757831

research-article20182018
SGOXXX10.1177/2158244018757831SAGE OpenKeskin

Article

SAGE Open

What Do YouTube Videos Say

January-March 2018: 1­–5
© The Author(s) 2018
DOI: 10.1177/2158244018757831
https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018757831

About Public Education? journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo

Burhanettin Keskin1

Abstract
In this study, YouTube videos concerning public education were identified and evaluated. The researcher typed the term
public education into the YouTube search bar and then analyzed the first 60 videos provided by the site. Two coders (the
researcher included) independently coded the videos as either negative, neutral, or positive in light of the following question:
“Is public education portrayed in this video in a negative, neutral, or positive manner?” The theory of Internet information
gatekeepers and the theory of social construction of reality provided the theoretical framework for the study, and the results
were discussed through the lenses provided by these theories.

Keywords
content analysis, perception of public education, YouTube, the theory of Internet information gatekeepers, the theory of
social construction of reality, critical literacy

Introduction and the purpose of education. The nature of YouTube videos

Public education has long been a lively debate topic both in
public and in academic spheres. With the invention of the
Internet, the debate on public education has become even
bigger. The Internet has become more than just a platform to
obtain information or make purchases; it has become an
“interactive and participatory” arena (Freeman & Chapman,
2007) in which lively debates take place. One of the most
visited websites in the world is YouTube, which started in
2005.
YouTube allows billions of people to discover, watch and share
originally-created videos. YouTube provides a forum for people
to connect, inform, and inspire others across the globe and acts
as a distribution platform for original content creators and
advertisers large and small. (YouTube, 2016)
While YouTube has become a significant vehicle for rehears-
ing public discussions (Burgess & Green, 2013), it has not
always been the case. The first video was uploaded on
YouTube by one of the YouTube founders, Jawed Karim, on
Saturday, April 23, 2005. This video’s title was “Me at the
zoo,” Mr. Karim simply talked about the elephants in the zoo
by saying, “All right, so here we are in front of the elephants,
the cool thing about these guys is that they have really, really,
really long, umm, trunks and that’s, that’s cool.” This 18-sec-
ond video now has more than 45 million views and over 350
thousand comments. Even though YouTube started with a
frivolous video, it now covers a vast range of topics, some of
which deal with serious matters such as medical practices
changed along with its motto, from “Your Digital Repository,”
to “Broadcast Yourself” (Burgess & Green, 2013). The par-
ticipatory aspect of YouTube enabled its content to be
expanded. In its participatory culture, the users are invited to
actively participate in the discussion, which increases the
existing content and creates new ones (Jenkins, 2006). For
cultural studies theorists, the value of the bottom-up partici-
pation and popular participation seldom lies in the substance
of the participation but in the idea of democratic participa-
tion (Burgess & Green, 2013). Due to the popularity of
YouTube in social media, people are increasingly watching
videos that are not professional media production. As a
dynamic platform for democratic participation, YouTube is
mostly filled with amateur videos made by people who are
not in the TV or movie industries. This online platform pro-
vides a venue for lively expression of emotional and social
experiences, including current sociocultural politics
(Strangelove, 2010).
Theoretical Framework
To understand the role of YouTube in social discourse, the
theory of social construction of reality (Berger & Luckmann,
1
The University of Mississippi, University, MS, USA
Corresponding Author:
Burhanettin Keskin, Department of Teacher Education, The University of
Mississippi, University, MS 38677, USA.
Email: bkeskin@olemiss.edu

Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of
the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 SAGE Open
1991) and the theory of Internet information gatekeepers
(Laidlaw, 2010) were utilized. Both theories provide a ben-
eficial theoretical framework for this current study. According
to the Internet information gatekeepers theory, the Internet
gatekeepers take part in shaping the discussion in society by
controlling the flow of information via selection and inhibi-
tion (Laidlaw, 2010). The Internet gatekeepers select which
content is to be delivered for the purpose of shaping the per-
ceptions of others and which content is to be eliminated or
pushed aside for the purpose of inhibiting access. Through
delivery, elimination, and inhibition process, the Internet
gatekeepers affect the democratic discourse in a society.
YouTube engages in this gatekeeping activity when it ranks,
promotes, adds, and deletes videos. The perceptions of the
YouTube viewers is influenced when certain videos are
ranked higher than others providing high visibility for such
videos.
Another way the discourse in a society could be explained
is with the theory of social construction of reality, which
states that individuals construct reality based on collective
interactions (Berger & Luckmann, 1991). Human reality is,
according to this theory, beyond the person’s immediate time
and daily-isolated circumstances. It involves an “intersubjec-
tive” world in which the person engages with others whose
realities are not identical to his or her. While there is an inter-
action between the meaning that belongs to the individual
and the one that belongs to others, there is a continuous pro-
cess of generating a shared meaning about reality among the
members of the society. Therefore, this theory posits, reality
is socially constructed, rather than a result of the isolated
meaning-making of an individual. This does not mean that
reality is totally divorced from the immediate physical envi-
ronment that the person is in (Berger & Luckmann, 1991;
Peoples & Vaughan-Williams, 2015); still, the socially con-
structed realities powerfully influence what an individual
accepts as knowledge.
When applying this theory to help us better understand
the role of social media, more specifically the role of dis-
course that takes place on YouTube, one should consider
how the interactions on YouTube shape people’s perceptions.
Because of the prevalent power of media in modern society,
the perception of any social group or concept is heavily
dependent on how it is portrayed in the media, such as
YouTube. Ideas about public education are not just limited to
one’s personal experiences. Such ideas are now heavily
influenced by certain debates that take place on media, more
specifically on YouTube, as the largest and most popular
video sharing/watching platform.
Academic and professional journals contain very few
articles dealing specifically with YouTube videos and educa-
tion. Most of those mentioned in studies are medical in
nature. A very limited number of articles examined education
in terms of the social science context. For instance, Tan and
Pearce (2011) examined the benefits and shortcomings of
using YouTube videos in the classroom setting, for teaching
introductory sociology. Jeff Young (2011) discussed some
popular negative videos on YouTube about the value of
higher education. Even though the debate about public edu-
cation on YouTube is very lively, there is no research exam-
ining the videos about public education. Due to its significant
role in democratic discourse, examining YouTube videos is a
worthwhile effort for understanding the multifaceted discus-
sion regarding public education.
It is valuable to find out what YouTube videos say about
public education, when YouTube videos are not only watched
but also promoted in the name of innovative practices in pub-
lic school settings. Many teachers not only post YouTube
videos of their teaching but also assign instructional YouTube
videos as assignment (such as the videos posted by the Khan
Academy). This current research identifies and analyzes the
ways public education is portrayed on YouTube.
Method
Studying YouTube has its unique challenges. As noted by
Burgess and Green (2013), YouTube is an unsteady platform
in which constant change is the norm. YouTube is a very
lively platform; videos added and removed in a speedy man-
ner and the ranking of the videos keep changing. Because of
this, it is hard to make sense of the main culture of YouTube
(if there is any; Burgess & Green, 2013). The ever changing
nature of YouTube makes it difficult to study it.
In this content analysis, a similar method used by Rittberg,
Dissanayake, and Katz (2015) was utilized. The term public
education was typed in the YouTube search engine on May
31, 2016, at 10:26 a.m. Central Time and about 8,200,000
videos found. The first three pages (60 videos) of the search
results were analyzed independently by two coders. Three
aspects of the videos were examined: the title, the thumbnail
image, and the content. With regard to the title and the con-
tent of the videos, coders (the researcher included) indepen-
dently coded the videos as either negative, neutral, or positive
in light of the following question: “Is public education por-
trayed in this video in a negative, neutral, or positive man-
ner?” With regard to the thumbnail image aspect, the
following question guided the coding: “Does this image
evoke a negative, neutral, or positive feeling?” A third coder
was introduced when there was a disagreement between the
two coders.
Results
In the first three pages of the search results, there were 60
videos. Out of 60 videos, 59 were evaluated because one
repeated video was not included in the final data set. There
were coding disagreements between the first rater and sec-
ond rater for nine of the 59 videos. For these nine videos, a
third coder’s opinion was obtained. Based on the third cod-
er’s opinion, the coding was decided and the final coding set
was generated. The initial interrater reliability, determined
Keskin 3

by computing Cohen’s (1960) kappa coefficient, was 0.80

for the content of the videos, 0.86 for the cover (thumbnail)
image of the videos, and 0.89 for the title of the videos. The
following information provided by Landis and Koch (1977)
shows the interpretation of kappa values:

Kappa statistics Strength of agreement

<0.00 Poor
0.00-0.20 Slight
0.21-0.40 Fair
0.41-0.60 Moderate
0.61-0.80 Substantial
0.81-1.00 Almost Perfect (p. 165).

The content coding of the YouTube videos on public educa- Figure 1.  The content coding of the YouTube videos on public
tion is reported in Figure 1, the cover image coding of the education.
YouTube videos on public education is reported in Figure 2,
and the title coding of the YouTube videos on public educa-
tion is reported in the Figure 3.

