iTube, YouTube, WeTube: Social Media Videos in Chemistry

Article pubs.acs.org/jchemeduc

iTube, YouTube, WeTube: Social Media Videos in Chemistry Education and Outreach David K. Smith* Department of Chemistry, University of York, Heslington, York, YO10 5DD, United Kingdom ABSTRACT: Social media provide a unique arena in which chemists can communicate directly with an international audience from a wide range of backgrounds. In particular, YouTube offers a rich environment through which students of chemistry and members of the general public can be engaged, and chemophobia can be addressed. This article describes the development of a YouTube channel designed to inform and engage by (i) providing revision material for students of chemistry and (ii) reaching out to nonchemists and nontraditional learners through the application of chemistry in a real-world context. In addition to this educatorled approach (iTube), the active use of YouTube has been developed as an educational tool for undergraduate students. In a module on polymer chemistry, students could choose, instead of writing a magazine-style article, to make a YouTube video. The students making videos (YouTube) found it much more enjoyable than those who wrote articles and also gained further educational benefits: developing public engagement and presentation skills, enhancing their creativity, and even becoming empowered as global educators in their own right. The highly interactive nature of YouTube, in which users can comment, provides the audience with a voice, and as such, an online chemical community (WeTube) begins to spontaneously emerge. KEYWORDS: Public Understanding/Outreach, Polymer Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Internet/Web-Based Learning, Communication/Writing, First-Year Undergraduate/General, General Public, High School/Introductory Chemistry

■

INTRODUCTION Public outreach plays a vital role in maintaining the health of chemistry, ensuring that the wider public can engage with scientific advances and ethical issues, and hopefully limiting chemophobia.1 The power of the Internet increasingly enables scientists to communicate directly with members of wider society in their homes, without the need to engineer a formal meeting. The possibilities of this are manifold, as it effectively gives scientists active control over the media. Perhaps the most popular source of online media is YouTube. YouTube content is commonly shared across all social media platforms, including Twitter and Facebook, and can be easily accessed from all IT devices, including the smartphones that are transforming student learning.2 One of the key features of YouTube is the many ways in which users can stumble across interesting media serendipitously, providing it with great potential as an outreach tool. Recently, YouTube has been exploited by chemists, with perhaps the most influential example being the PeriodicVideos channel developed by Prof. Martyn Poliakoff in collaboration with film-maker Brady Haran.3 In addition to YouTube’s potential for outreach, it has recently been reported that it also has pedagogic potential for engaging large classes of chemistry students, by encouraging them to script YouTube videos and in some cases make them, with the creative process helping embed understanding of fundamental principles.4 Practical experiments have also been © XXXX American Chemical Society and Division of Chemical Education, Inc.

recorded and shared on social media Web sites and shown to positively contribute to student behavior and lab skills.5 The rapid spread of smartphones enables engagement with studentcreated video material to help the learning process.6 Beyond chemistry, there has been increasing focus on getting students to create multimedia materials as a way of enhancing learning.7 However, in general, the focus of these studies has been on student learning outcomes; there is also clearly significant scope to potentially use student-centered video learning to engage a much wider audience. This paper therefore reports an integrated YouTube project, starting with my personal use of YouTube as an education and outreach tool, extending this concept to student-centered learning by engaging undergraduates in making their own YouTube videos as an assessed part of their course. This approach enthuses students and helps develop their creativity and communication skills. Furthermore, they become online outreach pioneers in their own right: able to communicate directly with their own audiences. This project, summarized in Figure 1, was briefly mentioned in a commentary in 2011.8 This article provides full details and considers fully the impact on students and the wider public.

