Yu-Ling Lee
Trinity Western University
Yu-Ling Lee is Assistant Professor in the School of Education at Trinity Western University. Email: YuLing.Lee@twu.ca
This article examines how a professor co-creates educational YouTube videos alongside students to form a community of inquiry (CoI). The CoI considers the cognitive, social, and teaching presences in the educational experiences of technologies. In this case, students and a professor co-create YouTube videos as a basis for interactivity and collaboration within the CoI in order to resolve teaching and learning challenges. The making, understanding, and implementation of videos is a blended learning approach that fosters competency development and pedagogical praxis. The multimodal nature of YouTube encourages the students to become active producers of their learning through their user-generated videos. This participatory culture is necessary for online, in-person, and blended teaching and learning realities. Practical implications of the co-making process and the video workflow are provided.
Cet article examine comment un professeur cocrée des vidéos YouTube éducatives avec des étudiants dans le contexte d’une communauté de recherche. Celle-ci prend en compte les présences cognitives, sociales et pédagogiques dans l’expérience éducative des technologies. Dans le cas qui fait l’objet de cet article, un professeur et des étudiants forment une communauté de recherche afin de cocréer des vidéos pour YouTube. Pour ce groupe, il s’agit d’une occasion d’interactivité et de collaboration en vue de résoudre des défis d’enseignement et d’apprentissage. Ainsi, la création, la compréhension et le téléchargement de vidéos constituent une instance d’apprentissage hybride qui favorise le développement de compétences spécifiques et l’application pédagogique de celles-ci. La nature multimodale de YouTube encourage les étudiants à participer activement à leur propre apprentissage au moyen des vidéos qu’ils cocréent. Cette culture participative est utile aux réalités de l’enseignement et de l’apprentissage, qu’elle se passe en ligne, en personne ou sous forme hybride. L’article explore aussi les implications pratiques du processus de cocréation et de la séquence de tâches requises pour créer une vidéo.
Keywords / Mots clés : blended learning, community of inquiry, educational videos, participatory culture, YouTube / apprentissage hybride, communauté de recherche, vidéos éducatives, culture participative, YouTube
This research is situated within a teacher educational program in Western Canada. A significant part of the program focuses on educational foundations, involving classes about educational philosophy and psychology, and principles of teaching and learning. In these foundational courses, student teachers are introduced to various educational theories. These student teachers encounter these theories in different ways within their studies: through readings, lectures, discussions, podcasts, data visualizations, and videos. Part of the pedagogical aim is to provide student teachers with a variety of course content and task them with developing their unique teacher identities in relation to the assemblage of theories. Because these courses are at the introductory level, a simple presentation of educational theories is required.
In order to address these teaching challenges, an educational professor proposed designing videos with students as active participants (Piredda et al., 2017). Working with two student research assistants, the professor transformed the traditional teacher-student relationship into a community of inquiry (CoI) (Garrison, 2017; Castellanos-Reyes, 2020). While CoI is often a framework through which to investigate online learning, it is presented here as a constructive pedagogical model that involves co-making and co-learning alongside students in the creation of educational videos as “production pedagogy” (de Castell & Jenson, 2006; Smythe et al., 2016). In the following sections, CoI is depicted as a generative space for co-creating a variety of videos through the YouTube platform. The CoI framework has proven particularly significant for collaborative relationships in teaching and learning that can be useful for the broader educative community.
