteria for choosing Youtube are generally linked to the internal and subjective aspects of individuals. However, subjects’ preferences may be affected by their own competences to mediate between technological tools such as YouTube.
This approach and constructs derived from the sociocultural approach have been treated from a pedagogical perspective by various authors [34,35] and applied in educational research on the uses of information and communication technologies. In our case, our aim is to investigate and explore the mediating role of YouTube in the processes of self-learning and/or informal learning. This entails the preference of intellectual psychological resources in achieving effective learning, such as users’ critical ability to select and compare content influenced by visual aspects [36,37] as well as to transfer this knowledge into practice, evaluate it, and reflect on the process—in short, actions inherent to the self-regulation of learning [38,39,40].
The present research paper focuses on the exploration of the informal learning process on YouTube from the sociocultural approach, using the constructs of mediation and preference. Two key aspects will be addressed: first, we identify the reasons why YouTube users prefer this tool in achieving their goals; secondly, we examine mediating actions for self-regulated learning processes through YouTube. We also analyse the incidence of variables such as age, gender, and education for the two scientific objectives set out above.
4. Materials and Methods
4.1. Objectives
The main objective of this research paper is to explore, from a sociocultural approach, the motivations that lead to users’ preference of YouTube as a cultural tool for informal learning, as well as the cognitively mediating actions that users use for self-regulated learning. In addition, we determine the incidence of the variables of age, sex, and education in the two previously stated objectives. The hypotheses derived from these objectives are specified in the following terms. There are significant differences between age, sex, and education groups in terms of users’ motivations for preferring YouTube as an informal learning tool, as well as in the mediating actions that users use in self-regulated learning.
4.2. Sampling
The sample consisted of a total of 504 people. A non-probabilistic sampling was applied within the region of Andalusia (Spain). This sample size represents the population under study at a confidence level of 95% under the hypothesis of p = 50% and with a sampling error of ±4.37%. This sample is drawn from a total population of 5.2 million people in the age range of this study. This is an infinite population for sampling purposes. The population under study is made up of subjects belonging to different age groups, gender, and educational levels. Regarding age, the mean age of the sample was 36.42 years. The division of the sample was carried out in ten-year ranges except for the first group. Regarding education, the sample was segmented into two groups: university (49.6%) and non-university (50.4%), which were equally polarized. Frequent use of YouTube was observed in the sample. The characteristics of the research participants are summarized in Table 1.
4.3. Instrument and Data Collection Procedure
An ad hoc questionnaire was designed as an instrument for the collection of information. The scale was presented in Likert format with values ranging from 1 to 5 according to the evaluations given by the sample to the proposed statements: 1—very low; 2—low; 3—neutral; 4—high; and 5—very high. It had two elementary parts. The first part comprised (a) demographic information questions (4), in which data regarding age, gender, education, and frequency of YouTube use were collected. The latter served to confirm that the sample was familiar with the platform. The second part comprised (b) questions related to the study’s constructs (12): preference and mediating actions for self-regulated learning.
The questions were simply written, with the intention of facilitating their understanding by people of different ages, educational levels, and/or sociocultural backgrounds.
Given the nature of this research paper and the global context of the year 2020 (the COVID-19 pandemic), we decided to collect the data electronically through the Google Forms platform. The link to the questionnaire was sent through different networks and social networks which allowed the questionnaire to be accessible. The form included explanatory indications and comments. The anonymity of the participants was always guaranteed. In this investigation, the ethical standards applicable to educational research have been respected.
4.4. Data Analysis
The validity of the content of this instrument was carried out by experts in research and social networks. Subsequently, a pilot test was carried out with a group of 40 people with different characteristics. This allowed for an analysis of the internal consistency of the items that make up the scale by means of psychometric tests.
Psychometric, descriptive, and inferential analysis techniques were used for data analysis. First, validity and reliability analyses of the instruments were performed applying factor analysis and the Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (α), respectively. The Kaiser, Meyer, and Olkin sampling adequacy measure (KMO) had a value of 0.919, which was considered optimal and was close to the value 1. Barlett’s test of sphericity was significant (p = 0.000); therefore, the correlations between the set of items present in the questionnaire did not form an identity matrix and it was appropriate to perform the factor analysis. The principal component extraction method with orthogonal Varimax rotation was used, which yielded 2 factors explaining 59.65% of the total variance, with a total internal reliability of α = 0.90. Factors whose eigenvalue was greater than 1 were selected (λ = 1.36). Factor 1 explains 48.32% of the variance and factor 2 explains 11.33% of the variance.
