I’ve been mulling over structure quite a bit of late, not the one we put in lesson plans, but that kind we sense in a learning space. This all started during a conversation with Leon, a friend of mine, who shared with me a visual table that encapsulated symbolic binaries like order vs chaos, pencil vs paintbrush, science vs myth. They had even voted on where to place each item, and the results showed very homogenously in yellow cells.
‘Pencil,’ ‘uniform,’ and ‘research’ corresponded in our minds to Order, while ‘paintbrush,’ ‘fashion,’ and ‘communal’ were automatically associated with Chaos. For me, the most interesting part was contemplating these concepts in terms of platforms where learning happens like Youtube, for instance.
Emma’s channel Engish with Emma was one of the primary sources for our LRNT 526 project. Emma’s videos are clear and accessible which makes them highly liked, but after working through Leon’s framework, a question popped in my head: what’s the order/chaos spectrum of the learning happening in the videos?
I discovered that learning, in this case, sits mostly in the Order side. I decided to adapt Leon’s table to map the dimensions of Emma’s content. Everything from the visual tone and pacing to feedback and cultural framing are mostly congruent to institutional design norms: the cool-toned set design, one-font captions, a single instructor voice, and grammar lesson recitation in structured, rule-driven sentences. While professional and polished, it remains highly linear, rigidly controlled, and rather individualistic.
What the Chaos column allowed me to see is that most of Emma’s design choices are fairly polished and easy to digest, but they are quite rigid and mostly not inclusive. Aesthetic, participatory, or culturally diverse elements seemed limited. Even slight changes such as creating jump-links for learner choice or inviting viewer-contributed idioms would loosen the grip of control and introduce just enough ‘chaos’ to make room for co-creation.
| Dimension | Order (dominant in Emma’s current design) | Chaos (largely absent or implied) | Equity prompt (after Ahn, 2020) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Visual tone | Cool blue/grey set-design Static, centre-framed talking head Consistent lower-third text in one font White-board grammar rules | Warmer or varied colour grades Occasional scene changes… street interviews, learner cameos Mixed fonts, hand-drawn overlays, doodles Visual metaphors, storyboards, props from multiple cultures | Invite viewers to submit short clip “cameos” or visuals that Emma can splice in; credit contributors on screen |
| Narrative style | Linear Rule-first grammar demo Teacher as sole authority | Personal stories Learner example Improvisation Jokes | Add “story interludes” where Emma retells a viewer’s language anecdote |
| Pacing & control | Fixed video length Autoplay Recommendations decide next step | Flexible chapters Pause-and-choose pathways, for example: Pause here. If you want more practice with prepositions, skip to 4:12. If you’re ready for a quiz, jump to 7:05. | Embed on-screen choices (“jump to pronunciation practice… or vocabulary game”) |
| Interaction channel | Comments section only: Text Asynchronous | Live Q&A Live chat Peer duet video Co-creation boards | Schedule a monthly livestream where viewers teach Emma a phrase from their language |
| Assessment & feedback | Self-policed replay No built-in checks | Polls Quick reflective prompts Peer feedback loops | Insert one-click polls (“Did you practice aloud?”) and show results on screen next lesson I discovered that creators with the “Community” tab (usually available after 500+ subscribers) can post multiple-choice polls. These are separate from the video; they live in the Community feed, not inside the video itself. Viewers must navigate to the channel’s Community page to see or respond. |
| Cultural framing | “Standard” English examples Western references | Multilingual subtitles Idioms from viewers’ regions, for example, to compare/contrast | Crowd-source subtitles (shut down in 2020), but while YouTube no longer supports built-in community captions, creators can still crowd-source subtitles by sharing scripts and inviting volunteers to contribute translations. This opens up participation to learners worldwide and helps foster a sense of inclusion and shared ownership over the learning environment. |
Ahn (2020) suggests that designing learning experiences equitably begins with considering who comes in the door: who is present, whose voice is represented, and what types of learning are deemed worthwhile. Viewing through that lens, a tightly-crafted, uniform instructional video disguised as accessible content still lacks inclusion.
What could change? Within the scope of my chart introducing small concepts, they ranged from jump-links or chapters enabling “choose-your-own-path” moments to culturally inviting viewers to submit idioms, or even using polls and community-submitted video clips. These are small changes which don’t displace the frame but have potential to invite shared participation.
Fawns (2022) informs us that learning is not just content delivery… it’s a choreography of technology, context, and humanity. Currently, most EdTech providers, including YouTube, operate within a paradigm that prioritizes a high return on investment which values consistency, clickability, and charisma instead of collaboration, care, or creative risk.
As far as I am concerned, it is not about table flipping; it is more about table balancing. Rewarding only structure means silence for countless individuals who dwell and thrive in the liminal spaces.
References
Ahn, J. (2020). Designing for learning equity: The role of agency and power in learning experience design. Educational Technology Research and Development, 68(5), 2713–2731. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09785-0
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
Selwyn, N. (2010). Looking beyond learning: Notes towards the critical study of educational technology. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 26(1), 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2009.00338.x
Unit 3 Activity 1 –
This is an interesting perspective, Marion.