A

dx.doi.org/10.1021/ed400715s | J. Chem. Educ. XXXX, XXX, XXX−XXX

Journal of Chemical Education

Article

potential chemistry students but also, importantly, nonchemists who had come across the videos. I love your channel. I’m watching your tutorials at the moment and they’re covering a lot of the material I have to revise for my end of semester exams. Brilliant. (Irish Student) Great videos. I will be studying Chemistry at Leeds Uni in September and your videos were an inspiration to choose Chemistry. (School Student) Not a chemist, or in profession remotely connected...very interesting. (USA Viewer) YouTube was clearly enabling communication outside the usual channels of public engagement. I therefore decided to make videos about the important organic chemistry of some newsworthy molecules. In particular, I selected “legal high” drugs, such as mephedrone, naphyrone, and MDAI, widely featured in the news headlines, as at the time, they were evading drug regulation and being sold in commercial outlets.12 Discussion and debate in the media suggested that little was understood by the wider population about these drugs: some commentators assumed they were “natural” or “herbal” because of the way they were marketed (as “plant food”). I made clear that this family of drugs were just structural analogues of wellknown drugs, such as crystal meth, and that they should be approached by potential users in a similar manner. The videos presented basic organic chemistry in an unbiased, nonjudgmental manner. In particular, the video about mephedrone was one of the first reliable online sources of chemical information about the drug, and has gone on to be viewed >200,000 times, demonstrating the remarkable reach an organic chemistry video can have on YouTube. These videos received many comments: The most informative thing I’ve heard about Mephedrone...good, sound, no bulls**t advice. Brilliantly explained and far more informative than anything...in the printed press. Excellent information, and far better a deterrent than any ban, facts rather than press driven hysteria and idiot politicians ignoring science and reacting to catch votes. I therefore extended this approach to talk about other topical issues including the chemistry of codeine, organ transplantation, HIV treatments, antibiotic resistance, and Breaking Bad (Figure 2). Once again, these videos have been used by York Chemistry students, but also by the wider public. In these videos, the social and historical context behind the topic makes up ca. 40%, with more explicit scientific and chemical information making up the remaining 60%. As in any outreach activity, language is carefully chosen, and concepts are introduced in a simple, visual, logical story-telling manner. In some cases, the videos interpret results directly from the research literature (e.g., the video on MDAI); in others, information is from secondary sources such as review articles and online resources. In many cases, I discuss the chemistry in a unique way, which has not been done elsewhere online in an accessible way (such as racemic crystal meth in Breaking Bad or the fact that codeine is a prodrug of morphine). In total, to April 2014, these videos have been viewed around 400,000 times, and there are >1000 channel subscribers, >1000 likes, and >1000 comments. Table 1 shows the geographical distribution of major engagements. US and UK viewers dominate, but well over 150 territories are represented in total, demonstrating true global reach (not all data shown). On average, each viewer watches a video for 2:52 min. Obviously, some viewers are channel surfing, but average engagements

Figure 1. Schematic of the iTube, YouTube, WeTube project.

■

DEVELOPING A YOUTUBE CHANNEL: PROFESSORDAVEATYORK

Educational Rationale and Benefits

In 2009, reflecting on the success of the PeriodicVideos YouTube channel,9 which was in the process of making a video for each element, I decided that something similar for organic chemistry could be engaging and also educational for our undergraduate students to whom I was teaching a first year course on Introductory Organic Reactions and Mechanisms. I therefore made a series of videos dealing with the organic chemistry and “amazing molecules” that can be found in everyday life: the first video addressed the chemistry in a gin and tonic, telling the story of quinine as an antimalarial. These videos were followed with “tutorial videos”, exploring some of the fundamental organic chemistry behind the molecules in more detail, such as functional groups, stereochemistry, conformation, oxidation level, electronic effects, and curly arrow mechanisms. As such, these videos directly support first year organic chemistry, and are also relevant to 16−18 year old students in UK high schools. The videos were deliberately made in YouTube style, with no budget, no professional filmmaker or editor, and no special recording and editing equipment or software. This was done to try and minimize the distance between scientist and audience, and help dispel some stereotypes of the traditional scientist. The videos dealt with topics as diverse as the chemistry behind painkillers, curries, carbonated cola drinks, explosives, champagne, and influenza, a context-led approach which is well-known to stimulate students’ intrinsic motivation.8,10 These videos were collected together on my YouTube channel, ProfessorDaveatYork,11 and advertised to York undergraduates as learning support. Feedback collected via an online opt-in survey early in the project (in 2010, 34% response rate) indicated that most students had watched some of these videos (>85%). Of respondents, >90% rated the videos as interesting or extremely interesting and >70% rated them as useful or very useful for their studies (4 or 5 on a 1−5 scale). Students commented that they appreciated the contextual approach, and the provision of information in a different format to assist their revision and understanding. Outreach beyond the University

Over the months that followed, these videos began to reach significantly beyond our own students: nationally and internationally. They were apparently influencing chemists and B