Table 2 shows the results obtained from the factor analysis. The first factor has a reliability of α = 0.89. The second factor has a reliability value of α = 0.83. Each of the items presents a high saturation with respect to each of the identified factors. The first factor is consistent with the concept of preference (motivations for YouTube use) and the second with mediating cognitive actions necessary for self-regulation of learning.
The first factor, preference (Factor 1), is composed of items related to different motivations that can lead to the use of YouTube as an informal learning tool, including factors such as ease of use, users’ interest, or utility of the platform itself. The second factor, mediating actions for self-regulated learning (Factor 2), is composed of items that specify the mediating actions that should be self-regulated during the informal learning process while using YouTube, such as users’ ability to select videos, technological skills, etc.
For descriptive analysis, average values, standard deviations, and variances were recorded. In the case of inferential analysis, since there were ordinal levels of measurement and parametric assumptions of normality were not met, corroborated by the application of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov (K-S) test, with Lilliefors significance correction, nonparametric inferential Kruskal–Wallis H-test and Mann–Whitney U-test were applied. The sample size of this study (504 people) meets the recommendations of Tabachnick and Fidell [41] to use a sample of 300 people in order for the EFA results to be reliable and relatively robust.
The empirically obtained factors are consistent with the constructs derived from the sociocultural approach: Factor 1 groups items related to preference and factor 2 to mediation.
5. Results
After the data collection, a data analysis was performed using SPSS V27 and G*Power statistical software.
5.1. Preference of YouTube for Informal Learning
The descriptive statistical results regarding users’ preference for informal learning through YouTube are shown in Table 3. The sample prefers the usefulness and ease of use of YouTube for informal learning with means of M = 4.04 and M = 4.05, respectively. The rest of the items present an overall rating close to fourth on the scale, which implies their positive role in YouTube preference.
To test the hypothesis of the existence of significant differences between age groups in relation to users’ motivations for using YouTube for informal learning, we applied the Kruskal–Wallis non-parametric H-test, the results of which are shown in Table 4. To find the effect size, the squared epsilon coefficient is used (ε2).
Both items in Table 4 indicate that significant differences between age groups have a low effect size. A possible explanation for this result could be the comparison of groups of similar ages sharing similar results. The Kruskal–Wallis H-test shows that there are significant differences in all the groups in general, but it does not provide a comparison of all the groups with each other. To determine the groups with significant differences between them, we used the Mann–Whitney U-test by pairs, obtaining the groups with the highest degree of difference between them.
In this case, we observed that both items referred to in Table 5 present a significant difference between the younger age groups (14–19; 20–29 years) and older age group (50–60 years). The effect size is moderate with a value that reaches its maximum in the variable utility of YouTube for learning (p = 0.000; d = 0.52).
The data obtained in the present dimension show that YouTube is a generally valued resource for informal learning. Moreover, the age group between 50 and 60 years old is different from the age groups below 30 years old. This difference could be explained based on the normalization of technological procedures among young people.
Regarding training, no significant differences were found in any of the items that make up this dimension. The gender variable only shows differences in one item: utility of YouTube for learning (p = 0.028; d = 0.17).
5.2. Mediating Actions for Self-Regulated Learning on YouTube
Descriptive statistical results related to the mediating actions for self-regulated learning on YouTube are shown in Table 6. Those with the highest means are as follows: the ability to watch and follow the videos you use to learn on YouTube (M = 3.96) and the technological skills to handle YouTube (M = 3.85). These results translate into a higher generalized ability to manage YouTube through its main action and function: watching videos.
To test the hypothesis of the existence of significant differences between age groups in relation to the mediating actions for self-regulated informal learning through YouTube, we applied the Kruskal–Wallis H-test. Statistically significant results are shown in Table 7.
This test reveals a similar pattern to that of the previous dimension, in the sense that in all the items, significant differences are obtained between age groups. However, the effect size is low.
To identify the groups that were statistically different from each other, the Mann–Whitney U-test was applied as a post hoc test to find out the degree of real difference between age groups. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 8.
The statistical test reveals that the older age group presents significant differences in practically all the items of the dimension from at least two of the younger age groups. The item related to the technological skills needed to handle YouTube stands out, showing very marked differences with the rest of the groups. In general terms, age is an influential variable in this dimension.