Discussion
The results show that a majority of the selected videos
examined in this study presented public education nega-
tively. A substantial amount of these videos contained
blunt attacks on public education. The following video
titles provide clues about the nature of these attacks:
“Planned Failure: Why No Amount of Money Can Fix
Public Education,” “Abolish Public Education: Privatize
All Schools,” “How Public Education Controls Your
Perception—Mind Control,” “The Truth About Public
Education! (A Systemic Destruction of Human Ingenuity),”
“Public ‘Education’ Has Become Indoctrination and
Distraction,” “Against Public Education,” “Common Figure 2.  The cover image coding of the YouTube videos on
Core: UN Agenda 21, Communitarianism & The Public public education.
Education Plan to Destroy America.” Many of these vid-
eos claim that public education is a tool created by the
government and is used to indoctrinate people. Such vid-
eos also emphasized that there is no hope for public edu-
cation due to its inherently evil and malevolent design that
destroys the country and human creativity. The severe
negativity of such videos continues to pose barriers for
teachers and public education overall.
It is worth noting that because of its appeal to young gen-
erations, YouTube has a significant and unique effect on
epistemology of youth. I argue that YouTube affects the stu-
dents’ epistemology through personalization of the experi-
ence. Consider a brief discussion of epistemology.
Epistemology deals with “the relationship between knower
and the known” and “is concerned with what counts as legiti-
mate knowledge and what can be known. ‘Epistemology’ is
defined not only as ‘theories of knowledge’ but also as ‘theo-
ries of knowledge production’” (Letherby, 2003, p. 5). Figure 3.  The title coding of the YouTube videos on public
Alistair Campbell (2006) claimed it is really not the case that education.
4 SAGE Open
the type of knowledge obtained through empirical/experi-
mental evidence is placed on the top of the hierarchy of
knowledge, and the type of knowledge obtained from per-
sonal experiences is placed the bottom of the hierarchy.
Therefore, misinformation present in YouTube videos about
public education might be perceived as legitimate knowl-
edge for some viewers. This is because watching videos
might appear more personal than reading articles written
about this subject. Because of this personal nature of videos,
information (or misinformation, for that matter) provided by
such videos might be considered facts rather than opinions
by some viewers. It should also be noted that because of the
widespread use of YouTube in school systems, YouTube
might be seen as semilegitimate source of information for
many students. If a person is exposed to YouTube as a legiti-
mate informational platform in a school setting, videos that
one might encounter outside of school settings might be per-
ceived by some as credible. The theory of the social con-
struction of reality is helpful in explaining this point. This
theory poses a question as to whether there is a reality inde-
pendent from us. It claims that subjective experiences
become internalized and become “objective facts” con-
structed through social interactions. Thus, a social construc-
tivist would state, our understanding of the world around us
arises from the social interactions (Jones, 2013), not from
isolated, independent facts. Subjective experiences or expla-
nations of the factual world are eventually forgotten with
time and become “objective facts” (Jones, 2013). In this cur-
rent research study, such experiences or interactions refer to
virtual interactions that take place on YouTube. People not
only watch videos but also have a chance to participate in a
public debate regarding the specific video content. These vir-
tual interactions play a role in the formation of the reality in
society with regard to public education. It appears that fre-
quently repeated, heavily one-sided, opinionated ideas over-
whelm the public discourse about public education and then
it is plausible to suggest that such biased ideas are treated as
if they are “facts” rather than opinions. Therefore, YouTube
is not only an Internet platform to share and watch videos but
also possibly the one of the most influential platforms in
which young generation’s epistemology is being shaped.
Patricia Lange reminds us that anybody who is doubtful
about the importance of online expression and the power of
social media on public discourse should remember the role
of social media in the U.S. presidential elections of 2008 and
2012 (Lange, 2014).
The logic behind YouTube’s selection and elimination of
the videos on the search results or on the suggested video list
is a mystery. A quick look at any search result on YouTube
will reveal that the number of hits does not always accurately
reflect the highest ranking videos. Therefore, it is not clear
why certain videos are selected and provided a high rank on
the search results and why certain videos are eliminated from
such results. The impact of this selection fits well with the
framework provided by the theory of Internet information
gatekeepers (Laidlaw, 2010). Internet gatekeepers, in this
case YouTube (more precisely the algorithm used by
YouTube), shape the public discourse by the selection and
elimination of certain videos. This may lead to unfairly struc-
tured virtual public discussions. Most people may think that
when an algorithm is used for a ranking or selection, it can-
not be biased. However, it is worth noting that “algorithm
bias” exists and algorithms are only as unbiased as the per-
sons who are writing them. Not making algorithms available
to the public limits the ways in which we explore the extent
of the bias embedded in the algorithm.
