外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）【Research Article】

Platform Preferences for Video Content in a Flipped Classroom:
Students’ Perceptions of YouTube as a Platform for Learning
Jonathan Hennessy
Abstract
This paper details the use of the flipped classroom paradigm with teacher-created videos in a new mandatory English
debate class at a Japanese university. It investigates the perceptions of the students with regards to the use of video
instruction as well as their perceptions and preferences with regards to the platform used for sharing the videos.
Three surveys were distributed asking students about their perceptions of using YouTube for learning with videos
and compared their views on YouTube versus compared to the Blackboard learning management system common in
their university classes. Students were found to have positive views of the flipped classroom, and the videos wereconsidered useful for preparation and review in the context of this course. Their perceptions of YouTube as a platform
for learning were also generally positive and became more positive after being provided with videos for the class. By
the end of the course, it was clear that most students had a preferred platform for the videos, and while YouTube wasmore popular than Blackboard, there was a sizable group that preferred Blackboard. The researcher concludes that
YouTube is a valid choice for distributing video instruction in a flipped classroom, but that providing multiple
platforms could be beneficial in meeting the needs of all students in a given course.
Keywords: Flipped Classroom, YouTube, Student Perceptions

INTRODUCTION
In the Fall 2020 semester, Rikkyo University introduced English Debate as a new mandatoryclass for all first-year students. The continuing coronavirus pandemic necessitated that the class was
conducted entirely online, and the course had to be modified from the expected plan to accommodate
these online lessons. The course design included introducing different stages of a debate to students
as “debate skills” combined with practice activities for each skill and frequent group debates.
Teachers generally were expected to teach the lessons using Zoom for live video lessons but wereencouraged to consider making adjustments to the lesson plan to include offline or asynchronouscomponents in order to reduce the consecutive screen time required of the students. Making use ofboth face-to-face class time and separate online activities is referred to as blended learning (Fabbian
et al. 2017), and while the entire class was taught online, splitting between a live video call and otherasynchronous activities is certainly a similar style of teaching. From there, the researcher decided tomake use of the flipped classroom, the practice of introducing new material to students prior to theirclass time through the use of technology (Wu et al. 2017), so that the traditional classroom/
homework concept is flipped (Overmeyer, 2012).
Flipped classrooms often use videos for students to learn or review content independently
outside of class (Lin and Huang, 2018), and they often rely on teacher created videos (Overmeyer,2012). The time in class is then generally more focused on activities and interaction with the teacher
to reinforce the content learned prior to the lesson (Overmeyer, 2012; Basal, 2015; Moravec et al,
2010; Lin and Huang, 2018). Blended learning and the flipped classroom design have been supported
as effective methods of instruction in the current body of research. Benefits of the flipped classroom

68

PLATFORM PREFERENCES FOR VIDEO CONTENT IN A FLIPPED CLASSROOM: STUDENTSʼ PERCEPTIONS OF YOUTUBE AS A PLATFORM FOR LEARNING

and blended learning include increased motivation (Hsieh et al, 2017), improved teacher-student
feedback and interaction (Fabbian et al. 2017), increased study time (Hung, 2015), increased
engagement with the material (Jamaludin, 2014), and increased learner autonomy (Han, 2015).
Fabian et al. (2017) noted that it increases the flexibility for students, and Basal (2015) explained thatthe flipped classroom allows for students to learn at their own pace and that the ability for students
to prepare in advance can help to overcome time limitations in the classroom and increase student
participation during class time. The general format of a flipped classroom and its benefits seemed
particularly relevant to the new English Debate class as it was expected that students would vary in
the amount of time necessary to grasp the concepts that would be presented. The increased flexibility
and potential for students to work at their own pace during the introduction of new content could be
expected to allow for better participation and interaction, as well as more advanced learning during
the live video lessons without the need for extended instruction during a video lesson, which would
be useful to some but unnecessary for others. Wu et al. (2017) supported this idea, noting that theflipped classroom allows for more advanced learning during class time.
Flipped classrooms and blended approaches have also been found to improve learner outcomes.
Wu et al. (2017) found improved oral proficiency and increased ability to use what was learned
among the students who had learned with a flipped classroom. Hsieh et al (2017) found flipped
instruction increased students’ knowledge and oral ability with idioms. Moravec et al (2010) observedthat moving presentation of new material to pre-class assignments combined with activities in class
resulted in significant student learning gains. Ahmad (2016) saw improvements to listening
comprehension with flipped learning. Bhagat et al (2016) found video instruction to outperform inclass instruction. In general, the research suggests that video lessons and the flipped classroom havea positive effect on student learning and the ability to use what they have learned.
Flipped classrooms have also been found to be generally well received in terms of student
perceptions. Sweeney (2010) noted that many students already use technology to find information forschool or for their own interests. Other studies have found that students respond well to using
technology in their lessons. Lin and Huang (2018) found that the students in their study accepted andwere motivated by mobile learning. Goertler (2009) reported that students were engaged andentertained by computer-mediated communication and that it had a positive effect on their attitudes.
Gaughan (2014) noted that students stated that videos before class helped them prepare. Hseih et al.
(2017) claimed that flipped instruction with online interaction motivated students.
However, not all research into flipped classrooms and blended learning is positive. Wilcox(2009) noted that not all students have a positive view of video instruction and that students’ beliefs
about their own role and what counts as language learning could influence the effectiveness of video
learning. Bartholomew and Reeve (2018) found a disconnect between how students expected to use
mobile devices for learning and their actual use and noted student concerns about distraction.
Fabbian et al. (2017) found that students expressed concern about reduced interaction with theteacher and that not all students saw the connection between the two modes of instruction. Delozier(2017) looked at effectiveness of video lectures and did not find any difference between instruction
through videos and in person lectures and suggested that any difference was the result of freeing up
class time. This could suggest that studies that found video lectures to outperform in class lectures
may have done what Fabbian et al (2017) cautioned against and simply added extra work to thecourse instead of replacing in-class instruction with computer-mediated instruction. The specifictechnology being used in the classroom can also be important in designing a flipped classroom. Levy
(2009) noted that the users’ ability to understand and use a platform is more important than the69

