CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 220Education and Technology IntegrationEducational Technology in LearningLiteracy, Media, and Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 23 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

YouTube: Educational Potentials and Pitfalls

Jones, Troy, Cuthrell, Kristen·2011·Computers in the Schools
DOI 10.1080/07380569.2011.553149
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The instructional potential of video technology in the classroom is promising, especially in light of the 21st Century Learning Framework (Siegle, 2009 Siegle, D. 2009. Literacy in the 21st century: The fourth r-video recording. Gifted Child Today, 32(2): 14–19. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]). Studies show positive gains in student outcomes as a result of the integration of video technology in instruction. This article explores potential uses of YouTube as an instructional aid in lessons and in planning. Emphasis is placed on using YouTube directly in social studies instruction and as a teaching resource in elementary classrooms. Attention is also given to the evaluation of YouTube videos. This article discusses the potential challenges of using YouTube in the classroom and offers suggestions for overcoming those challenges.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/07380569.2011.553149

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 23 references

Research works printed but not linked: 10

  1. Johnson D., 2010, Learning and Leading with Technology, 38, 20
  2. Mayora C., 2009, TESL Reporter, 42, 1
  3. Mellow A. R., 2007, Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal, 17, 173
  4. 2010, Expectations of Excellence: Curriculum Standards for Social Studies
  5. Niess M. L., 2009, Learning and Leading with Technology, 36, 36
  6. Park J. C., 2009, Learning and Leading with Technology, 36, 34
  7. 2009, Framework for Twenty First Century Learning
  8. Rapp W. H., 2009, TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 6, 1
  9. Schuck S., 2008, Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 8, 349
  10. 2008, Learning and Leading with Technology, 36, 23

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Jones, T., & Cuthrell, K.
Affiliations
East Carolina University (US)
Venue
Computers in the Schools
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2011-03-14
Volume
28
Issue
1
Pages
75-85
ISSN
  • 0738-0569 (ISSN-L)
  • 1528-7033
DOI
10.1080/07380569.2011.553149
OpenAlex
W2048798254
Cited by
220
References
23
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 26 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 16 · 2012: 9
FWCI
55.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Computers in the Schools (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education and Technology Integration
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Technology in Learning
  • Social Sciences › Education › Literacy, Media, and Education
Keywords
YouTube, social studies education, primary education, instructional planning, video-based assessment, educational technology challenges

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review