Article

subtitled in Portuguese (by Dr. Luis Brudna, Universidade Federal do Pampa, who engaged me through YouTube); these subtitled videos dominate Brazilian viewing figures. Furthermore, engagement times with videos in Brazil are also >3 min. These observations suggest simple subtitling of videos is an effective way of engaging viewers who are not proficient in English. Importantly, the comments feature of YouTube enables a real dialogue with viewers, for example, if there are things viewers have not fully understood, want further information on, or disagree with. YouTube is a far more democratic mechanism for outreach than traditional lectures. It reaches individuals in their own homes, and provides them with a voice to interrogate the source of information and deepen their understanding. Undergraduates As Video Makers

Figure 2. “iTube”: Videos to illustrate (from top left, clockwise): (top left) the importance of molecular structure based on errors in a BBC TV show; (top right) the chemistry of transplantation, in the context of my husband, who had a double lung transplant; (bottom right) the chemistry of HIV treatments, and potential cures; (bottom left) the organic chemistry of (at the time) “legal high” drug mephedrone.

I decided that YouTube could be a powerful educational tool if employed in a more active manner with our undergraduates, moving beyond the instructor-led approach previously employed by most academic YouTube channel makers.3 Rather than just asking students to passively digest content, getting them to actively create content could enhance their communication skills, creativity, and evaluation of chemical principles in context: higher level skills according to Bloom’s taxonomy.13 Furthermore, given my own involvement with YouTube, I hoped students would see their efforts as part of a wider, integrated departmental whole to communicate chemistry. This approach was embedded as part of a first year unit on polymer chemistry, the remainder of which focuses assessment on the students’ understanding of the topic. Polymer chemistry is perfect for the YouTube treatment, as the fundamental principles are used in a vast range of applications in everyday life as well as future technologies, allowing a highly contextualized approach8,10 to be employed which can engage a wider audience. Since 2011, all of our first year students (ca. 170) follow an independent-learning course on polymers and, as part of their assessment, each student has the choice of either writing a magazine-style article (“traditional media”), or producing a YouTube video (“new media”). This choice allows students who do not wish to make videos to opt out: it would not be possible to force students to make videos and/or share them via social media.14 This approach has provided two different cohorts of students, the attitudes of which to video making versus article writing can be compared (see below). Each year about 20% of the students choose to make videos, and thus far around 100 videos have been made. This proportion varies somewhat from year to year, but no longer term trend has yet been identified. In their videos (or articles) the students present a contextualized aspect of polymer chemistry at a level which could be understood by a student aged 16−18 finishing high school education. As such, the primary learning outcomes of this assignment are to assimilate high-level technical information, break it down to essential concepts, and communicate it clearly and engagingly: vital skills for scientists. Suggested topics include subjects such as Polymers in Aviation, Polymers in Fashion, Polymers in Medicine, Polymer Recycling, etc. Many students also select their own topics to explore their own personal interests: such as Polymer Chemistry in the Mars Lander, or Polymers in Cooking. The assessment criteria for videos/articles are

Table 1. Geographical Distribution of Engagement with YouTube Videos

Territorya United States United Kingdom Germany Canada Australia Brazil Hungary Poland Russia Netherlands Austria Ireland France Romania Sweden Belgium Italy Spain New Zealand India Finland, Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey, Iceland, Jamaica, Bangladesh, Kenya, Uganda, Zambia

Number of Video Viewsa 114,137 113,621 13,713 13,408 12,700 12,431 9153 8414 8355 6461 6068 5362 4283 4235 3968 3015 2978 2691 2137 1988

Average Watching Time (min)a 2:52 3:16 2:26 3:09 3:26 3:17 1:00 1:32 0:57 2:39 1:54 3:22 2:13 1:50 2:44 2:17 1:41 2:35 3:17 2:31 All >3:00

Number of Subscribersa 240 536 40 50 45 60 4 13 12 24 18 17 11 11 11 10 14 9 7 15

a

Countries are listed in which >2000 video views have taken place or that have >10 subscribers or >3:00 min engagements with the videos. Data were collected on 02/04/2014.

such as this indicate that a significant number of viewers are watching large segments. Viewing time correlates to a good degree with levels of English in any given country. For most territories in which English is the first language average engagement is >3:00 min. In countries where levels of English are low, the average engagement is much shorter. The popularity of different videos (not shown) is similar in most territories, except Brazil, where some videos were

• Scientific Content and Accuracy (20%) C



Article

Figure 3. Student responses to survey questions presented as percentages.

