A Preliminary Investigation of the Appropriateness of YouTube as an Informal Learning Platform for Pre-teens

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10473)

Abstract

The introduction of Web 2.0 technologies has provided an alternative environment for informal learning to take. This paper extends previous research by investigating the appropriateness of YouTube as an informal learning platform for pre-teens. A nethnographic approach was used to analyse two YouTube videos with their associated comments from one YouTube channel – “Grant Thompson - The King of Random”. The results were evaluated using parental guidelines for YouTube as proposed by Knorr [1]. The analysis has shown that learning has taken place in two instances: (1) learning-by-watching that turned into learning-by-doing when subscribers attempted to replicate the project and reported their success/failure, (2) peer-to-peer learning through discussions between different subscribers that furthered their understanding of the topic at hand. Factors that enhanced the learning experience was the self-directed interest in the topic and the fan base influence, which caused incidental learning. However, the risk associated with the informal learning environment created by YouTube that include that some projects are too dangerous for pre-teens to replicate on their own. However, the data showed that some subscribers were aware of the risk associated with these projects and admitted that they need consent from their parents. This paper contributes to literature by recommending YouTube as an informal learning platform for pre-teens under the supervision of parental vetting of the YouTube channel.

Keywords

YouTube Informal learning Pre-teen Digital literacy Web 2.0 Digital natives 

References

  1. 1.
    Knorr, C.: A Parent’s Ultimate Guide to YouTube. Commonsensemedia.org (2014). https://www.commonsensemedia.org/blog/a-parents-ultimate-guide-to-youtube#
  2. 2.
    Do, H.O.W., Learn, T., To, H.O.W., Them, T.: Digital natives: how do they learn? How to teach them? September 2011Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ferguson, R., Faulkner, D., Whitelock, D., Sheehy, K.: Pre-teens’ informal learning with ICT and Web 2.0. Technol. Pedagog. Educ., vol. 22, June 2015 (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Selwyn, N.: Web 2.0 applications as alternative environments for informal learning - a critical review. Paper for CERI-KERIS International Expert Meeting on ICT and Educational Performance, pp. 16–17 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Greenhow, C., Lewin, C.: Social media and education: reconceptualizing the boundaries of formal and informal learning. Learn. Media Technol. 41(1), 6–30 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tan, E.: Informal learning on YouTube: exploring digital literacy in independent online learning. Learn. Media Technol. 38(4), 463–477 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rogoff, B., Callanan, M., Gutiérrez, K.D., Erickson, F.: The organization of informal learning. Rev. Res. Educ. 40(March), 356–401 (2016)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Marsick, V.J., Watkins, K.E.: Informal and incidental learning. New Dir. Adult Contin. Educ. 2001(89), 25 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wattenhofer, M., Wattenhofer, R., Zhu, Z.: The YouTube social network. In: ICWSM (June 2012)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fortunelords.com: YouTube Statistics – 2017 (2017). https://fortunelords.com/youtube-statistics/. Accessed: 10 May 2017
  11. 11.
    Ofcome: Children and Parents: Media Use and Attitudes Report, October 2014Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kozinets, R.V.: The field behind the screen: using netnography for marketing research in online communities. J. Mark. Res. 39(1), 61–72 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Langer, R., Beckman, S.C.: Sensitive research topics: netnography revisited. Qual. Mark. Res. Int. J. 8(2), 189–203 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reitan, J.B.: Learning-by-watching as a concept and as a reason to choose professional higher education. In: International conference on Engineering and Product Design Education, September 2015Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Baker, R.: Examples of scaffolding and chunking in online and blended learning environments (2010). https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1608133. Accessed 7 Aug 2017
  16. 16.
    Lin, Y.-M., Lee, P.-C.: Informal learning: theory and applied. Int. J. Bus. Commer. 3(5), 127–134 (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gilakjani, A.P.: Visual, auditory, kinaesthetic learning styles and their impacts on english language teaching. J. Stud. Educ. 2(1), 104–113 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of InformaticsUniversity of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations