The DOI matches its Crossref record; 0 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Crash Course History of Science: Popular Science for General Education?
Open accessAbstract
In 2017 Allison Marsh joined the team to create the Crash Course History of Science educational video series for YouTube. She then began incorporating these videos into the online version of a popular introductory survey course at the University of South Carolina, “HIST 108: Science and Technology in World History.” During the Summer and Fall terms of 2019, she collected data with the hope of comparing content retention between students who watched Crash Course videos and those who read a traditional textbook. Graduate student Bethany Johnson, a teaching assistant for HIST 108, saw how the students engaged much more dramatically with the videos than with the readings. This case study showed students interacting with the videos in surprising ways and caused Marsh and Johnson to rethink course organization and the pedagogical purposes of a General Education history course.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This case study describes integrating *Crash Course History of Science* videos into an online introductory history survey at the University of South Carolina and reports that students in video-based sections outperformed textbook-based sections on the final exam. Qualitative journal and survey data suggest students rewatched videos and valued them, though the authors call the attitudinal results inconclusive and note limited qualitative feedback.
Key findings
- In both Summer and Fall 2019, students in the *Crash Course* video sections performed better on the final exam than students in textbook-based sections, with both a higher median grade and a higher mean grade.
- The front-end evaluation found that 98% of enrolled students were not prospective or declared history majors, minors, or cognates; 79% showed a positive view of history, 42% found it “mildly interesting,” and seven students (3%) found it “super boring” (N=282).
- Summative evaluation results: 36% wanted additional courses in the history of science, medicine, and technology; 27% wanted more online history courses; 12% wanted an upper-division history course; 53% would recommend HIST 108 to a friend.
- 64% agreed the course helped them see the value of the humanities to STEM fields, while 15% disagreed; 9% overall said they would consider a history major, minor, or cognate, rising to 16% for Summer students, an increase from five to twenty-four students across all five sections.
Methods
- Case study in online HIST 108 at the University of South Carolina during Summer and Fall 2019, with total enrollment of 317 students; Summer was an intensive three-week course and Fall was a standard fifteen-week semester.
- Each term had one section delivered primarily through *Crash Course* videos and one textbook-based section using McClellan and Dorn; a third Fall section let students choose videos or textbook. Students did not know the material format at enrollment and could not select a section based on perceived learning style.
- Quantitative tools were a front-end evaluation in the first week and a summative evaluation in the last week, plus a final exam drawn randomly from a question pool with the same proportion of question types for all students. Qualitative data came from student journal entries, office-hour feedback, and surveys; Bethany Johnson graded and monitored 108 students and culled qualitative data from journals.
Limitations
- Stated: the summative evaluation results were “somewhat curious and inconclusive, begging additional research”; qualitative feedback was limited to office hours and nearly a dozen journal entries; the authors note they do not have similar data, even anecdotal, for students in the textbook-based sections.
- Evident from the text: the final-exam comparison is reported only as higher median and mean grades, with no exact scores or effect sizes; the study is a single-institution case study, and much of the supporting evidence is self-reported survey and journal material.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
18 Own result · 7 Own interpretation · 5 Own method
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the students often complained that they had to pause and rewind an episode over and over again to take good notes”
§ Crash Course History of Science: Popular Science for General Education? > R E S U L T S
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and 27 percent of the students want to take more online history courses”
§ Crash Course History of Science: Popular Science for General Education? > R E S U L T S
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In terms of student numbers, an increase from five to twenty-four students, spread equally across all five sections, suggested that they would consider a more formal relationship with the Department of History after taking HIST 108.”
§ Crash Course History of Science: Popular Science for General Education? > R E S U L T S
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“more than half of the students (53 percent) would recommend HIST 108 to a friend.”
§ Crash Course History of Science: Popular Science for General Education? > R E S U L T S
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The initial front-end evaluation indicates that the overwhelming majority (98 percent) of the enrolled students were not prospective or declared history majors, minors, or cognates.”
§ Crash Course History of Science: Popular Science for General Education? > R E S U L T S
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“although the bulk of them (42 percent) admitted to finding it only”
§ Crash Course History of Science: Popular Science for General Education? > R E S U L T S
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“a strong contingent (31 percent) of students reported a preference for the traditional lecture format”
§ Crash Course History of Science: Popular Science for General Education? > R E S U L T S
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but a measly 12 percent would like to take an upper-division history course.”
§ Crash Course History of Science: Popular Science for General Education? > R E S U L T S
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This percentage increased to 16 percent for students who took HIST 108 in the Summer semester.”
§ Crash Course History of Science: Popular Science for General Education? > R E S U L T S
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A third of the students (36 percent) would like to take additional courses in the history of science, medicine, and technology”
§ Crash Course History of Science: Popular Science for General Education? > R E S U L T S
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 4
- It may state two separate claims as one. 6
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Graduate student Bethany Johnson, a teaching assistant for HIST 108, saw how the students engaged much more dramatically with the videos than with the readings.”
§ Crash Course History of Science: Popular Science for General Education? > Abstract
plaincorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“49 percent of the students did have a preference for online classes, with more than a quarter (27 percent) sharing their strong preference for online learning”
§ Crash Course History of Science: Popular Science for General Education? > R E S U L T S
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two-thirds of the students (64 percent) agreed that it had, while only 15 percent disagreed”
§ Crash Course History of Science: Popular Science for General Education? > R E S U L T S
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For both the Summer and Fall terms, our students from the CC video sections performed better on the final exam than the students in the textbook-based sections.”
- Also stated in: § R E S U L T S · plain
“both a higher median grade and a higher mean grade.”