• Clarity of Explanations (20%) • Graphic Quality of Presentation (20%) • Language Quality of Presentation (20%) • Evidence of Independent Reading/Research (10%) • Interest of Video to Target Audience (10%) To some extent, the first two criteria are tensioned against one another. Some students include too little science, but explain it clearly, while others include plenty of science but struggle to explain it: only the best students achieve a good balance. In terms of graphic quality, video making and editing skills are not directly assessed (as these are not explicitly taught in the module), but rather the appropriateness of the graphics in terms of illustrating the chemistry and helping tell the story. The “interest” of the video is currently judged by academic assessors, although it would be tempting to try and crowdsource this part of the mark. As yet, however, a fair or transparent way of doing this has not emerged. The videos are self-published on the students’ own YouTube channels, and they retain control of their own videos, but the videos are then linked together into playlists on my YouTube channel so they can be easily found and advertised.15 Many students show a great deal of creativity in making the videos, and go to great lengths to make them interesting and engaging, including capturing videos playing sports, going camping, and even piloting a plane to help illustrate key points. Students have used stop-motion animation, drawn their own cartoons, and demonstrated an ability to infuse their presentations with humor, enthusiasm, and accurate technical detail. Only very

rarely do students present inaccurate scientific information; more often it may be accurate but poorly explained or presented too superficially. Students making weaker videos are not asked to remove them: YouTube is a democratic medium, and students retain ownership of their own material. However, some students, for a variety of reasons, do choose to remove their videos from YouTube. Over the three years the course has run, the major change has been to shorten the maximum length of videos from 10 to 8 min. This restriction helps make the assignment more manageable in terms of both video making and assessment, and also makes the videos more engaging. Like word counts in report writing, many students find a time limit difficult, but putting across information in a detailed yet concise way is a key challenge in science communication. The developing data-bank of videos can clearly influence future video makers; this can be beneficial, for example the average quality of videos is improving over time. There may be concerns with plagiarism, but some topics are changed each year, and primarily, this is a communication exercise, not a knowledge test. Students must find their own communication “voice”, and any plagiarism from a pre-existing video is strikingly obvious. All students are briefed on plagiarism and also advised to avoid copyright material, although the online copyright landscape is shifting very fast. Some videos (ca. 5%) do infringe copyright, normally because music is included, which may lead to the video being blocked in some territories. In the UK, YouTube currently allows limited use of music with D



Article

Undergraduates As Global Educators

attribution and autolinking to iTunes. Students must reference all sources at the end of the video or in the video description, and this constitutes part of their assessment.

The survey asked whether students had engaged with videos made by other students, and if so how many. Almost all students taking the course had watched some of the YouTube videos, irrespective of whether they made a video or wrote an article: on average they watched about five. The students reported that watching these videos was educationally useful (Table 2). Some students said that as the videos were primarily

Student Attitudes to Video Making

In order to determine the impact of this project, an opt-in, online attitudinal survey of students who participated over the past three years was performed in late 2013. This survey differentiated between students who made YouTube videos and those who wrote articles in order to determine the impact of video making compared to a more traditional writing assignment. In addition to being the students’ first experience of video making, this course was also their first experience of article writing. It can be fairly assumed that any differences between survey groups do not simply arise from the novelty of one activity in comparison to the other. In total, 155 students (37% of ca. 420) responded, 47 had made videos (ca. 47%), and 108 had written articles (ca. 34%). In our department, we find online survey return rates >25% give reliable and representative feedback. The survey asked the same questions to video makers and article writers (Figure 3). Overall, the students were very positive about both video making and article writing. Interestingly, the students who had made videos were more positive about the experience in all dimensions than those who had written articles, finding it more useful (+0.12) and more effective for skills development (+0.10). These small differences are primarily due to a greater percentage of students feeling very strongly positive toward video making, and scoring it 5. Most strikingly, it was certain that video makers found the experience a lot more enjoyable (+0.93), evident across the whole data distribution (Figure 3). This was also clear in the free comments the students could make which indicated they found the idea highly engaging and enjoyable as it provided a different way of learning, an opportunity for skills development and an alternative assessment mechanism. It should, however, be noted that some students found making the video technically challenging and time-consuming. Students were then asked to compare their recall of the content compared to other Year 1 topics (Figure 3): a neutral response would be a score of 3.00. Interestingly, those making videos reported better recall of this material than other Year 1 topics (+0.38). They also reported better recall than those writing articles across the whole data distribution (average +0.34). Some students also commented on this in the feedback. It has previously been noted that, among school teachers, lack of confidence in video editing can act as a barrier to using YouTube to enhance their teaching.16 In the case of this project, such students can of course choose to write an article; clearly if all students were required to produce YouTube videos, hardware provision and software training would be required. Some students felt that this provision would have been beneficial. Unfortunately, such support was beyond the scope of the first year chemistry module in which this project was introduced. Interestingly, of the 108 students who wrote articles, 23 of them said that if they had the chance to take the module again, they would have chosen to make a video instead. It is evident from the survey that video making is definitely worth considering as a way of engaging students in popularization and explanation of science, and that in particular they find it to be more enjoyable than traditional approaches.

Table 2. Comparison of Student Responses to Survey Questions Responses by Question Number,a % Questions

1

2

3

4

5

Was watching student videos educationally useful? Was watching student videos enjoyable?

5

13

32

43

7

2

5

28

51

14

a

The scale for response ranges from 1 (not at all) to 5 (yes, a lot).

targeted at preuniversity students, they did not personally find them educationally useful, but could see that they would be very useful for school students. It was also clear that the students found watching the videos very enjoyable (Table 2). Importantly, beyond their use in York, these videos have developed lives of their own, engaging a wide range of people with chemical principles. There have also been numerous comments left on the student videos demonstrating their ongoing ability to engage: I teach A level chemistry and have shown your video [on biopolymers] to my classes. We have found our aerospace expert of the future! This is my favorite science video in the world [Polymers in Aerospace]. YouTube needs more of this, America needs more of this... [Polymers as Biomaterials] Great presentation!!! Have to agree we need to look after resources and consider the environment!!! WOW!! This is such a wonderful video!! I did not believe Chemistry is sooooooo important until I saw this. THUMBS UP!! [Polymers in High-Tech Fashion] Not only are our 18/19-year old undergraduates developing their skills in polymer chemistry, literature research, communication, and public engagement, but they are also therefore turning into global educators in their own right. As the students retain ownership of their videos, I am unable to probe global engagement in the same way I can for my own, but a number of students noted in feedback that their videos have had significant views globally. Other students have noted that the module helped prepare them for possible desired careers in chemical communication. The realization that they can engage others with chemistry is inspiring for the students, and great for the subject, which needs young and diverse voices to engage the next generation of potential chemical scientists. To April 2014, the student videos still available on YouTube have, in total, been viewed tens of thousands of times. They have over 300 likes, and around 100 comments have been made.

■

SUMMARY In summary, this paper reports a personal education and outreach YouTube project (iTube) that developed to involve undergraduate students as video makers (YouTube), enhancing their education, skills, and creativity. This project thus enabled E



Article

(9) Periodic Videos − YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/user/ periodicvideos (accessed May 2014). (10) Vaino, K.; Holbrook, J.; Rannikmae, M. Stimulating Students’ Intrinsic Motivation for Learning Chemistry through the use of Context-Based Learning Modules. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2012, 13, 410−419. (11) Professor Dave − YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/user/ ProfessorDaveatYork (accessed May 2014). (12) See for example: (a) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article1258384/Schools-mephedrone-Meow-Meow-ban-teenage-deaths.html (accessed May 2014). (b) http://www.theguardian.com/society/ 2010/mar/17/calls-ban-mephedrone-teenage-deaths (accessed May 2014). (13) Anderson, L. W, Kratwohl, D. R., Eds. A Taxonomy for Learning, Teaching, and Assessing: A Revision of Bloom’s Taxonomy of Educational Objectives; Longman: New York, 2001. (14) Rodriguez, J. E. Social Media Use in Higher Education: Key Areas to Consider for Educators. J. Online Learn. Teach. 2011, 7, 539− 550. (15) (a) Year 1 York Chemistry Students 2014 − YouTube. http:// www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJoTbJ2-ChDF55IBWC6-MabSIO4DlDcK (accessed May 2014). (b) Year 1 York Chemistry Students 2013 − YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJoTbJ2ChDG3nrhYS5deiOElwpl6G0Bs (accessed May 2014). (c) Year 1 York Chemistry Students 2012 − YouTube. http://www.youtube. com/playlist?list=PL376A45A670DD93F9 (accessed May 2014). (d) Year 1 York Chemistry Students 2011 − YouTube. http://www. youtube.com/playlist?list=PLD481DF3BDAA294DA (accessed May 2014). (16) Blonder, R.; Jonatan, M.; Bar-Dov, Z.; Benny, N.; Rap, S.; Sakhnini, S. Can You Tube It? Providing Chemistry Teachers with Technological Tools and Enhancing their Self-Efficacy Beliefs. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2013, 14, 269−285.