YouTube has over 2 billion monthly logged-in users with 500+ hours of content uploaded every minute (YouTube, n.d.). In Canada, 70 percent of users rank YouTube as the first media space they access to learn things (Berkowitz, Davis, & Smith, 2019). YouTube is perhaps the most popular platform for informally acquiring new knowledge and skills. It is the second-largest search engine where users engage in a “media ecology of tutorials” (Morain & Swarts, 2012, p. 6) to learn about baking sourdough bread, defeating a video game, or fixing a leaky faucet. Among the casual learning and practical DIY channels, there is a growing number of academically inclined videos that provide meaningful content on any given topic. For example, at the time of writing, Khan Academy (n.d.), a video-based tutorial channel on a wide array of educational topics, had amassed over 7.16 million subscribers and 1.9 billion views since it began in 2006. Vsauce (n.d.), an early producer of learning-oriented content, has over 17.6 million subscribers and 2.2 billion views. Eddie Woo (n.d.), a high school math teacher in Australia, has over 1.44 million subscribers and more than 116 million total views. These statistics demonstrate a significant enthusiasm for learning, even among casual viewers of YouTube.
While there are many useful channels for learning within YouTube, one concern about the platform is the propensity for misinformation (Lee, 2018; Vraga & Tully, 2019). YouTube itself has identified ways to address these issues. As a social media platform, it acknowledges that it “need[s] to be careful to balance limiting the spread of potentially harmful misinformation, while allowing space for discussion of and education about sensitive and controversial topics” (Mohan, 2022). Despite purported programming and content alterations to address the challenge of misinformation, YouTube remains a corporation with its own financial and programmatic agenda. Similarly, popular YouTube education channels tend to be a “hybrid cultural-commercial space” (Lobato, 2016, p. 357) with business objectives tied to monetization. Even smaller-scale channels managed by education influencers have similar entrepreneurial goals (Carpenter et al., 2022). Perhaps a response that appropriately considers educational goals is for individual academics to share their research through self-created channels. Maynard (2021) proposes that “even talent-limited academics can nevertheless leverage YouTube as a platform for further mobilizing their knowledge for public good” (p. 1). With this ethos in mind, the creation of an academic YouTube channel could be beneficial, especially for student teachers who use the platform as a regular source of communication and self-directed learning (Peters & Romero, 2019).
Considering the usefulness of educational videos on YouTube, the CoI co-created a YouTube channel to disseminate introductory videos that serve as springboards into complex and nuanced discussions. Each video provides a short three-to-five-minute introduction to various educational theories: John Dewey and pragmatism, metacognition, Lev Vygotsky and the sociocultural theory of development, and Bloom’s taxonomy. The videos are used as part of a flipped classroom learning activity. Students watch the videos and complete the accompanying readings in preparation for classroom discussions the following week. The discussions also take on different modalities, enacted either online or in-person due to continued challenges of following university COVID-19 guidelines. The length of the videos does not match the typical conventions for video journals such as the Video Journal of Education and Pedagogy (VJEP). Rather, it draws inspiration from the Three Minute Thesis (Canadian Association for Graduate Studies, 2022), or the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council Storytellers challenge (n.d.), which ask postsecondary students to use video to showcase impactful research in up to three minutes. These videos act as a kind of scholarly work by “ensuring the inclusion of the traditional academic standards of scholarly discourse” (Burpee et al, 2015, p. 8).
There are two broad frameworks that inform this research: maker education and inquiry-based learning. Maker education has been commonly associated with STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) fields. Its primary approach denotes education as “making, through the use of tinkering, play, design processes, and the prioritization of digital technologies” (Hsu et al., 2017; Jin, 2021). This is particularly evident in makerspaces where maker activities are introduced for teaching and learning (Keune & Peppler, 2019). These spaces can be situated in-person, such as in a library, or found online. The purpose is to create a space so that students can become makers who explore their learning via processes of design, prototyping, creating, and reflection. Within this making framework, there is an associated maker pedagogy that conceptualizes both teachers and learners as makers of ideas and things. According to Bullock and Sator (2015):
Maker pedagogy is an approach that utilizes the principles of ethical hacking (i.e., deconstructing existing technology for the purpose of creating knowledge), adapting (i.e., the freedom to use a technology for new purposes), designing (i.e., selecting components and ideas to solve problems), and creating (i.e., archiving contextual knowledge obtained through engaging in the process of making, as well as the actual tangible products) as part of an overall way of working with those interested in learning about science and technology. (pp. 76-77)
Plourde (2019) proposes a “making together” through cross-disciplinary collaboration, using an architectural project as a site for communication. Brennan (2021) recommends that scientists consider using DIY videos to improve science communication and engagement. These ideals of making together through a DIY ethos contribute to a co-making pedagogical practice. Along with a prioritization of making, this kind of pedagogy promotes inquiry-based learning. Inquiry as an educational framework problematizes traditional notions of education as unhelpful modes of knowledge transmission and suggests a holistic change to inquiry-based engagement. Inquiry as an educational/theoretical framework is conceptualized from constructivist learning theorists, such as Dewey (1938), Vygotsky (1962), and Freire (1984). Inquiry-based learning involves actively engaged teachers and learners in processes of questioning and reflection. It begins with a problem, question, or challenge that is based on one’s own self-inquiry, resulting in a natural pursuit of knowledge. Inquiry-based teaching has led to significant learning gains when contrasted with control groups drawing on traditional learning models (Furtak et al., 2012).