Applying pressure on YouTube, and other virtual plat-
forms, to utilize a more fair methodology (or algorithm) for
public discourse is only one side of the story. The other side,
which is even more important, is to educate the public, espe-
cially students, about critical literacy. What is the evidence
for the claims made in this video? Does the evidence pre-
sented in the video make sense? Could the evidence provided
in the video be verified? What are the ways to look for the
legitimacy of the claims made in this video? Whom these
claims serve? Whose perspective is included/promoted and
excluded/demonized in this video? Who are victims of the
claims made in this video? Who or which group is disre-
garded in this video? Who or which group is behind the pro-
duction and the promotion of this video? Are these people or
groups connected to certain political movements? Is the lan-
guage used in this video biased? Are there logical responses
which can be used to counter the claims made in this video?
Some of the questions mentioned above were formed in light
of the work of Ginette D. Roberge (2013).
Another important aspect of this discussion is how the
people involved in public education might engage in these
discussions and provide their experience and understanding
related to the issues presented. Because some of the debate
on public education takes place on social media sites such as
YouTube, the perspective of the education workforce would
provide a valuable contribution to the discussion. Teacher
education departments in higher education institutions
should focus more on teaching critical thinking, critical lit-
eracy skills, and different ways of being advocates for public
education.
Wherever the discussion on public education is taking
place, the public educators need to be more visible in such
platforms. Public educators regularly and frequently need to
take the pulse of what is happening in YouTube discussions of
public education. Teacher education programs should not only
focus on teaching best teaching practices but also the effective
ways in which public educators can advocate for public educa-
tion. The achievements made through public education need to
be covered widely in social media including YouTube. The
attacks on public education cannot simply be labeled as absurd
and thus, dismissed. Educators should not only take the criti-
cism directed at public education seriously but also address
these criticisms with well-articulated, creative answers, focus-
ing on the significance of public education in a free society.
Keskin 5
The idea of free and democratic society cannot be separated
from the idea of providing education for all people who may
not be privileged to have fair opportunities compared with the
ones who are privileged. Public education should not only be
practiced but also advocated.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Burhanettin Keskin https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0820-0130
References
Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. (1991). The social construc-
tion of reality: A treatise in the sociology of knowledge.
Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
Burgess, J., & Green, J. (2013). YouTube: Online video and partici-
patory culture. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Campbell, A. (2006). Epistemology. Australian and New Zealand
Journal of Family Therapy, 27, iii-iv.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46.
Freeman, B., & Chapman, S. (2007). Is “YouTube” telling or selling you
something? Tobacco content on the YouTube video-sharing web-
site. Tobacco Control, 16, 207-210. doi:10.1136/tc.2007.020024
Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence culture: Where old and new media
collide. New York, NY: New York University Press.
Jones, D. (2013). Social constructionism. In M. Davies (Ed.),
Blackwell companion to social work (4th ed., pp. 473-476).
Oxford, UK: John Wiley.
Laidlaw, E. B. (2010). A framework for identifying Internet
Information Gatekeepers. International Review of Law,
Computers & Technology, 24, 263-276.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer
agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159-174.
Lange, P. G. (2014). Kids on YouTube. Walnut Creek, CA: Left
Coast Press.
Letherby, G. (2003). Feminist research in theory and practice.
Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
Peoples, C., & Vaughan-Williams, N. (2015). Critical security stud-
ies: An introduction (2nd ed.). London, England: Routledge.
Rittberg, R., Dissanayake, T., & Katz, S. J. (2016). A qualitative
analysis of methotrexate self-injection education videos on
YouTube. Clinical Rheumatology, 35, 1329-1333. doi:10.1007/
s10067-015-2910-5
Roberge, G. D. (2013). Promoting critical literacy across the curric-
ulum and fostering safer learning environments. What Works?
Research into Practice, 48, 1-4.
Strangelove, M. (2010). Watching YouTube: Extraordinary videos
by ordinary people. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of
Toronto Press.
Tan, E., & Pearce, N. (2011). Open education videos in the class-
room: Exploring the opportunities and barriers to the use of
YouTube in teaching introductory sociology. Research in
Learning Technology, 19.
Young, J. (2011, September 14). Questions about higher educa-
tion’s value go viral on YouTube. The Chronicle of Higher
Education, 58(5).
YouTube. (2016). About. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.
com/yt/about/
Author Biography
Burhanettin Keskin is an associate professor in early childhood
education program at the University of Mississippi, MS, USA. He
teaches classes on cognitive and language development. His
research interests include sociological and philosophical issues
related to childhood and trends in childhood studies.