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

actual capabilities of the platform in a flipped classroom. Rubin et al. (2013) stated that students’satisfaction with the learning management system they used predicted course satisfaction. This cancause problems if teachers are not careful. Fabbian et al. (2017) highlighted that not all students intheir study were easily able to make effective use of the technology provided for a flipped class.
Overall, it seems that the research indicates that if appropriate attention is paid to students’abilities and perceptions with regards to the learning platforms that are used, a flipped classroom
could be an effective tool for introducing new content to the English Debate class when combinedwith live video call lessons for more advanced practice of the learned concepts. In this study, students
were provided with videos created by the researcher to introduce and review the concepts they were
expected to learn for the course. The videos were provided on two platforms: Blackboard, a learning
management system which students were familiar with due to its use by the university for online
courses in the previous semester, and YouTube, with the expectation that the majority of students
would be familiar with due to personal use. With the importance of students’ ability to use a platform(Levy, 2009) and their satisfaction with a learning management system being important for course
satisfaction (Rubin et al. 2013), students were surveyed three times throughout their semester about
their perceptions of YouTube as a platform for video lectures. In the third survey, they wereadditionally surveyed about their preferences and perceptions of YouTube compared to Blackboard
and their general perceptions about the use of video instruction in a flipped classroom in the context
of this online English Debate course.

RESEARCH DESIGN
A total of 17 videos were created by the researcher for the course. These videos were used bothfor introducing new concepts, such as constructing arguments or making a rebuttal for a debate, andfor reviewing the concepts later in the semester. Videos were shared with students following mostclasses, and students were asked to complete a simple assignment on Blackboard to test theirunderstanding of the concepts being taught with the videos. As the videos were intended to replacein class instruction, students were asked to watch the videos and complete the online assignment intheir own time prior to the next class, but the live video lessons were shortened to account for newcontent being introduced outside of class time. All videos were provided on two separate platforms.
They were available for download through the Blackboard learning management system, and they
were also available on YouTube. The YouTube links were provided at the same time as the files were
uploaded to Blackboard. Students could be expected to be familiar with Blackboard as they would
have used it in the previous semester of online courses, and the researcher expected that most
students would be familiar with YouTube due to personal use. The videos were uploaded and sharedeach week following the live Zoom class, and students were directed to them through both anannouncement on Blackboard and a simultaneous email. Students were told that they could watch
the videos on either platform and there was no instruction to suggest that either option was better or
preferred.
Five classes consisting of a total of 95 students participated in these classes, and all of them wereasked to complete three surveys. The first survey was shared after the second lesson, the second
survey after the 6th lesson, and the final survey after the 13th lesson. Of those 95 students, 70
consented to having their answers used for research and completed all three of the surveys. The
surveys were shared on Blackboard and were given as homework assignments. Data from students
who did not give their consent but still filled out surveys and data from students who did not complete70

PLATFORM PREFERENCES FOR VIDEO CONTENT IN A FLIPPED CLASSROOM: STUDENTSʼ PERCEPTIONS OF YOUTUBE AS A PLATFORM FOR LEARNING

all three surveys were removed prior to downloading and analyzing the results. The first survey
asked students about their familiarity and experience with YouTube as well as their perceptions ofYouTube as a platform for learning. It also asked them to share their perceptions both prior tostarting the course and their current perceptions after having watched two sets of videos. The second
survey asked only for their current perceptions after the 6th lesson. The third survey again asked fortheir current perceptions, but also asked for their actual use of the videos and their thoughts about
YouTube and Blackboard as platforms for sharing and watching the video lectures. The questions
and answers for the three surveys can be seen in Appendices A, B, and C at the end of this paper. As
the students were not native English speakers, the surveys were all shared with a Japanese translation
to improve the chances that students could understand and accurately answer the questions.

DATA
First Sur vey
In the first survey students were asked about their familiarity with YouTube as a platform as wellas their perceptions of it as a platform for learning. They were asked to give their perceptions frombefore starting the class as well as their current thoughts after watching two sets of videos for thecourse. The full list of questions for the first survey can be found in Appendix A. Out of 70 respondents
62 said they were familiar with YouTube as a platform, 7 said they were not, and 1 student did not
answer. Furthermore, 38 said they had used YouTube for a class before with 32 saying they had not.
In addition, 58 answered that they had previously used YouTube to learn something themselves
while only 12 answered that they had not done so. This matched the expectations in course designthat most students would be familiar with YouTube and that many of them would have experience
using it to learn something. The fact that more than half had previously used YouTube for a class was
not expected, but further supported the idea that students might be comfortable using it for thiscourse.
Yes

No

Unanswered

Are you familiar with YouTube and how to use the platform?

62

7

1

Have you ever used YouTube for a class before?

38

32

0

Have you ever used YouTube to learn something by yourself before?