With regard to the training variable, statistically significant differences are found in the items: technological skills to manage YouTube (p = 0.001; d = 0.32), ability to watch and follow the videos you use to learn on YouTube (p = 0.045; d = 0.20), and ability to reflect on the success or failure of putting into practice what you learn on YouTube (p = 0.001; d = 0.31) with the average rank being higher in people with university education. Regarding gender, two items show significant differences: technological skills to manage YouTube (p = 0.001; d = 0.27) and ability to select videos on YouTube to learn (p = 0.012; d = 0.21), with a higher rating in men (p = 0.012; d = 0.21).
6. Discussion and Conclusions
In accordance with the objectives set at the beginning of the research project and by analysing the results obtained, we have found that YouTube is a tool used for the acquisition of informal learning. Using the constructs belonging to the sociocultural approach proposed in this work as references as well as our findings, it is determined that the social network YouTube excels in the following factors: usefulness, entertainment, and ease of use. This fact converges with studies that have exposed the value its simplicity and practicality, using these as pedagogical dimensions [1,2].
On the other hand, regarding the mediating actions for self-regulated learning on YouTube, the results obtained indicate that these lie primarily in users’ ability to handle YouTube and ability to select educational videos, which involves discerning between valid and invalid content [36,37].
The results of the contrast analyses applied to the variables of age, gender, and education indicate that age is a significant variable in the constructs analysed. These results converge with those of studies that, for two decades, have assumed a division of society according to users’ ability to use technology, introducing the terms digital natives and digital immigrants [17]. For digital natives (born after 1990), technology is part of their culture and ecosystem [18], while immigrants have had to adapt to the technology and learn to take advantage of it, as in the case of YouTube. This sociocultural circumstance could explain the differences found.
More specifically, although the older population uses YouTube as a means of informal learning, there are statistically significant differences in both constructs. Regarding preference, a construct applied in previous research [33,34,35], age differences manifest, with a larger effect size, in the valuation of the usefulness of the platform and the ease of its use. Statistically significant differences between age groups are also found in the mediating actions proposed in this study for self-regulated learning on YouTube.
As mentioned, differences by age were found in the study through analysis. Even though in the theoretical framework, terms such as digital natives and digital immigrants appear in two specific groups, the results show a progressive decrease in both constructs as age increases. As this is a progressive process, the assumption of two exclusive and closed groups is difficult to accept without assessing other phases within the same process. This study suggests the possibility of the existence of a transition group—a group born before the rise of technology, but fully adapted to it. Their age is close to that of digital natives.
Following the model of previous works on YouTube and informal learning [12], the variables gender and education were studied. No significant differences were obtained for the gender variable. With respect to education, although no statistically significant differences were obtained between the university and non-university groups in the items referring to the mediating actions for self-regulated learning, a higher score was observed in the university group. It should be noted that YouTube is a tool used as an educational resource at higher levels [7,8,9].
To conclude, the constructs of preference and mediation, belonging to the sociocultural approach, were applied in this study to analyse the interaction of users with YouTube, constituting a new prism to observe technological interactions in the process of informal learning. Technological mediation in informal learning needs further study. It would be relevant to know, in a more precise way, the psychological and subjective processes that underlie the self-management of informal learning itself, as well as the variables that influence its success [11,12,21,28,37]. Therefore, the present study falls within lines of research that bet on the exploration of YouTube as an informal learning tool [11,30]. There are still few studies on this topic, and even fewer based on theoretical approaches of a sociocultural nature.
As for our limitations, the data collection carried out during the pandemic was remarkable. Therefore, it is difficult to know whether this situation had any influence on responses. As for our proposals for future studies, based on the results of the present research, two main lines of research are proposed in the context of sustainable education. Firstly, studies are needed on the technology gap between younger people and older people, which makes it difficult for older people to successfully use tools such as YouTube for informal learning. Are other sociocultural factors, in addition to age, involved in their unequal use? The authors suggest economic level, cultural background, or region of residence might be relevant. Second, studies are needed on the obstacles that prevent the correct use of YouTube as a medium for sustainable learning.