Lipman (1991) expands on inquiry-based learning and theorizes the classroom as a type of community of inquiry (CoI) comprised of “a group of individuals who collaboratively engage in purposeful critical discourse and reflection to construct personal meaning and confirm mutual understanding” (Garrison & Akyol, 2013, p. 106). Members of a CoI participate in collective processes that involve collaboration, connection, reflection, and problem-solving. This CoI framework has been expanded and adopted for considerations in educational technologies (Garrison, 2010), with educational experiences characterized as the intersection of three presences: cognitive, teaching, and social presence. Presence, in this framework, is a “sense of identity created through purposeful and open communication” (Garrison, 2016, p. 70). All teaching and learning activities can be situated into one of these presences in order to support inquiry-based learning. In particular, CoI conceptualizes inquiry-based teaching and learning through the model on the left (see Figure 1).
In Figure 1, the three presences are positioned as conceptual domains in relation to one another. Each presence focuses on a particular engagement: goals and direction, participants, or content. Through these different engagements, multiple categories are identified with resulting measurement indicators and applications. Accurate measurement and evaluation of the presences provide educators with a method to identify levels of presence activity (Arbaugh et al., 2008; Yang & Su, 2021).
Cognitive presence is the extent to which any given community of inquiry is able to create meaning through sustained communication. Garrison et al. (2000) established cognitive presence using a practical inquiry model that included a triggering event, exploration, integration, and resolution. The aim was to create meaningful learning tasks that appropriately engaged students in each step of the inquiry model. Students encounter the initial triggering event that evokes a sense of cognitive dissonance. The students then explore different ideas and sources of information to discern and understand their initial experience. Synthesizing their understanding is accomplished through integration which potentially leads to ideation of new concepts. A final resolution denotes the application of new concepts to the original learning challenge.
Social presence is the capacity of each individual person in the community of inquiry to present their real selves to one another (Rourke et al., 2001). This capacity is established in collaboration between instructors and students through the expression of emotion, using open communication and group cohesion. These social and emotional characteristics express respect and mutual awareness of the other person, potentially developing a sense of group identity within an open communicative framework. Because social cues such as body language are removed or muted through an online or hybrid medium, the social presence prioritizes other shared dynamics, such as group cohesion via collaborative group inquiry.
Teaching presence is the pedagogical direction of cognitive and social processes for the purpose of realizing meaningful educational learning outcomes (Anderson et al., 2001). This presence promotes design and organization, facilitation, and direct instruction within the learning environment. Design and organization considers the instructional management by setting the curriculum, assessment, and other planned educational outcomes. Facilitation focuses on the educational experience, discerning how the students are learning via active participation and construction of their knowledge. Direct instruction addresses the content and student understanding of the educational knowledge. These three presences within the CoI framework are appropriate for gauging the pedagogical aims in co-creating the YouTube videos. In this context, CoI allows the discernment of educational experience for the participating student research assistants.