58

12

0

Figure 1. Experience with YouTube

Students gave their perceptions of YouTube as a platform for learning on six scales. They used
a 5-point Likert scale to rate their perceptions of YouTube for usefulness, helpfulness, trustworthiness,
professionalism, ease of use, and convenience. Prior to distributing the surveys, the researcher
hypothesized that these six responses could be grouped into three constructs: usefulness/
helpfulness, trustworthiness/professionalism, and ease of use/convenience. All unansweredquestions were removed from the data, and the responses were checked using Chronbach’s alpha.
Using the data of students’ perceptions prior to the class, usefulness and helpfulness had a
Chronbach’s alpha coefficient of .652, trustworthiness and professionalism had a coefficient of .755,
and ease of use and convenience had a coefficient of .569.
With the data for students’ current perceptions after viewing two sets of videos, usefulness andhelpfulness had a coefficient of .811, trustworthiness and professionalism had a coefficient of .742,
71

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

and ease of use and convenience had a coefficient of .586. These coefficients suggest that the
responses for usefulness and helpfulness were reasonably strongly correlated as were the responses
for trustworthiness and professionalism. It is reasonable to accept that these questions can begrouped as asking for the same underlying construct and can be discussed together. Ease of use andconvenience, however, were less strongly correlated and should be considered separately inevaluating this data. Chronbach’s alpha coefficient for these constructs in the later surveys will bementioned with that data, but the conclusion remained consistent with students’ perceptions ofusefulness consistently being correlated with their perceptions of helpfulness, their perceptions oftrustworthiness being correlated with professionalism, and their perceptions of ease of use not being
strongly correlated with convenience.
Figure 2 below breaks down the responses by question for the students’ perceptions of YouTube
as a learning platform prior to beginning the class. To calculate the mean and standard deviation, theresponses were given a numerical value from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very) and the “I don’t know”
responses and unanswered questions were removed.
I don’t know
/ unanswered

Not at all

Very little

So-so

Quite a bit

Very

Mean
(1-5)

SD

Useful

4

0

2

25

27

12

3.74

0.10

Helpful

3

1

3

21

34

8

3.67

0.10

Trustworthy

1

1

7

29

26

6

3.42

0.10

Professional

2

1

11

26

25

5

3.32

0.11

Easy to Use

3

0

6

18

30

13

3.75

0.11

Convenient

3

0

4

10

39

14

3.94

0.09

Figure 2. Starting Perceptions of YouTube as a Learning Platform

This suggests that students began the class with a neutral to positive view of YouTube as alearning platform.
The next chart breaks down the students’ responses by question for their perceptions ofYouTube after being provided with the first two sets of videos. The mean and standard deviation areagain calculated on a 1 to 5 scale, with the “I don’t know” responses and unanswered questions being
removed.
I don’t know /Not at all
Unanswered

Very little

So-so

Quite a bit

Very

Mean
(1-5)

SD

Useful

1

0

1

12

37

19

4.07

0.09

Helpful

2

1

0

12

33

22

4.10

0.10

Trustworthy

1

1

0

10

41

17

4.06

0.09

Professional

1

1

1

27

25

15

3.75

0.10

Easy to Use

1

0

0

7

32

30

4.33

0.08

Convenient

1

0

0

5

36

28

4.33

0.07

Figure 3. Perceptions of YouTube as a Learning Platform After Early Videos

This shows a small improvement in the students’ perceptions of using YouTube for learning inall surveyed categories. An unpaired t-test was used to compare the responses since it was necessary
to remove the unanswered questions from the data, and it showed that all changes were statistically72

PLATFORM PREFERENCES FOR VIDEO CONTENT IN A FLIPPED CLASSROOM: STUDENTSʼ PERCEPTIONS OF YOUTUBE AS A PLATFORM FOR LEARNING

significant at p≤.05. The comparison is shown here in Figure 4.

Mean
Variance
Observations
Hypothesized Mean Differencedft StatP(T<=t) one-tailt Critical one-tailP(T<=t) two-tailt Critical two-tailUsefulness
BeforeAfter
Class
Lesson 2
3.74
4.07
0.62
0.51
66
69
0
130
-2.542
.007
1.657
.012
1.978

Professionalism
BeforeAfter
Class
Lesson 2
3.32
3.75
0.79
0.75
68
69
0
135
-2.871
.002
1.656
.005
1.978

Ease of Use
BeforeAfter
Class
Lesson 2
3.69
4.33
0.96
0.43
68
69
0
117
-4.495
>.001
1.658
>.001
1.980

Mean
Variance
Observations
Hypothesized Mean Differencedft StatP(T<=t) one-tailt Critical one-tailP(T<=t) two-tailt Critical two-tailTrustworthiness
BeforeAfter
Class
Lesson 2
3.42
4.06
0.72
0.53
69
69
0
133
-4.750
>.001
1.656
>.001
1.978

Convenience
BeforeAfter
Class
Lesson 2
3.94
4.33
0.60
0.37
67
69
0
125
-3.276
.001
1.657
.001
1.979

Helpfulness
BeforeAfter
Class
Lesson 2
3.67
4.10
0.65
0.63
67
68
0
133
-3.133
.001
1.656
.002
1.978

Figure 4. Before Class vs. After Lesson 2: t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal VariancesThis suggests that while students began the class with a neutral to positive impression ofYouTube as a learning platform, their perceptions became more positive when they were provided
with teacher-created videos in a university course.
Students were also given the opportunity to share their thoughts in a free form answer, and mostwho chose to respond gave generally positive comments. Several students appreciated the ability toview a video or a video section more than once, and several others commented on its convenienceand ease of use. One student also commented that they appreciated that the in-class time could beshortened with the use of YouTube. Most of these positive comments did not suggest that YouTube
was superior to other platforms but suggested that the students did respond well to the flippedclassroom style.
There were, however, a few less positive comments as well. Two students suggested the videos
could be hard to understand, and another noted that they were unable to discuss with their classmatesto assist in understanding content. One student stated that they found the videos boring. Given the73

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

overall positive reaction to the videos, it is reasonable to suggest that continuing to improve thequality of videos would be a reasonable way to address these concerns.