The relevance and significance of the variables studied indicate the value of YouTube as a means of informal learning and its potential for sustainable education.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, P.C.-B. and I.Q.-R.; methodology, P.C.-B. and I.Q.-R. software, I.Q.-R.; validation, P.C.-B. and I.Q.-R.; formal analysis, P.C.-B. and I.Q.-R.; investigation, P.C.-B. and I.Q.-R.; resources, P.C.-B. and I.Q.-R.; data curation, P.C.-B. and I.Q.-R.; writing—original draft preparation, P.C.-B. and I.Q.-R.; writing—review and editing, P.C.-B. and I.Q.-R.; visualization P.C.-B. and I.Q.-R.; supervision, P.C.-B. and I.Q.-R.; project administration P.C.-B.; funding acquisition, P.C.-B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This study is part of the “Technology and Education” project within the R & D project “Educational research and innovation network. Social changes and challenges for education in the digital era”. Funded by the Ministry of Science, Innovation, and Universities; Reference number: RED2018-102439-T.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
All the articles used in the document can be found in the main online database.
Conflicts of Interest
This article is submitted for the Special Issue “Digital Learning for Education Sustainability”, of which one of the authors of this paper, Pilar Colás-Bravo, is a guest editor. Therefore, the procedure established by MDPI of assigning another academic editor for the evaluation of this paper has been followed.
References
- Chintalapati, N.; Daruri, V.S.K. Examining the use of YouTube as a Learning Resource in higher education: Scale development and validation of TAM model. Telemat. Inform. 2017, 34, 853–860. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maziriri, E.T.; Gapa, P.; Chuchu, T. Student Perceptions towards the Use of YouTube as an Educational Tool for Learning and Tutorials. Int. J. Instr. 2020, 13, 119–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yaacob, Z.; Saad, N.H.M. Acceptance of YouTube as a Learning Platform during the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Moderating Effect of Subscription Status. Technol. Educ. Manag. J. 2020, 9, 1732–1739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colás-Bravo, P.; Conde-Jiménez, J.; Reyes-de-Cózar, S. Sustainability and digital teaching competence in higher education. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graham, L.; Berman, J.; Bellert, A. Sustainable Learning; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Burns, L.E.; Abbassi, E.; Qian, X.; Mecham, A.; Simeteys, P.; Mays, K.A. YouTube use among dental students for learning clinical procedures: A multi-institutional study. J. Dent. Educ. 2020, 84, 1151–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jackman, W.M. YouTube Usage in the University Classroom: An Argument for its Pedagogical Benefits. iJET 2019, 14, 157–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mahasneh, D.; Shoqirat, N.; Singh, C.; Hawks, M. “From the classroom to Dr. YouTube”: Nursing students’ experiences of learning and teaching styles in Jordan. Teach. Learn. Nurs. 2021, 16, 5–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez-Domingo, J.A.; Trujillo-Torres, J.M.; Rodríguez-Jiménez, C.; Berral-Ortiz, B.; Romero-Rodríguez, J.M. Análisis de los canales de YouTube como influencers del aprendizaje en Educación Primaria. Espacios 2021, 42, 130–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cayari, C. Participatory culture and informal music learning through video creation in the curriculum. Int. J. Community Music 2015, 8, 41–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lange, P.G. Informal learning on YouTube. In The International Encyclopedia of Media Literacy; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colás-Bravo, P.; Quintero-Rodríguez, I. YouTube como herramienta para el aprendizaje informal. Prof. Inf. 2022, 31, e310315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vizcaíno-Verdú, A.; Contreras-Pulido, P.; Guzmán-Franco, M.D. Lectura y aprendizaje informal en YouTube: El booktuber. Comunicar 2019, 59, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Fedele, M.; Aran-Ramspott, S.; Suau, J. Preferências e Práticas dos Pré-Adolescentes no YouTube: Resultados de um Estudo Realizado na Catalunha. Comun. E Soc. 2021, 39, 145–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Livingstone, S.; Sefton-Green, J. The Class. Living and Learning in the Digital Age; New York Press: New York, NY, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Colás, P.; González, T.; de-Pablos-Pons, J. Juventud y redes sociales: Motivaciones y usos preferentes. Comunicar 2013, 20, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Prensky, M. Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants. Horizon 2001, 9, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Aran Ramspott, S.; Fedele, M.; Tarragó, A. Funciones sociales de los youtubers y su influencia en la preadolescencia. Comunicar 2018, 26, 71–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, D.; Rueckert, D.; Kim, D.J.; Seo, D. Students’ perceptions and experiences of mobile learning. Lang. Learn. Technol. 2013, 17, 52–73. [Google Scholar]
- Mansour, E. Use of smartphone apps among library and information science students at South Valley University, Egypt. Int. J. Internet Educ. 2016, 15, 30–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hiromi, N. My Korean language teachers are YouTubers: Learning Korean via self-instruction. Comput. Assist. Lang. Learn. 2021, 1–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Berzosa, M. Youtubers y otras Especies. El Fenómeno que ha Cambiado la Manera de Entender los Contenidos Audiovisuales; Fundación Telefónica: Madrid, Spain, 2017; pp. 11–116. [Google Scholar]
- Pattier, D. Referentes educativos durante la pandemia de la COVID-19: El éxito de los EduTubers. Publicaciones 2021, 51, 533–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Putri, F.H.; Wijayanto, A.; Supriyadi, S. Strengths and Weaknesses of Self-Regulated Learning through YouTube: Indonesian EFL Students’ Perceptions. ELS J. Interdiscip. Stud. Humanit. 2020, 3, 531–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, D.Y.; Lehto, M.R. User acceptance of YouTube for procedural learning: An extension of the Technology Acceptance Model. Comput. Educ. 2013, 61, 193–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- June, S.; Yaacob, A.; Kheng, Y.K. Assessing the use of YouTube videos and interactive activities as a critical thinking stimulator for tertiary students: An action research. Int. Educ. Stud. 2014, 7, 56–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jill, M.D.; Wang, D.; Mattia, A. Are instructor generated YouTube videos effective in accounting classes? A study of student performance, engagement, motivation, and perception. J. Account. Educ. 2019, 47, 63–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shariff, S.B.M.; Shah, P.M. Pupils Perception of Using YouTube and Autonomous Learning. Creat. Educ. 2019, 10, 3509–3520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Bhatia, A. Interdiscursive performance in digital professions: The case of YouTube tutorials. J. Pragmat. 2018, 124, 106–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dubovi, I.; Tabak, I. An empirical analysis of knowledge co-construction in YouTube comments. Comput. Educ. 2020, 156, 103939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tan, E. Informal learning on YouTube: Exploring digital literacy in independent online learning. Learn. Media Technol. 2013, 38, 463–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, C.S.; Osop, H.B.; Goh, D.; Kelni, G. Making sense of comments on YouTube educational videos: A self-directed learning perspective. Online Inf. Rev. 2017, 41, 611–625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Colás-Bravo, M.P.; Conde Jiménez, J.; Reyes de Cózar, S. El desarrollo de la competencia digital docente desde un enfoque sociocultural. Comunicar 2019, 27, 21–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- De Pablos Pons, J.; Rebollo Catalán, M.A.; Aires, M.L.L. Para un Estudio de las Aportaciones de Mijail Bajtin a la Teoría Sociocultural una Aproximación Educativa. Rev. Educ. 1999, 320, 223–233. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/11441/43701 (accessed on 3 March 2023).
- Zinchenko, V.P. Vygotsky’s ideas about units for the analysis of mind. Cult. Commun. Cogn. Vygotskian Perspect. 1985, 35, 94–118. [Google Scholar]
- Rahmatika, R.; Yusuf, M.; Agung, L. The Effectiveness of Youtube as an Online Learning Media. J. Educ. Technol. 2021, 5, 152–158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Utz, S.; Wolfers, L.N. How-to videos on YouTube: The role of the instructor. Inf. Commun. Soc. 2020, 25, 959–974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anthonysamy, L.; Koo, A.C.; Hew, S.H. Self-regulated learning strategies in higher education: Fostering digital literacy for sustainable lifelong learning. Educ. Inf. Technol. 2020, 25, 2393–2414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dabbagh, N.; Kitsantas, A. Personal Learning Environments, social media, and self-regulated learning: A natural formula for connecting formal and informal learning. Internet High. Educ. 2012, 15, 3–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zimmerman, B.J. Investigating self-regulation and motivation: Historical background, methodological developments, and future prospects. Am. Educ. Res. J. 2008, 45, 166–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tabachnick, B.; Fidell, L. Using Multivariate Statistics; Harper & Row: New York, NY, USA, 2013; pp. 497–516. [Google Scholar]
Table 1.
Sample summary.
| Gender | Age | Education | Frequency of Use of YouTube |
|---|---|---|---|
| Female (65.9%) | 14–19 (10.7%) | University (49.6%) | Never (0%) |
| Male (34.1%) | 20–29 (29.4%) | Non-university (50.4%) | Almost never (5%) |
| 30–39 (15.3%) | Several times a month (13.6%) | ||
| 40–49 (20.6%) | Several times a week (39.3%) | ||
| 50–60 (24%) | Several times a day (42.1%) |
Source: authors.
Table 2.
Factorial analysis.
| Items | Factor 1 | Factor 2 |
|---|---|---|
| Utility of YouTube for learning | 0.753 | |
| Ease of use of YouTube for learning | 0.705 | |
| Entertainment when learning on YouTube | 0.785 | |
| Motivation when learning on YouTube | 0.800 | |
| Satisfaction when learning on YouTube | 0.769 | |
| Interest when learning on YouTube | 0.715 | |
| Technological skills to manage YouTube | 0.684 | |
| Ability to organize your own learning on YouTube | 0.717 | |
| Ability to select videos on YouTube for learning | 0.706 | |
| Ability to watch and follow the videos used to learn on YouTube | 0.754 | |
| Ability to evaluate the outcome of your learning on YouTube | 0.669 | |
| Ability to reflect on the success or failure of putting into practice what you learn on YouTube | 0.634 | |
| Variance explained (Total 59.65%) | 48.32% | 11.33% |
| Cronbach’s alpha (Total 0.90) | 0.89 | 0.83 |
Source: authors.
Table 3.
Preference of YouTube for informal learning.
| Items | M | S | S2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Utility of YouTube for learning | 4.04 | 0.804 | 0.647 |
| Ease of use of YouTube for learning | 4.05 | 0.811 | 0.657 |
| Entertainment when learning on YouTube | 4.03 | 0.806 | 0.649 |
| Motivation when learning on YouTube | 3.78 | 0.960 | 0.922 |
| Satisfaction when learning on YouTube | 3.95 | 0.836 | 0.700 |
| Interest when learning on YouTube | 3.76 | 0.974 | 0.948 |
Source: authors.
Table 4.
Kruskal–Wallis H-Test.
| Items | Age | M | σ | σ2 | X2 | Sig. | ε2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Utility of YouTube for learning | 14–19 | 4.02 | 0.879 | 0.773 | 16.631 | 0.002 | 0.03 |
| 20–29 | 4.22 | 0.688 | 0.474 | ||||
| 30–39 | 4.13 | 0.817 | 0.667 | ||||
| 40–49 | 3.97 | 0.794 | 0.630 | ||||
| 50–60 | 3.83 | 0.853 | 0.728 | ||||
| Ease of use of YouTube for learning | 14–19 | 4.20 | 0.762 | 0.580 | 13.330 | 0.010 | 0.03 |
| 20–29 | 4.13 | 0.794 | 0.630 | ||||
| 30–39 | 4.13 | 0.784 | 0.614 | ||||
| 40–49 | 4.08 | 0.821 | 0.674 | ||||
| 50–60 | 3.82 | 0.827 | 0.683 |
Source: authors.
Table 5.
Mann–Whitney U-test for comparison between groups.
| Items | Group 1 | Group 2 | Mann–Whitney U-Test | Z | Sig. | d |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Utility of YouTube for learning | 20–29 | 50–60 | 6705.000 | −3.822 | 0.000 | 0.52 |
| Ease of use of YouTube for learning | 14–19 20–29 | 50–60 50–60 | 2427.000 7178.000 | −2.925 −2.990 | 0.003 0.003 | 0.48 0.39 |
Source: authors.
Table 6.
Mediating actions for self-regulated learning on YouTube.
| Items | M | S | S2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Technological skills to manage YouTube | 3.85 | 0.952 | 0.906 |
| Ability to organize your own learning on YouTube | 3.57 | 1.007 | 1.013 |
| Ability to select videos on YouTube for learning | 3.68 | 0.932 | 0.869 |
| Ability to watch and follow the videos used to learn on YouTube | 3.96 | 0.823 | 0.678 |
| Ability to evaluate the outcome of your learning on YouTube | 3.71 | 0.884 | 0.782 |
| Ability to reflect on the success or failure of putting into practice what you learn on YouTube | 3.80 | 0.852 | 0.725 |
Source: authors.
Table 7.
Kruskal–Wallis H-test.
| Item | Age | M | σ | σ2 | X2 | Sig. | ε2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technological skills to manage YouTube | 14–19 | 4.09 | 1.014 | 1.029 | 74.198 | 0.000 | 0.15 |
| 20–29 | 4.19 | 0.819 | 0.671 | ||||
| 30–39 | 4.01 | 0.966 | 0.934 | ||||
| 40–49 | 3.80 | 0.885 | 0.784 | ||||
| 50–60 | 3.27 | 0.856 | 0.733 | ||||
| Ability to organize your own learning, time, and space on YouTube | 14–19 | 3.44 | 1.076 | 1.157 | 11.668 | 0.020 | 0.02 |
| 20–29 | 3.65 | 1.062 | 1.127 | ||||
| 30–39 | 3.75 | 0.962 | 0.925 | ||||
| 40–49 | 3.66 | 0.910 | 0.827 | ||||
| 50–60 | 3.32 | 0.977 | 0.954 | ||||
| Ability to select videos on YouTube for learning | 14–19 | 3.57 | 0.964 | 0.928 | 18.857 | 0.001 | 0.04 |
| 20–29 | 3.90 | 0.939 | 0.881 | ||||
| 30–39 | 3.77 | 0.944 | 0.892 | ||||
| 40–49 | 3.66 | 0.888 | 0.789 | ||||
| 50–60 | 3.43 | 0.883 | 0.780 | ||||
| Ability to watch and follow the videos used to learn on YouTube | 14–19 | 3.91 | 0.830 | 0.689 | 30.219 | 0.000 | 0.06 |
| 20–29 | 4.11 | 0.752 | 0.565 | ||||
| 30–39 | 4.13 | 0.784 | 0.614 | ||||
| 40–49 | 4.04 | 0.749 | 0.562 | ||||
| 50–60 | 3.60 | 0.890 | 0.791 | ||||
| Ability to reflect on the success or failure of putting into practice what you learn on YouTube | 14–19 | 3.80 | 0.786 | 0.618 | 18.752 | 0.000 | 0.04 |
| 20–29 | 3.91 | 0.746 | 0.557 | ||||
| 30–39 | 4.04 | 0.733 | 0.538 | ||||
| 40–49 | 3.80 | 0.840 | 0.706 | ||||
| 50–60 | 3.51 | 1.001 | 1.002 |
Source: authors.
Table 8.
Mann–Whitney U-test for group comparison.
| Items | Group 1 | Group 2 | Mann–Whitney U-Test | Z | Sig. | d |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Technological skills to manage YouTube | 14–19 | 50–60 | 1727.000 | −5.228 | 0.000 | 0.87 |
| 20–29 | 40–49 | 5748.500 | −3.641 | 0.000 | 0.33 | |
| 20–29 | 50–60 | 4048.500 | −8.101 | 0.000 | 1.09 | |
| 30–39 | 50–60 | 2693.000 | −5.248 | 0.000 | 0.81 | |
| Ability to organize your own learning, time, and space on YouTube | 20–29 | 50–60 | 7320.000 | −2.675 | 0.007 | 0.32 |
| 30–39 | 50–60 | 3619.500 | −2.765 | 0.006 | 0.44 | |
| Ability to select videos on YouTube for learning | 20–29 | 50–60 | 6427.500 | −4.179 | 0.000 | 0.53 |
| 30–39 | 30–39 | 3756.000 | −2.415 | 0.016 | 0.37 | |
| Ability to watch and follow the videos used to learn on YouTube | 14–19 | 50–60 | 2555.000 | −2.450 | 0.014 | 0.36 |
| 20–29 | 50–60 | 6083.000 | −4.179 | 0.000 | 0.62 | |
| 30–39 | 50–60 | 3147.500 | −4.062 | 0.000 | 0.63 | |
| Ability to reflect on the success or failure of putting into practice what you learn on YouTube | 20–29 | 50–60 | 6871.500 | −3.495 | 0.000 | 0.45 |
| 30–39 | 50–60 | 3284.500 | −3.672 | 0.000 | 0.60 |
Source: authors.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Colás-Bravo, P.; Quintero-Rodríguez, I. YouTube as a Digital Resource for Sustainable Education. Sustainability 2023, 15, 5687. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075687
AMA Style
Colás-Bravo P, Quintero-Rodríguez I. YouTube as a Digital Resource for Sustainable Education. Sustainability. 2023; 15(7):5687. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075687
Chicago/Turabian StyleColás-Bravo, Pilar, and Iván Quintero-Rodríguez. 2023. "YouTube as a Digital Resource for Sustainable Education" Sustainability 15, no. 7: 5687. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15075687
Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.