In the effort to create YouTube tutorial videos, the professor worked with two students who served as research assistants (one is a student teacher, and the other is a media student with an interest in education). There was a previous professorial relationship with the student teacher, and no prior relationship with the media student. Both were recruited via typical employment processes at the university. Although experience in creating videos was preferred, it was not required for this project. Instead, the significance was found in establishing a CoI through the co-designing of videos and discerning the pedagogical relationship therein. The priority was to establish a collaborative workflow (see Table 1), so that the collective design decisions could inform the creation of these videos.
Based on the group members’ personal experience, longer videos were viewed as less effective for student learning (see also Costley, Hughes, & Lange, 2017). The CoI decided that succinct tutorial-style videos less than five minutes long were the ideal format. In this initial phase, the group discussed the importance of each particular theory and how it affects the educational discourse. For example, one video on John Dewey emphasized his role in the development of pragmatism and in the progressive movement in education. The CoI examined and debated Dewey’s impact on the local educational system. This initial discussion served as a generative space where ideas were collectively formulated for the video.
Following this initial discussion, the crux of the video co-creation process began as a loose script with narration. The professor wrote out a three-to-five-minute script that provided a broad overview of the theory, highlighting specific research and quotations that were significant for teaching and learning. Another necessary feature of the video was the emphasis on theory in connection to practice—an illustration of educational praxis. This script was narrated using an Audio-Technica ATR2100x-USB microphone and recorded onto a computer. The audio narration was edited using Adobe Audition and required additional modifications by the students as needed. Once the audio was recorded, it was shared with the students in an online file along with a set of prompts. Often, this is a negotiated process where the professor writes out brief instructions about each segment of the video and the students craft possible videos or images alongside the narration. Most of the design and video segments were either filmed by the CoI, made in software, or found using royalty-free and open-license images and videos shared by other content creators. The students ultimately had creative liberty in the design of the videos with an understanding that they were involved in an iterative cycle with continued discussions at each point of the co-making process.
After the students created a first iteration of the video, the content and design were discussed. The video was viewed together or separately and changes were proposed, resulting in alterations of either images or videoclips. For example, after watching a first draft of a video about metacognition, the professor noted that the text at the beginning was too small and disappeared too quickly. These issues were collectively flagged and fixed for the second version of the video. Often, there is more consideration taken about whether the educational praxis of the video is compelling for student teachers. Collectively, the CoI discussed whether the application of the educational theory could engage potential viewers in a meaningful way. If needed, the script or narration was edited to better convey the value of the educational theory. In the end, the CoI completed the iterative co-making processes nearly three times per video (Derry et al., 2010). By version three or four, the CoI was typically satisfied with the quality, and the professor uploaded the final video onto YouTube.
This section provides an example of the collaborative and creative communication process (Eriksson & Eriksson, 2019; Maynard, 2021; Piredda et al., 2017) centered around the development of a video on Bloom’s taxonomies. Below, a script is included, divided into sections, and paired with matching screenshots designed by the students. Additionally, the instructions are distilled from the CoI group discussion which resulted in action steps for the students to edit specific moments in each video.
Script: Benjamin Bloom was an educational psychological best known for his taxonomy, a popular framework for categorizing educational goals. He was interested in this research because he witnessed a widespread use of rote learning—learning that was just attainment of knowledge, and only retained in order to pass tests. Instead, Bloom advocated for mastery learning: “Education must be increasingly concerned about the fullest development of all children and youth, and it will be the responsibility of the schools to seek learning conditions which will enable each individual to reach the highest level of learning possible” (Bloom et al., 1971, p. 6).
Script: Bloom is best known for his cognitive domain taxonomy, yet there are three different and interrelated taxonomies: the cognitive domain taxonomy, the affective domain taxonomy, and the psychomotor domain taxonomy. Bloom was interested in developing educational goals that could be organized and ordered according to their complexity, beginning with simpler objectives, and building towards more complex ones.
Script: For the cognitive domain, the simplest level is “remembering,” involving facts, recalling basic concepts. Second, there is the level of “understanding or comprehension,” discerning how one can explain ideas or concepts. Third is “application,” applying knowledge to new or different situations. Fourth, there is “analysis,” drawing connections between different ideas. Fifth is “evaluation,” reflecting on knowledge and making judgments. Last is “creation,” producing new or original work.
Script: The cognitive domain is followed by the affective domain that has to do with emotions, which is especially important for working well with others. Again, this taxonomy begins with the simplest level at “receiving,” which involves learning to pay attention and remaining open to the experience. Second, “responding” entails willingly participating and replying. Third, “valuing” is the recognition that something is worth doing. Fourth, “organizing” prioritizes values and resolves conflicts between them based on a set of values. Fifth, “characterizing” is bringing together ideas, beliefs, and attitudes in a coherent value system.
Script: The final domain, psychomotor, is related to the acquisition of physical or practical skills. Again, we begin with the simplest level, “reflex movements,” where one responds to stimuli. Second, “fundamental movements” entails building on reflexes. Third, “perceptual abilities” addresses skills related to bodily movements, senses, or coordination abilities. Fourth is the development of “physical abilities.” Fifth is “skilled movements,” which involves practice, especially for games, sports, or the arts. Last, “non-discursive communication” has to do with expressive movements and gestures for creative and artistic endeavours such as ballet.
Script: For educators, Bloom teaches us that learning is holistic and multidimensional, and there can be plans for intentional growth in specific domain areas. For example, for any lesson, teachers can begin by discerning the cognitive entry level of students. After establishing the student level as, say, understanding or comprehension, a differentiated pedagogy can be used to help the student at the appropriate cognitive level. Second, considering the affective entry behaviour of the student—say, responding versus organizing—would allow teachers to cultivate social and emotional learning by using appropriate motivating interventions and feedback. The final consideration with the psychomotor taxonomy has to do with allowing teachers to think about how to adapt teaching and learning resources to the individual needs and interests of the student.
Script: These taxonomies provide an excellent basis for a developmental learning framework and setting of objectives to be used in planning, teaching, and assessment activities. I hope you enjoyed this short summary of Benjamin Bloom’s taxonomies. Thanks for watching.
The previous section showcased one iteration of the workflow for a single video about Bloom’s taxonomies. For all videos, the workflow follows the same cycle of production as seen in Figure 9. Adapted from Nolan-Grant (2019), this figure illustrates the iterative cycle of production for each co-made video. This cycle superimposes the co-making workflow of production, discussion, and video content onto the three CoI presences. The video production is at the intersection of teaching and cognitive presences, discussion is at the crossing of social and cognitive presences, and video edits are in between social and teaching presences. While most of the video ideation begins with discussion, a new video may begin at any point in this iterative cycle.
As the cycle continues for each video iteration, the CoI presences further hybridize and the types of presences amalgamate into an integrated whole. For example, while discussion is situated at the intersection of social and cognitive presences, the iterative video work involves active discussion through email and in-person conversation about the necessary edits for production. Regarding teaching presence, there are pedagogical concerns about constructive supervision, building an understanding of educational theories, and troubleshooting the students’ use of technologies. Caskurlu et al. (2020) observe that teaching presence promotes “students’ perceived learning and satisfaction in fully online courses” (p. 9), and these students have articulated similar sentiments in the co-making of videos. In many ways, the students have technical skills beyond the capacity of the professor. Therefore, prioritizing teaching presence and social presence is accomplished through fostering affective expression, which is the “participants’ abilities to express their personalities in virtual environments” (Day et al., 2013, p. 397). The students had freedom to express themselves in the design of the video which evoked a sense of affective expression, which in turn nurtured social presence. As students share initial drafts of the video, teaching and social presence prioritize the expression of their work through care and support.