the evolution of a rich resource of videos on organic and polymer chemistry that have been widely accessed, leading to interactions with both chemists and nonchemists worldwide (WeTube). Our students have been turned into global educators in their own right, empowering them to see the potential of public engagement with science and to think about how best to communicate complex ideas to mixed audiences.

■

AUTHOR INFORMATION

Corresponding Author

*E-mail: [email protected]. Notes

The authors declare no competing financial interest.

■

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This manuscript is published in celebration of the 50th anniversary of the opening of the Department of Chemistry at University of York, UK. The department has always provided a supportive environment for educational innovation and this support was invaluable during the development of this project. Undergraduate students studying chemistry at York are thanked for the enthusiastic way in which they have engaged with this project and the high quality videos they have produced. The author notes that he has not monetized his YouTube account.

■

REFERENCES

(1) (a) Francl, M. How to Counteract Chemophobia. Nat. Chem. 2013, 5, 439−440. (b) Hartings, M. R.; Fahy, D. Communicating Chemistry for Public Engagement. Nat. Chem. 2011, 3, 674−677. (c) Billington, S.; Smith, R. B.; Karousos, N. G.; Cowham, E.; Davis, J. Covert Approaches to Countering Adult Chemophobia. J. Chem. Educ. 2008, 85, 379−380. (2) (a) Williams, A. J.; Pence, H. E.; Smart Phones, A. Powerful Tool in the Chemistry Classroom. J. Chem. Educ. 2011, 88, 683−686. (b) Pursell, D. P. Adapting to Student Learning Styles: Engaging Students with Cell Phones in Organic Chemistry Instruction. J. Chem. Educ. 2009, 86, 1219−1222. (3) (a) Haran, B.; Poliakoff, M. How to Measure the Impact of Chemistry on the Small Screen. Nat. Chem. 2011, 3, 180−182. (b) Haran, B.; Poliakoff, M. Editorial: Conveying the Excitement of Chemistry on YouTube. Angew. Chem., Int. Ed. 2013, 52, 8758−8759. (4) (a) Franz, A. K. Organic Chemistry YouTube Writing Assignment for Large Lecture Classes. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 497−501. (b) Lichter, J. Using YouTube as a Platform for Teaching and Learning Solubilty Rules. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 1133−1137. (5) Turkoguz, S. Learn to Teach Chemistry using Visual Media Tools. Chem. Educ. Res. Pract. 2012, 13, 401−409. (6) Benedict, L.; Pence, H. E. Teaching Chemistry Using StudentCreated Videos and PhotoBlogs Accessed with Smartphones and TwoDimensional Barcodes. J. Chem. Educ. 2012, 89, 492−496. (7) For a review see: (a) Snelson, C. YouTube Across the Disciplines: A Review of the Literature. J. Online Learn. Teach. 2011, 7, 159−169. For selected articles: (b) Everson, M.; Gundlach, E.; Miller, J. Social Media and the Introductory Statistics Course. Comput. Hum. Behav. 2013, 29, A69−A81. (c) Trier, J. J. Adolesc. Adult Literacy 2007, 50, 408−412. (d) Trier, J. Cool Engagements with YouTube: Part 2. J. Adolesc. Adult Literacy 2007, 50, 598−603. (e) Akagi, C. What? YouTube for Health Education. Am. J. Health Educ. 2008, 39, 58−60. (f) Ng, H. Z.; Hussain, R. M. R. Empowering Learners as the Owners of Feedback while YouTube-ing. Interact. Technol. Smart Educ. 2009, 6, 274−285. (g) Lehman, C. M.; DuFrene, D. D.; Lehman, M. W. YouTube Video Project: A ‘Cool’ Way to Learn Communication Ethics. Bus. Commun. Q. 2010, 73, 444−449. (8) Smith, D. K. From Crazy Chemists to Engaged Learners through Education. Nat. Chem. 2011, 3, 681−684. F


iTube, YouTube, WeTube: Social Media Videos in Chemistry

Recommend Documents