Second Sur vey
The second survey was used to track students’ changes in perceptions after having moreexperience using YouTube in a flipped classroom during the semester. They were asked the samequestions as in the first survey based on their perceptions of YouTube at that particular time. The fullsurvey can be seen in Appendix B. Chronbach’s alpha again found that usefulness/helpfulness andtrustworthiness/professionalism were strongly related with coefficients of .891 and .829, respectively.
Ease of use and convenience were again not strongly related with a coefficient of .404. Figure 5 below
details the students’ perceptions of YouTube as a learning platform following the 6th lesson.
I don’t know /Unanswered

Not at all

Very little

So-so

Quite a bit

Very

Mean
(1-5)

SD

Useful

1

0

1

13

28

27

4.17

0.09

Helpful

0

0

3

12

26

29

4.16

0.10

Trustworthy

0

0

3

16

30

21

3.99

0.10

Professional

0

0

1

22

31

16

3.89

0.09

Easy to Use

1

0

0

9

21

39

4.44

0.09

Convenient

1

0

3

7

25

34

4.30

0.01

Figure 5. Perceptions of YouTube as a Learning Platform After Sixth Lesson

Comparing this data to the results from the first survey using an unpaired t-test shows that theperceptions remain improved from the pre-course data with p≤.05, but the data do not show any
statistically significant change from the responses given after the first two lessons. The comparison
to the before class opinions is shown below but the comparison to after lesson 2 is omitted as it is not
significant.
Usefulness
BeforeClass

Professionalism

After
Lesson 6

BeforeClass

Ease of Use

After
Lesson 6

BeforeClass

After
Lesson 6

Mean

3.74

4.17

3.32

3.89

3.69

4.43

Variance

0.62

0.62

0.79

0.60

0.96

0.51

66

69

68

70

68

69

Observations

0

0

0

df

Hypothesized Mean Difference

133

132

123

t Stat-3.181-3.964-5.058P(T<=t) one-tail

.001

>.001

>.001

t Critical one-tail

1.656

1.656

1.657

P(T<=t) two-tail

.002

>.001

>.001

t Critical two-tail

1.978

1.978

1.979

Figure 6. Before Class vs. After Lesson 6: t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

74

PLATFORM PREFERENCES FOR VIDEO CONTENT IN A FLIPPED CLASSROOM: STUDENTSʼ PERCEPTIONS OF YOUTUBE AS A PLATFORM FOR LEARNING

Trustworthiness
BeforeClass

Convenience

After
Lesson 6

BeforeClass

Helpfulness

After
Lesson 6

BeforeClass

After
Lesson 6

Mean

3.42

3.99

3.94

4.30

3.67

4.16

Variance

0.72

0.71

0.60

0.69

0.65

0.74

Observations

69

70

67

69

67

70

Hypothesized Mean Difference

0

0

0

df

137

134

135

t Stat-3.945-2.646-3.4085

P(T<=t) one-tail

>.001

.005

>.001

t Critical one-tail

1.656

1.656

1.656

P(T<=t) two-tail

>.001

.009

.001

t Critical two-tail

1.977

1.978

1.978

Figure 6 Continued

Written comments showed multiple students suggesting that they appreciated the convenience of thevideos and the ability to watch parts that they found difficult more than once. However, one student
said that they would prefer to be taught directly by the teacher, and a few students expressed theneed to be careful to be sure that the information was accurate.

Third Sur vey
The third survey (see Appendix C) continued to ask about the students’ perceptions of YouTube
as a learning platform but additionally asked further questions about their actual usage of YouTube
and Blackboard for watching the videos, as well as their preferences between the two. Looking attheir perceptions of YouTube as a learning platform, Chronbach’s alpha again showed usefulness/
helpfulness and trustworthiness/professionalism to be valid groupings with coefficients of .815 and.776, respectively. Ease of use and convenience continued to be poorly correlated with a coefficientof only .503. The table below details the students’ responses about their perceptions of YouTube as alearning platform at the end of the semester, following the 13th of 14 total lessons.
I don’t know /Not at all
Unanswered

Very little

So-so

Quite a bit

Very

Mean
(1-5)

SD

Useful

1

0

1

15

27

26

4.13

0.10

Helpful

0

0

1

12

26

31

4.24

0.09

Trustworthy

0

0

1

17

27

25

4.09

0.10

Professional

0

0

1

18

25

26

4.09

0.10

Easy to Use

1

0

0

5

18

46

4.59

0.08

Convenient

1

0

0

7

24

38

4.39

0.10

Figure 7. Perceptions of YouTube as a Learning Platform at End of Semester

Using an unpaired t-test to compare this data to the previous results again found that the data
were different from the students’ perceptions that they reported holding before beginning the classwith p≤.05, but it was not statistically significantly different from the perceptions they reported as
current in either the first or second survey. The comparison to the before class perceptions is again

75

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

shown in the following chart, while the comparison to the survey responses from after lessons 2 and6 is omitted as it is not significant.