The co-creation allows further engagement with the video content due to the students’ “responsibilities as part of a community of inquiry” (Costley, Hughes, & Lange, 2017, p. 201). This collegiality is effective for learning, as several studies (e.g., Guo et al., 2021, and Galikyan & Admiraal, 2019) suggest that student cognitive presence has a positive influence on learning tasks. For the CoI, the co-making process through the video workflow cycle produces engagement with all aspects of cognitive presence. Perhaps this connection to cognitive presence is due, in part, to the sense of group cohesion around the shared purpose of designing videos. The CoI is collegial and generous with each member and works toward the learning objective of video co-creation. Even minor concerns such as the font size of a heading or color of an object can contribute to a collaborative discourse with the common purpose of promoting social presence. All the pedagogical and technical concerns connect to the CoI framework in Table 2, which includes signifiers and details of the project dynamics along with accompanying readings for reference.
This study presented a detailed exemplar of the co-making video processes based on a CoI framework. It described how the CoI framework helps shape the video workflow cycle, with considerations for the cognitive, social, and teaching presences. Co-making learning tasks were enacted as an educational experience for designing with technologies. Within the CoI, the students demonstrated critical thinking, felt like they rightly belonged in the group, and addressed design challenges in a collaborative way. The group learned meaningfully from the educational theories, working through CoI methodologies towards the design of videos. The CoI framework provided “the security and guidance for thinking collaboratively—a place where personal meaning is put into the public arena for critical consideration” (Garrison, 2016, p. 54). Creating YouTube videos for communicating educational theories allowed this particular CoI to collaborate through tasks of making and tinkering in an iterative cycle. CoI as a model reflects the dynamics of the group and posting the video onto YouTube results in a public work that is useful for students as well as the broader educative community.
Anderson, Terry, Rourke, Liam, Garrison, D. Randy, & Archer, Walter. (2001). Assessing teaching presence in a computer conferencing context. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 5(2), 1–17.
Arbaugh, J. B., Cleveland-Innes, Martha, Diaz, Sebastian R., Garrison, D. Randy, Ice, Philip, Richardson, Jennifer C., & Swan, Karen P. (2008). Developing a community of inquiry instrument: Testing a measure of the community of inquiry framework using a multi-institutional sample. Internet and Higher Education, 11(3–4), 133–136.
Berkowitz, Irene S., Davis, Charles H., & Smith, Hanako. (2019). Watchtime Canada: How YouTube connects creators & consumers. Toronto: Ryerson University. URL: https://sites.google.com/view/watchtime-2019 [June 18, 2022].
Bloom, Benjamin S., Hastings, J. Thomas, & Madaus, George F. (1971). Handbook on formative and summative evaluation of student learning. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Brennan, Eric B. (2021). Why should scientists be on YouTube? It’s all about bamboo, oil, and ice cream. Frontiers in Communication, 6. doi:10.3389/fcomm.2021.586297
Bullock, Shawn Michael, & Sator, Andrea J. (2015). Maker pedagogy and science teacher education. Journal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies, 13(1), 60–87.
Burpee, K. Jane, Glushko, Bobby, Goddard, Lisa, Kehoe, Inba, & Moore, Patricia. (2015). Outside the four corners: Exploring non-traditional scholarly communication. Scholarly and Research Communication, 6(2). doi:10.22230/src.2015v6n2a224
Canadian Association for Graduate Studies. (2022). The three-minute thesis (3MT®) in Canada. URL: https://cags.ca/3mt-2/ [June 18, 2022].
Carpenter, Jeffrey P., Shelton, Catharyn C., & Schroeder, Stephanie E. (2022). The education influencer: A new player in the educator professional landscape. Journal of Research on Technology in Education. doi:10.1080/15391523.2022.2030267
Caskurlu, Secil, Maeda, Yukiko, Richardson, Jennifer C., & Lv, Jing. (2020). A meta-analysis addressing the relationship between teaching presence and students’ satisfaction and learning. Computers and Education, 157, 1–16.