How does the rise of sludge content—companion videos that display unrelated clips alongside the primary content—challenge the idea that education sits firmly on the order side? Sludge content is new territory and while there is not yet much research about it, I saw it used in my classroom. In one instance, a group giving a presentation displayed gameplay of the mobile game Subway Surfers alongside their presentation. When asked about it, they simply said it was “for engagement.” I do not know how effective it was but I do know that I cannot recall the subject of their presentation.
How does the assessment of student work fit onto the order/chaos spectrum? I think of using a grading rubric used for assessing art or music.
In what ways should learning purposefully leverage chaos? How might chaos be embraced in technical learning like programming or high-stakes fields like neurosurgery?
Hello Stephen,
Thank you very much for this… I value your thought-provoking questions, particularly about how chaos could possibly be on the scene in ways I have not even considered. You are completely right that something like sludge content… that weird mixture of split attention and overstimulation… totally disrupts any tidy concept of learning as being “orderly.” I have not looked into that very much, but, like you, I have realized it, and your example illustrates quite well how engagement can be messy. It also makes me curious what we consider “learning,” and what sort of attention do we assume it needs to demand.
To clarify, I sourced my initial remarks from ‘English with Emma’, not the entirety of YouTube. My impressions were that Emma’s content sits neatly within The Order camp; her videos feature a set grammar structure, cool graphics, uniform pacing, and no actual input from learners. So when I constructed that table, I was contemplating what design defaults this particular channel reinforces. What could be different if there was a bit more chaos: active participation, non-linear storytelling, or cultural diversity?
Your assessment question is great as well. Creative education rubrics try to systematize the subjective, and these stem from such a strange blend of opposing forces. I didn’t think of incorporating this into my table, but it’s logical… even our learning tools exist on the spectrum.
Now, as to whether there can be chaos in programming or neurosurgery, part of me shrieks ‘absolutely not,’ but… mid-code debugging, adapting during surgery, collaborative problem-solving – those are all infinitely chaotic and disorderly. To me the answer is less about whether choosing chaos or order, but rather crafting environments where it is safe and purposeful to navigate through both.
Thanks again; I’m still pondering all of your questions!
PS I’m part of a team at Motorola that does programming, code, debugging etc. and believe me, it is NOT orderly. LOL
What an excellent and insightful analysis of English with Emma’s YouTube learning environment! I appreciated how you moved beyond a binary comparison framework and introduced a third dimension to how learning can be compared to polar extremes, scaffolded its complexity instead of one way or another, very well done!
Your analysis, along with Stephen’s, was complex and thought-provoking, especially in how you explored different content types and learning methodologies. In our critical inquiry into video-based learning, particularly through your team’s presentation on English with Emma, I interpreted the platform as deliberately low in cognitive load. This can make content easier to consume and more engaging, even if it doesn’t always support meaningful knowledge transfer due to its passive structure.
Cognitive Load Theory is especially relevant here. Wong et al. (2012) explain that transient information, such as animation, can outperform static graphics, making dynamic formats like video more effective for instruction. However, they also caution that longer videos can overload working memory. In the case of English with Emma, the combination of visuals and audio reduce the user’s available working memory faster than by themselves, I find myself wondering: which component is more important in this context, audio or video? While video is central to the platform, audio might play a more crucial role in this instruction.
Regardless, without opportunities to pause, reflect, engage, or apply knowledge, learners face a greater risk of cognitive overload. As you mentioned, the platform doesn’t seem to prioritize deep learning. Instead, it encourages longer videos, likely to increase ad revenue rather than support effective pedagogy. This makes video length a key variable, one that may push creators to prioritize monetization over educational value.
This is just one example of the many factors that affect learning on video-based platforms. Before this course, I never realized how complex these environments could be. I now wonder: If the combined length of multiple short videos equals the length of one long video, would the monetization be the same? Would creators be more likely to break content into shorter segments? I’ve noticed that ads appear more frequently when switching between videos, so do creators earn more from shorter videos, or is revenue based solely on total watch time? I have so many questions!
Wong, A., Leahy, W., Marcus, N., & Sweller, J. (2012). Cognitive load theory, the transient information effect and e-learning. Learning and Instruction, 22(6), 449–457. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.05.004
Hi Allie,
Thank you so much for your thoughtful reply to my post! Your comment had me nodding and furiously scribbling margin notes ( well… mentally, anyway). I love that you picked up on the whole Order/Chaos idea and saw the need for a third dimension. Honestly, I think we’re all inching toward some kind of pedagogical Venn diagram here … one that overlaps care, cognition, and creator intent.
I also really liked your reference to Cognitive Load Theory (Wong et al., 2012)… specifically the existence of transient information and working memory. It’s something I often think about when I’m creating training at work. The tension between what the platform needs (ad revenue) and what learners need (cognitive breathing room, anyone?) is so palpable. Perhaps Emma’s brevity of short-form videos helps cut that load, but as you rightly said, the absence of interactivity still leaves the onus on the learner to make it meaningful.
Thanks again for your insights and your questions;they’ve added layers to mine!
Cheers,
Marion