Mean
Variance
Observations
Hypothesized Mean Differencedft StatP(T<=t) one-tailt Critical one-tailP(T<=t) two-tailt Critical two-tailUsefulness
BeforeAfter
Class
Lesson 13
3.74
4.13
0.62
0.64
66
69
0
133
-2.829
.003
1.656
.005
1.978

Professionalism
BeforeAfter
Class
Lesson 13
3.32
4.09
0.79
0.69
68
70
0
135
-5.205
>.001
1.656
>.001
1.978

Ease of Use
BeforeAfter
Class
Lesson 13
3.69
4.59
0.96
0.39
68
69
0
114
-6.411
>.001
1.658
>.001
1.981

Mean
Variance
Observations
Hypothesized Mean Differencedft StatP(T<=t) one-tailt Critical one-tailP(T<=t) two-tailt Critical two-tailTrustworthiness
BeforeAfter
Class
Lesson 13
3.42
4.09
0.72
0.66
69
70
0
137
-4.727
>.001
1.656
>.001
1.977

Convenience
BeforeAfter
Class
Lesson 13
3.94
4.39
0.60
0.73
67
70
0
135
-3.193
.001
1.656
.002
1.978

Helpfulness
BeforeAfter
Class
Lesson 13
3.67
4.24
0.65
0.62
67
70
0
134
-4.194
>.001
1.656
>.001
1.978

Figure 8. Before Class vs. After Lesson 13: t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

The majority of the comments about using YouTube for learning in the third survey werepositive, as in the previous surveys, with several students liking the ability to re-watch the videos, andothers stated that they liked the ability to study anywhere and in their spare time. One student did
report that they thought it was “bad for the body,” but this is likely a stronger concern given that thestudents were online for most or all of their classes this semester.
In addition to continuing the same line of questioning, the third survey (see Appendix C) asked
questions about the students’ actual use of the videos on YouTube and Blackboard and theirpreferences between the platforms. Students reported on how many of the videos provided they
watched with most students, 56 of the 70 respondents, stating that they watched all of the videos
provided.

76

PLATFORM PREFERENCES FOR VIDEO CONTENT IN A FLIPPED CLASSROOM: STUDENTSʼ PERCEPTIONS OF YOUTUBE AS A PLATFORM FOR LEARNING

56

3

2

3

6

<Unanswered>

only a few

about half

most of themall of them

Figure 9. Responses to: How many of the videos that were Provided did you watch?

The students also generally reported that the videos were helpful to them in preparing for theirlessons, with 57 out of 70 respondents saying they were “quite a bit” or “very” helpful and only one
student responding negatively.
32
25

9
3

1

<Unanswered>

Very little

so-soQuite a bit

Very

Figure 10. Responses to: How helpful were the videos for preparing for your lessons?

Students also were asked about their use of the videos for reviewing a concept later in thesemester. This was not assigned as a required activity for them, but it was suggested as a good way
to review before debate tests. Nearly all students reported doing this at least once or twice, with 13
even claiming to do it frequently.
28
23
13
3

3

<Unanswered>

NeverOnce or twice

sometimes

Quite a bit

Figure 11. Responses to: Did you go back and watch any videos again to review something because you
wanted to?

Students also reported on the helpfulness of the videos for review later in the semester, withmore than half having a favorable opinion.

77

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

31
19
3<Unanswered>1

2

Not at all

Very little

so-so

14

Quite a bit

Very

Figure 12. Responses to: How helpful were the videos for reviewing something later in the semester?

In general, the student responses suggested that the videos were used by nearly all students in
preparation for their classes, and their perceptions of the videos as a method for preparation were
overwhelmingly positive.
Students also gave answers about their preferred platform between YouTube and Blackboard.
The graph below shows that both platforms were used by students, and more students answered thatthey used both platforms than either platform exclusively.
28
17
3<Unanswered>21

1
I didn’t watch any
videosBlackboard

YouTubeBothFigure 13. Responses to: Did you watch videos on YouTube, Blackboard, or both?

When asked about which platform they used more, the results showed that students did seemto have a clear preference with, 59 out of 70 respondents stating that they did use one platform morethan the other. YouTube was slightly more popular than Blackboard in this data set, but the numbers
were fairly close.

27

3<Unanswered>32

7
1
I didn’t watch any
videosAbout the same

Blackboard

YouTubeFigure 14. Responses to: Did you watch more videos on YouTube or on Blackboard?

When asking students about their preferred platform, YouTube was a more popular choicecompared to the reported usage.

78

PLATFORM PREFERENCES FOR VIDEO CONTENT IN A FLIPPED CLASSROOM: STUDENTSʼ PERCEPTIONS OF YOUTUBE AS A PLATFORM FOR LEARNING

35

13
3
<Unanswered>18

1
I didn’t watch any
videosAbout the same

Blackboard

YouTubeFigure 15. Responses to: Did you prefer YouTube or Blackboard for watching videos?