Castellanos-Reyes, Daniela. (2020). Twenty years of the community of inquiry framework. TechTrends, 65, 557–560.
Costley, Jamie, Hughes, Christopher, & Lange, Christopher. (2017) The effects of instructional design on student engagement with video lectures at cyber universities. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 16, 189–207. doi:10.28945/3728
Day, Scott L., Bogle, Leonard, Swan, Karen, Matthews, Daniel, & Boles, Emily. (2013). Improving student learning in a fully online teacher leadership program: A design-based approach. In Tina L. Heafner, Richard Hartshorne, & Teresa Petty (eds). Teacher education programs and online learning tools: Innovations in teacher preparation (pp. 392–416). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
de Castell, Suzanne, & Jenson, Jennifer. (2006). No place like home: Sexuality, community, and identity among street-involved “queer and questioning” youth. McGill Journal of Education, 41, 226–248.
Derry, Sharon J., Pea, Roy D., Barron, Brigid, Engle, Randi A., Erickson, Frederick, Goldman, Ricki, Hall, Rogers, Koschmann, Timothy, Lemke, Jay L., Sherin, Miriam Gamoran, & Sherin, Bruce L. (2010). Conducting video research in the learning sciences: Guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19(1), 3–53.
Dewey, John. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Collier Books.
Eddie Woo. (n.d.). Home [YouTube channel]. URL: https://www.youtube.com/misterwootube [June 18, 2022].
Eriksson, Erik, & Eriksson, Yvonne. (2019). Live-action communication design: A technical how-to video case study. Technical Communication Quarterly, 28(1), 69–91. doi:10.1080/10572252.2018.1528388
Freire, Paulo. (1984) Pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum Publishing Company.
Furtak, Erin Marie, Seidel, Tina, Iverson, Heidi, & Briggs, Derek C. (2012). Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of inquiry-based science teaching: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 82, 300–329.
Galikyan, Irene, & Admiraal, Wilfried. (2019). Students’ engagement in asynchronous online discussion: The relationship between cognitive presence, learner prominence, and academic performance. The Internet and Higher Education, 43.
Garrison, D. Randy. (2016). Thinking collaboratively: Learning in a community of inquiry. New York, NY: Routledge.
Garrison, D. Randy. (2017). E-learning in the 21st century: A community of inquiry framework for research and practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
Garrison, D. Randy & Akyol, Zehra. (2013). The community of inquiry theoretical framework. In Michael Grahame Moore (ed.). Handbook of distance education (pp. 104–120). New York, NY: Routledge.
Garrison, D. Randy, Anderson, Terry, & Archer, Walter. (2000). Critical inquiry in a text-based environment: Computer conferencing in higher education. The Internet and Higher Education, 2(2-3), 87–105.
Garrison, D. Randy, Anderson, Terry, & Archer, Walter. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1-2), 5–9.
Guo, Pengyue, Saab, Nadira, Wu, Lin, & Admiraal, Wilfried. (2021). The community of inquiry perspective on students’ social presence, cognitive presence, and academic performance in online project-based learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 37(5), 1479–1493. doi:10.1111/jcal.12586
Hsu, Yu-Chang, Baldwin, Sally, & Ching, Yu-Hui. (2017). Learning through making and maker education. TechTrends, 61(6), 589–594.
Jin, Yi. (2021). Play, design, create, fail, teach, and repeat: A design case of designing a maker education course for preservice teachers. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 12(1), 77–100. doi:10.14434/ijdl.v12i1.25857
Keune, Anna, & Peppler, Kylie. (2019). Materials-to-develop-with: The making of a makerspace. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 280–293.
Khan Academy. (n.d.). Home [YouTube channel]. URL: https://www.youtube.com/user/khanacademy [June 18, 2022].
Lee, Nicole M. (2018). Fake news, phishing, and fraud: A call for research on digital media literacy education beyond the classroom. Communication in Education, 67, 460–466.