§ Crash Course History of Science: Popular Science for General Education? > R E S U L T S
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The video and textbook sections were comparable in student characteristics and prior knowledge, so differences in final exam performance can be attributed to the materials.
- Rests on an assumption: The final exam validly measures content retention.
- Rests on an assumption: Students in the textbook-based sections actually read the assigned textbook.
- Rests on an assumption: The random selection of final exam questions produced comparable difficulty across sections.
- Also stated in: § R E S U L T S · plain
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All sections had the same assignments, the same required primary source readings, and the same selection of secondary source readings and videos.”
§ Crash Course History of Science: Popular Science for General Education? > I N T E G R A T I N G C R A S H C O U R S E I N T O A N O N L I N E C O U R S E : A CASE STUDY
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Every student received a random selection of questions, although all students received the same proportion of question types (true/false, fill in the blank, matching, etc.).”
§ Crash Course History of Science: Popular Science for General Education? > R E S U L T S
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The final exam was conceived as an evaluation of content retention by each section of students.”
§ Crash Course History of Science: Popular Science for General Education? > I N T E G R A T I N G C R A S H C O U R S E I N T O A N O N L I N E C O U R S E : A CASE STUDY
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is especially true if the students watch and rewatch the videos to the point that they retain the content much better than if they had read it.”
§ Crash Course History of Science: Popular Science for General Education? > R E F L E C T I O N S A N D N E X T S T E P S
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
- Rests on an assumption: The video and textbook sections were comparable in student characteristics and prior knowledge, so differences in final exam performance can be attributed to the materials.
- Rests on an assumption: The final exam validly measures content retention.
- Rests on an assumption: Students in the textbook-based sections actually read the assigned textbook.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the time of enrollment, students did not know what materials (video or textbook or a choice) they would be assigned.They could not select a specific section on the basis of their own perceived optimal learning style.”
§ Crash Course History of Science: Popular Science for General Education? > I N T E G R A T I N G C R A S H C O U R S E I N T O A N O N L I N E C O U R S E : A CASE STUDY
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The video and textbook sections were comparable in student characteristics and prior knowledge, so differences in final exam performance can be attributed to the materials.
“All sections had the same assignments, the same required primary source readings, and the same selection of secondary source readings and videos.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The final exam validly measures content retention.
“The final exam was conceived as an evaluation of content retention by each section of students.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Students in the textbook-based sections actually read the assigned textbook.
“I do not have similar data, however anecdotal, for students in the textbook-based sections.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The limited journal entries and office-hour feedback used to explain increased retention are representative of students in the CC video sections.
“The limited feedback we received from students during office hours and in nearly a dozen journal entries suggests that one reason for increased information retention was that they watched the CC videos multiple times.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Survey responses accurately reflect students' attitudes and preferences.
“Although the majority of students said they found the subject of history interesting, some may be hesitant to admit a dislike of the subject during the first week of school, even though the survey was anonymous.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Online teaching can be as effective as face-to-face teaching, but the techniques to engage students and retain their interest are different.
“Online teaching can be as effective as face-to-face teaching, but the techniques to engage students and retain their interest are different.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The random selection of final exam questions produced comparable difficulty across sections.
“Every student received a random selection of questions, although all students received the same proportion of question types (true/false, fill in the blank, matching, etc.).”
Citations
Cites
https://socialblade.com/youtube/user/crashcourse (accessed
world, S. B. H. I. R. 2. I. T. E. C. F. Y. C. I. T. U. S. A. 2. I. E. I. T. (2020)
Unresolvededitors
The team included scriptwriter Wythe Marschall (at the time a graduate student in anthropology of science at Harvard University (n.d.)
UnresolvedMcClellan III and Harold Dorn, Science and Technology in World History: An Introduction
James, E. (2015)
UnresolvedNote that Joe November, a colleague at the University of South Carolina, consulted with the authors on the
(n.d.)
Unresolvedincluding
Note (n.d.)
UnresolvedHuffington Post
These (2015)
Unresolved
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ramachandran, A., Achar, J. C., Green, G., Hanson-Wright, B., Leiter, S., & Öberg, G. (2022) · Engaging Science Technology and Society · doi:10.17351/ests2022.1179 · Cited by 4
Schachter, J., Ajayi, A. A., & Delgado, J. E. (2024) · Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science · doi:10.1016/j.jcbs.2024.100852 · Cited by 3
Bridging Screens and Sources: Integrating Crash Course into Disciplinary Literacy Instruction
Edmondson, D., Kenna, J. L., Waters, S., & Russell, W. B., III (2026) · The Journal of Social Studies Research · doi:10.1177/0885985x261438115 · Cited by 1
Ajayi, A. A., Zhao, C., Schachter, J., Wade, B., & Bonilla, G. G. S. (2026) · Journal of American College Health · doi:10.1080/07448481.2026.2692541
Metadata
- Authors
- Marsh, A., & Johnson, B.
- Affiliations
- University of South Carolina (US)
- Venue
- Isis
- Publisher
- University of Chicago Press
- Published
- 2020-09-01
- Volume
- 111
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 588-594
- ISSN
- 0021-1753 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-6994
- OpenAlex
- W3085564200
- Semantic Scholar
- 9bf1d5150b231b09f5210c141e8bb9b2fc221362
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 0.77
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Isis (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › Innovations in Educational Methods
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Visual and Cognitive Learning Processes
- Social Sciences › Education › Online and Blended Learning
- Keywords
- crash course, educational videos, YouTube, history of science, popular science, general education, content preservation, student engagement, textbook comparison, course design
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-23, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-23 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