The data for platform usage suggest that students were fairly evenly mixed in terms of using theplatforms at least once. In evaluating the data for the question “Did you watch videos on YouTube,
Blackboard, or both?” a chi-squared goodness of fit test was run after removing the “unanswered”
and “I didn’t watch any videos” responses. No statistically significant difference was observed
compared with expectations that the three choices would be evenly represented. Evaluating the
responses regarding which platform they used more found that students did in fact have a preference
for one platform over the other. A one-sample proportion test was used to compare the answers of“About the same” with “Blackboard” and “YouTube” together and found that it was statisticallysignificant at p≤.05. Most students did have a platform that they used more. However, running a
one-sample proportion test comparing only the Blackboard and YouTube answers yielded resultsthat were not statistically significant, meaning that within this sample there was no clear choice interms of which platform was more used. The data regarding student preferences were more
conclusive. A one-sample proportion test again confirmed that more students had a preferred
platform versus those who liked both platforms about the same. When comparing Blackboard andYouTube another one-sample proportion test found that students overall had a statistically significant
preference for YouTube compared to Blackboard at p≤.05.
Qualitative data were also collected regarding the reasoning behind the students’ preferences
between the platforms. Interestingly, many of the responses for either platform stated that it waseasier and more convenient to use that platform. Of the 18 students who preferred Blackboard, 17chose to write in reasons for their preference and all of them could fit into the categories of being
easier or more convenient. Some had specific reasons, including the video announcements being
sent through Blackboard made it easier to use Blackboard, the ability to watch the video withoutswitching pages on their browser, and the fact that they did their lessons on their computer which did
not have YouTube installed. Furthermore, 34 of the 35 students who preferred YouTube also leftcomments, with 24 fitting into the category of being easier or more convenient (including 9 responses
mentioning technical benefits such as lower data use and the fact the videos did not need to be
downloaded). Seven more responses were related to the fact that the students were used to using
YouTube. The remaining 3 responses were “Because I can review back video freely,” “I don’t have a
special reason,” and “It is because, there are various videos.”DISCUSSION
It was clear from the data that students do hold a mostly positive view of YouTube as a platform
for learning. Their responses were generally positive across all six surveyed dimensions: helpfulness,
usefulness, professionalism, trustworthiness, convenience, and ease of use. The ability to group79

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

helpfulness with usefulness and professionalism with trustworthiness according to Chronbach’s
alpha further increases the confidence we can hold in the results for those constructs. Ease of use
and convenience must be considered separately, but the data still suggest that students had positive
views of YouTube with regard to both. Looking at the students’ perceptions over the duration of thecourse, they started with a neutral to positive view of YouTube but reported viewing it more positively
after making use of the videos provided for class. The new mostly positive perceptions continued forthe duration of the class with the final survey showing very similar results to the first survey where
they gave their perceptions after only two lessons. This suggests that the teacher created videos thatwere provided to students had a positive effect on their perceptions of using YouTube for learning.
The data that were collected does not give insight into why their perceptions changed, but further
research could be done to try to determine what factors do impact the students’ views of a platform
after they begin using it.
Looking at the responses more granularly, nearly all of the students had a neutral to positive
view of YouTube with regards to the helpfulness/usefulness construct as well as to ease of use andconvenience. These positive perceptions were further supported in the final survey when thestudents who chose YouTube as their preferred platform frequently cited its convenience or ease ofuse as the primary reason for their preference. However, despite the overall positive perceptions withregards to the professionalism/trustworthiness construct, a significant number of students reported
beginning the class with a somewhat negative view of YouTube for this construct. The later surveys
did show a change to a more positive view in regard to professionalism and trustworthiness, but it isnecessary to note that some students are likely to be hesitant to trust YouTube content initially. Thisis further supported by a few open-ended responses where students expressed the need to checksources and be careful of incorrect information. This is unlikely to be a concern for teachers using
self-created materials but may be something that needs to be accounted for when using content fromother sources.
The final survey also suggested that students held generally positive views of using videos in aflipped classroom during a semester where classes had to be taught remotely due to the ongoingpandemic, and further supported the idea that their views of YouTube as a learning Platform weregenerally positive. A majority of students reported using the videos and finding them helpful for
preparing for class. With 62 of 70 respondents reporting that they watched most or all of the videos,and 57 out of 70 saying that the videos were “quite a bit” or “very” helpful in preparing for theirlessons, it seems reasonable to accept that the students generally did find the videos beneficial.
Furthermore, 64 out of 70 reported watching videos again voluntarily for review, with 13 stating they
did so “quite a bit,” and 45 said they found the videos “quite a bit” or “very” helpful for reviewing laterin the semester. Only a few students chose to leave qualitative comments on the use of videos, but
those comments were positive as well, including one student stating they wanted to continue thisstyle of learning, another liking the fact that they could “look back,” and one more appreciating theability to re-watch videos to help with understanding. While the overall perception of the flippedclassroom was not the main purpose of this study, confirming that the students generally did like theformat is important when evaluating their perceptions of using the YouTube platform for the class. Ifthey generally disliked using videos in a flipped classroom, then having a positive view of YouTube
would not be a particularly useful takeaway.
The final survey also allows us to compare the two platforms, YouTube and Blackboard, thatwere used in the course. In terms of actual usage, most students used both platforms at some point
during the course. Of those who only used one platform, it was a fairly even split between Blackboard

