YouTutorial: A Framework for Assessing Instructional Online Video
Abstract
User-generated tutorial videos are quickly emerging as a new form of technical communication, one that relies on text, images, video, and sound alike to convey a message. In this article, we present an approach—a rubric—for assessing the instructional content of tutorial videos that considers the specific roles of modal and multimodal content in effective delivery. The rubric is based on descriptive data derived from a constant comparative study of user-rated YouTube videos.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Strand 1 also offers useful concepts for professional communication, which has studied peer and social production in open source software, Wikipedia, other peer production sites, and social media.
“Yet Strand 1 also offers productive concepts for professional communication, which has examined peer and social production in open source software and support, Wikipedia, and other peer production sites, and social media [24][30] [31].”
From Fourth-Generation Activity Theory: An Integrative Literature Review and Implications for Professional Communication (2019) · cites this paper as [30]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Spinuzzi, C., & Guile, D. (2019) · 2019 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference (ProComm) · doi:10.1109/procomm.2019.00012 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
- Authors
- Morain, M., & Swarts, J.
- Affiliations
- North Carolina State University (US)
- ORCID
- Swarts, Jason
- Venue
- Technical Communication Quarterly
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2012-01
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 6-24
- ISSN
- 1057-2252 (ISSN-L)
- 1542-7625
- OpenAlex
- W2086258248
- Cited by
- 85
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 5.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Technical Communication Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Literature and Literary Theory › Literacy, Media, and Education
- Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
- Keywords
- educational videos, video tutorials, user-generated content, rubrics, multimodality, modal content, YouTube, user ratings, technical communication
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
