(❁´◡`❁)
Addressing my team’s issues over the last two weeks has made me consider the dimensions of the word “access” in digital learning. Fundamentally, YouTube is one of the most freely open platforms in the world… no logins, no paywalls, and videos on every conceivable topic in almost limitless quantities. However, in contrast to what I previously thought, accessing something does not mean the same thing as access… or even more differently, inclusion.
Our focus has been analyzing English with Emma, a YouTube channel aimed at English language learners. The content is well organized, easy to follow, and delivered with grace. However, after looking through various motivating factors, the role of algorithms, learner autonomy, and the difference between passive and active engagement, it’s obvious this kind of “open” platform is not without significant constraints.
Emma’s videos, for instance, are both comprehensible and useful, but they make some assumptions… such as the learner being motivated, knowing how to navigate the platform, and taking the initiative to review, apply, or supplement what they are watching. As Fawns (2022) states, learning does not happen in a vacuum… rather, it is shaped by values, context, and assumptions that are baked into both content and platform. On YouTube, there are also no prompts to reflect, no structured feedback, no built-in check for understanding. The learner is left to transform content into knowledge… or not.
The picture is further nuanced by considering who might be excluded. Other groups exploring the digital divide, UDL, and language accessibility have shown that learners with lower digital literacy, less reliable internet access, or differing linguistic needs may struggle more to engage than others. Even platforms that seem to have good intentions can reinforce inequities when they presume openness is the same as equity (Sriprakash et al., 2024).
I’m still thinking about some of these questions. Are the absence of feedback, scaffolding, and attention to learner variability enough to consider a platform accessible? And when we are being algorithmically guided in invisible ways, what does learner agency actually look like?
These are certainly not simple questions… but I’m pleased that they’re coming to light. As we move into the final stages of our inquiry, I’m no longer focused on whether YouTube “works” as an educational tool… but rather who it works for, under what conditions, and at what cost.
References
Fawns, T. (2022). An entangled pedagogy: Looking beyond the pedagogy…technology dichotomy. Postdigital Science and Education, 4, 711–728. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-022-00302-7
Sriprakash, A., Williamson, B., Facer, K., Pykett, J., & Valladares Celis, C. (2024). Sociodigital futures of education: Reparations, sovereignty, care, and democratisation. Oxford Review of Education. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2024.2348459
Hey Marion,
I love the combination of our two groups’ ideas here!
Within YouTube, creators have the ability when uploading to either allow translation, closed captioning, and transcription or not. Although YouTube is open and accessible for most learners around the world, creators have the ability to limit this. There is also the additional layer that these tools often take additional bandwidth and/or data, so if people have limited internet or mobile access, they may not be able to afford these supports.
Cheers,
Lauren
Hi Lauren,
I totally agree with you… YouTube seems open on the surface, but there’s so much more going on under the hood. Something I’ve been thinking about lately is how platforms like YouTube lean heavily into “Order”… polished scripts, static visuals, one-way delivery. But if creators tapped into a bit more “Chaos” (in a good way!), it could open up way more accessibility. Like adding chapter links, learner-submitted idioms, little polls… even prompts that let viewers choose what they want to do next. It’s not just about subtitles… it’s about making learners feel like they’re part of it, not just watching from the outside.
Thanks for sparking the thought… it connected nicely to a framework I’ve been working with.
Cheers!
Marion