80

PLATFORM PREFERENCES FOR VIDEO CONTENT IN A FLIPPED CLASSROOM: STUDENTSʼ PERCEPTIONS OF YOUTUBE AS A PLATFORM FOR LEARNING

and YouTube. However, when asked about which platform they used more, it was very clear thatmost students used one platform more than the other. Furthermore, 59 out of 70 respondents statedthat they used one platform more than the other, and 7 said they used both platforms about equally.
Of the remaining 4, 3 did not answer and 1 student did not watch any videos. While more students
did report using YouTube more often than Blackboard, it was not a statistically significant difference,
implying the two platforms were used about equally.
While there was no significant difference in terms of which platform students used more often,
the difference in preferences was much stronger. The difference between the 35 students who
preferred YouTube, the 18 who preferred Blackboard, and the 13 who liked both equally wasstatistically significant. This means that in the sample it is fair to say that students did prefer YouTube
to Blackboard. Interestingly, the reasoning was similar independent of the preferred platform.
Qualitative data suggested that students based their preference primarily around ease of use andconvenience. The students who reported liking both platforms equally also explained this by statingthat both platforms were easy to use and convenient. While this preference was clear in the data, it isworth noting that there were still 18 students in the sample who preferred Blackboard and thispreference should not be disregarded. YouTube and Blackboard are both acceptable options forsharing videos for a flipped classroom, but as the qualitative responses show, they have different
strengths. YouTube is a platform that students are more likely to be familiar with and comfortableusing: it loads quickly and allow students to start watching a video right away, does not require
students to download files, and depending on the teacher’s ability to compress a video file, may
require less data as well. On the other hand, students found that Blackboard was sometimes moreconvenient as the announcements and assignments were also shared through Blackboard and somestudents appreciated the ability to download the video files. Given the specifics of this course it
seems that the decision to make the videos available through both Blackboard and YouTube wassuperior to requiring the students to use one particular platform. Overall, the data from these surveys
suggest that YouTube is a reasonable option for delivering instruction in a flipped classroom, but thatit may be reasonable for teachers to consider making content available on more than one platform ifthey are able to do so.

CONCLUSION
Providing videos for pre-class preparation as part of a flipped-classroom design was generally
well received by the students, and providing the videos on two platforms, Blackboard and YouTube,turned out to be a good decision. The majority of students reported using the videos to prepare forclass and finding them helpful for preparation and for review, including review not given as an
assignment. While some students used both platforms to watch videos, it was clear that most students
did use one platform more than the other, though it was closely split between Blackboard andYouTube. Students’ preferences, however, did clearly favor YouTube. Investigating students’
perceptions about YouTube as a platform for learning found that they had a neutral to positive viewof it at the start of the class, and after being provided with videos on YouTube for the class, they
seemed to view it more positively. This does suggest that providing content through YouTube for a
flipped classroom in a Japanese university is a reasonable decision. One benefit of using YouTube
was the fact that nearly all students were familiar with the platform and had experience using it forlearning, but it was also popular due to its ease of use and convenience. It would be interesting to see
if these results could apply to other platforms that teachers may introduce to students that are easy

81

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

to use but that students are not familiar with before the class.
It is also important to note that while YouTube was the preferred platform, it was not universally
preferred, and other students preferred Blackboard for reasons very similar to the reasons theirclassmates preferred YouTube. This could be interpreted to suggest that teachers who are able toprovide content through multiple platforms should consider doing so in order to provide easieraccess to their content to all of the students in their class. While this may not be practical forinteractive assignments where students may need to communicate with each other and may not workwhen teachers need to collect responses from students, it does seem that providing a variety of ways
to access content such as videos is a positive decision for students.

References
Ahmad, S. Z. (2016). The flipped classroom model to develop Egyptian EFL students’ listening
comprehension. English Language Teaching, 9(9). 166-178, https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.
v9n9p166
Bartholomew, S. R. & Reeve, E. (2018). Middle school student perceptions and actual use of mobile
devices: Highlighting disconnects in student planned and actual usage of mobile devices inclass. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 21(1). 48-58, https://www.jstor.org/
stable/10.2307/26273867
Basal. A. (2015). The implementation of a flipped classroom in foreign language teaching. Turkish
Online Journal of Distance Education, 16(4). 28-37, htps://doi.org/ 10.17718/tojde.72185
Bhagat, K. K., Chang, C. N., & Chang, C. Y. (2016) The impact of the flipped classroom onmathematics concept learning in high school. Journal of Educational Technology and Society,19(3).134-142, https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/jeductechsoci.19.3.134
DeLozier, S. J. & Rhodes, M. G. (2017). Flipped classrooms: A review of key ideas andrecommendations for practice. Educational Psychology Review, 29(1), 141-151, https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10648-015-9356-9
Fabbian, C., Emanuela, Z. C., & Maja, G. (2017). Lessons learned: Design and implementation of
Italian blended language courses. Italica, 94(2). 314-353, https://www.jstor.org/
stable/44983583
Gaughan, J. E. (2014). The flipped classroom in world history. The History Teacher, 47(2). 221-244,
https://www.jstor.org/stable/43264225
Goertler, S. (2009). Using computer-mediated communication (CMC) in language teaching. Die
Unterrichtspraxis / Teaching German, 42(1). 74-84. https://doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1756-1221.2009.
00038.x
Han, Y. J. (2015). Successfully flipping the ESL classroom for learner autonomy. NYS TESOL Journal,2(1). 98-109. http://journal.nystesol.org/jan2015/Han_98-109_NYSTJ_Vol2Iss1_Jan2015.pdf
Hsieh, J. S. C., Wu, W. V., & Marek, M. W. (2017). Using the flipped classroom to enhance EFL
learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 30(1-2). 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588
221.2015.1111910
Hung, H. T. (2015). Flipping the classroom for English language learners to foster active learning.
Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(1). 81-96. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.9
67701
Jamaludin, R. & Osman, S. Z. M. (2014). The use of a flipped classroom to enhance engagement andpromote active learning. Journal of Education and Practice, 5(2). 124-131. https://core.ac.uk/