Lipman, Matthew. (1991). Thinking in education. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Liu, Yuliang. (2019). Using reflections and questioning to engage and challenge online graduate learners in education. Research and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning, 14(3).
Lobato, Ramon. (2016). The cultural logic of digital intermediaries: YouTube multichannel networks. Convergence, 22(4), 348–360.
Maier, Anja, Eckert, Claudia M., & Clarkson, P. John. (2021). Factors influencing communication in collaborative design. Journal of Engineering Design, 32(12), 671–702.
Maynard, Andrew D. (2021). How to succeed as an academic on YouTube. Frontiers in Communication, 5. doi:10.3389/fcomm.2020.572181
Morain, Matt, & Swarts, Jason. (2012). YouTutorial: A framework for assessing instructional online video. Technical Communication Quarterly, 21(1), 6–24.
Moran, Neal. (2022, February 17). Inside responsibility: What’s next on our misinfo efforts. YouTube. URL: https://blog.youtube/inside-youtube/inside-responsibility-whats-next-on-our-misinfo-efforts/ [June 18, 2022].
Parrish, Christopher W., Guffey, Sarah K., Williams, David S., Estis, Julie M., & Lewis, Drew. (2021). Fostering cognitive presence, social presence and teaching presence with integrated online/team-based learning. TechTrends, 65, 473–484.
Peters, Mitchell, & Romero, Marc. (2019). Lifelong learning ecologies in online higher education: Students’ engagement in the continuum between formal and informal learning. British Journal of Education Technology, 50, 1729–1743.
Piredda, Francesca, Bertolotti, Elisa, & Venditti, Simona. (2017). Masters of ceremonies. A design approach to participatory video. The Design Journal, 20, S3340–S3350.
Plourde, Marie-Claude. (2019). Dissolving disciplinary boundaries in “making together”: A recall of the boundary-object methodological power. Scholarly and Research Communication, 10(1), 1–16.
Rothman, Naomi B., & Magee, Joe C. (2016). Affective expressions in groups and inferences about members’ relational well-being: The effects of socially engaging and disengaging emotions. Cognition and Emotion, 30(1), 150–166.
Rourke, Liam, Anderson, Terry, Garrison, D. Randy, & Archer, Walter. (2001). Assessing social presence in asynchronous, text-based computer conferencing. Journal of Distance Education, 14(3), 51–70. URL: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/58774853.pdf [June 18, 2022].
Sanders, Kyle, & Lokey-Vega, Anissa. (2020). K-12 community of inquiry: A case study of the applicability of the community of inquiry framework in the K-12 online learning environment. Journal of Online Learning Research, 6(1), 35–56. URL: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1254070.pdf [June 18, 2022].
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. (n.d.). The storytellers. URL: https://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/society-societe/storytellers-jai_une_histoire_a_raconter/index-eng.aspx [June 18, 2022].
Smythe, Suzanne, Toohey, Kelleen, & Dagenais, Diane. (2016). Video making, production pedagogies, and educational policy. Educational Policy, 30(5), 740–770.
Vraga, Emily K., & Tully, Melissa. (2019). Engaging with the other side: Using news media literacy messages to reduce selective exposure and avoidance. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 16, 77–86.
Vsauce. (n.d.). Home [YouTube channel]. URL: https://www.youtube.com/user/vsauce [June 18, 2022].
Vygotsky, Lev S. (1962) Thought and language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Yang, Hongwei, & Su, Jian. (2021). A construct revalidation of the community of inquiry survey: Empirical evidence for a general factor under a bifactor structure. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 22(4), 22–40.
YouTube. (n.d.). YouTube for Press. URL: https://blog.youtube/press/ [June 18, 2022].
Lee, Yu-Ling. (2022). Co-Creating Educational YouTube Videos as a Community of Inquiry. Scholarly and Research Communication, 13(2), 15 pp. doi:10.22230/src.2022v13n2a407
© 2022 Yu-Ling Lee. CC BY-NC-ND