As part of the team’s project, we chose to investigate YouTube as a digital educational platform, specifically focusing on the English with Emma channel from engVid. This channel provides free lessons on the English language and has millions of views making it an interesting example of learning a language online.
I’m interested in how accessible YouTube-based learning actually is for diverse learners.Videos like those on English with Emma appear inclusive: they’re free, they’re easy to find, and they cover useful content. But to me this kind of learning is passive — you watch, maybe take notes, or practice pronunciation, and then move on. For some learners, especially those who need interaction, repetition, or guided practice, this type of learning may not be enough. Also, I think you’d need to be really motivated to study and practice using these videos. That leaves me questioning whether just “being available” is the same as “being accessible,” and how platforms like YouTube can better support more active and inclusive forms of learning.
I’ve used YouTube countless times for learning — especially when trying to figure out tools like Photoshop or After Effects. While it’s easy to passively watch tutorials, I’ve found that I only really retain or apply what I’ve learned when I actively follow along, step by step.
This got me thinking: is passive watching really “accessible” learning? What happens when the platform makes it easy to disengage or multitask? As someone who learns better by doing, I’m curious about how these design choices include or exclude different types of learners. Also, the more relevant it is, the more I’m likely to retain the information.
I’d love to hear what others think. Have you used YouTube to learn something meaningful? Did it feel active or passive – and did it actually help you retain what you learned? I’m very interested in how other people relate to accessibility in such an informal, self-directed learning space, and what we think would make it better for everybody.
A movie called The Edge (1997) starred Anthony Hopkins as a billionaire who had an obsessive love of reading. He spent years filling his brain with all kinds of knowledge about the various things that interested him throughout his life. It was all theoretical knowledge; he had never put it into practice. He ended up stranded in the wilderness, where his survival relied upon his ability to recall his knowledge and put it to use. Things he had only ever read about needed to be applied to save his life. It’s a great film that might not reflect reality.
I use YouTube for entertainment, current events, and learning. I think YouTube is a great tool to supplement my reading, as a way to consume a different perspective or understand a concept from a different modality. I can read a couple of papers about sociocultural theory, then watch a few videos to give me a more informal, edutainment point of view.
One can use YouTube for learning to an extent, but it seems to be quite dependent on the subject domain. Dance choreography happens on the feet. Strength training happens under the barbell. Language happens in conversation. For what types of learning do you think YouTube is best suited? Do you think YouTubers’ use of the platform is influencing how the platform evolves?
Thanks, Stephen — I love the example from The Edge (now added to my watchlist!). That tension between theoretical knowledge and applied skill is such a good way to frame the limits of platforms like YouTube. I completely agree that the subject really matters — it seems most effective for concept exposure or review, but not always for skill-building without practice. Your question about YouTubers influencing the platform is a good one too — I think creators definitely shape expectations around pacing, tone, and even how “learning” gets packaged. Lots to unpack there! Thanks again for the great comment.
Excellent points, Marion. You’ve got an interesting line of inquiry you can pursue. To answer your question, I’ve used YouTube to learn many things, from working on my vehicles to developing technical skills and even enjoying academic podcasts on conventional and heterodox topics. An interesting thread you might be able to pull on is the relevance of feedback loops and reinforcement in learning a language. When you think about it, you can learn many things from reading a book without necessarily having interactive feedback. However, how effective is that in language learning? How does this support the learner’s development, and also to your point, who does this technology exclude?
Thanks, Chris! I really appreciate your thoughtful response. I hadn’t considered the connection between feedback loops and language learning, but you’re absolutely right — interaction and reinforcement feel especially critical for developing fluency. That’s a great point about books too; it’s a useful comparison for thinking about what’s missing (or assumed) in video-based learning. Definitely something I want to dig deeper into — especially around who’s left out when that kind of support isn’t built in. Thanks again for the insight!