82

PLATFORM PREFERENCES FOR VIDEO CONTENT IN A FLIPPED CLASSROOM: STUDENTSʼ PERCEPTIONS OF YOUTUBE AS A PLATFORM FOR LEARNING

download/pdf/234635267.pdf
Levy, M. (2009) Technologies in use for second language learning. The Modern Language Journal,
93. 769-782. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4781.2009.00972.x
Lin, C. J. & Hwang, G. J. (2018). A learning analytics approach to investigating factors affecting EFL
students’ oral performance in a flipped classroom. Journal of Educational Technology & Society,21(2). 205-219. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/26388398
Moravec, M., Williams, A., Aguilar-Roca, N., & O’Dowd, D. K. (2010). Learn before Lecture: A
strategy that improves learning outcomes in a large introductory biology class. CBE Life
Sciences Education, 9(4). 473-481. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.10-04-0063
Overmeyer, J. (2012). Flipped Classrooms 101. Principle (September/October), 46-47. https://www.
naesp.org/sites/default/files/Overmyer_SO12.pdf
Rubin, B., Fernandes, R., & Avgerinou, M. D. (2013). The effects of technology on the community ofinquiry and satisfaction with online courses. The Internet and Higher Education, 17. 48-57.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2012.09.006
Sweeny, S. M. (2010). Writing for the instant messaging and text messaging generation: Using newliteracies to support writing instruction. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 54(2). 121-130.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/20775367
Wilcox, K. C. (2009). The impact of student beliefs on the effectiveness of video in developing crosscultural competence. CALICO Journal, 27(1). 91-100. http://dx.doi.org/10.11139/cj.27.1.91100
Wu, W. C. V., Hsieh, J. S. C., & Yang, J. C. (2017). Creating an online learning community in a flippedclassroom to enhance EFL learners’ oral proficiency. Journal of Educational Technology &Society, 20(2). 142-157. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/90002170

83

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

APPENDIX A: Sur vey 1
1. Are you familiar with using YouTube and how to use the platform?
		a. Yes		b. No
2. Have you ever used YouTube for a class before?
		a. Yes		
b. No
3. Have you ever used YouTube to learn something by yourself before?
		a. Yes		
b. No
4. Before starting this class, how useful did you think YouTube was for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
5. Before starting this class, how professional did you think YouTube was as a platform forlearning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
6. Before starting this class, how easy did you think it was to use YouTube for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
7. Before starting this class, how trustworthy did you think YouTube was for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
8. Before starting this class, how convenient did you think it was to use YouTube for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
9. Before starting this class, how helpful did you think that YouTube was for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
10. Now, how useful do you think YouTube is for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
11. Now, how professional do you think YouTube is for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
12. Now, how easy do you think it is to use YouTube for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very		
13. Now, how trustworthy do you think YouTube is for learning? Not at all – Very little –So-so – Quite a bit – Very
14. Now, how convenient do you think it is to use YouTube for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
15. Now, how helpful do you think that YouTube is for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
16. Do you have any other comments about using YouTube for learning?
____________________________ (Open Ended Response)
17. Do you have any comments about how your thoughts about using YouTube for learning havechanged this semester?
___________________________ (Open Ended Response)84

PLATFORM PREFERENCES FOR VIDEO CONTENT IN A FLIPPED CLASSROOM: STUDENTSʼ PERCEPTIONS OF YOUTUBE AS A PLATFORM FOR LEARNING

APPENDIX B: Sur vey 2
1. Now, how useful do you think YouTube is for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
2. Now, how professional do you think YouTube is for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
3. Now, how easy do you think it is to use YouTube for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
4. Now, how trustworthy do you think YouTube is for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
5. Now, how convenient do you think it is to use YouTube for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
6. Now, how helpful do you think that YouTube is for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
7. Do you have any other comments about using YouTube for learning?
____________________________ (Open Ended Response)
8. Do you have any comments about how your thoughts about using YouTube for learning havechanged this semester?
___________________________ (Open Ended Response)85

外国語教育研究ジャーナル 第 2 巻（JOURNAL OF FOREIGN LANGUAGE EDUCATION AND RESEARCH, VOL. 2）

APPENDIX C: Sur vey 3
1. Now, how useful do you think YouTube is for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
2. Now, how professional do you think YouTube is for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
3. Now, how easy do you think it is to use YouTube for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
4. Now, how trustworthy do you think YouTube is for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
5. Now, how convenient do you think it is to use YouTube for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
6. Now, how helpful do you think that YouTube is for learning?
Not at all – Very little – So-so – Quite a bit – Very
7. Do you have any other comments about using YouTube for learning?
____________________________ (Open Ended Response)
8. Do you have any comments about how your thoughts about using YouTube for learning havechanged this semester?
___________________________ (Open Ended Response)
9. How many of the videos that were provided did you watch?
None – only a few – about half – most of them – all of them
10. How helpful were the videos for preparing for your lessons?
Not at all – very little – so-so – quite a bit – very
11. Did you go back and watch any videos again to review something because you wanted to?
Never – once or twice – sometimes – quite a bit – very often
12. How helpful were the videos for reviewing something later in the semester?
Not at all – very little – so-so – quite a bit – very
13. Did you watch videos on YouTube, Blackboard, or Both?
YouTube – Blackboard – Both – I didn’t watch any videos
14. Did you watch more videos on YouTube or on Blackboard?
YouTube – Blackboard – About the same – I didn’t watch any videos
15. Did you prefer YouTube or Blackboard for watching videos?
YouTube – Blackboard – About the same – I didn’t watch any videos
16. Why did you prefer the website you chose?
____________________________ (Open Ended Response)86