Redox on YouTube: Representations, Content  Features, and Chemistry Learning Potential

• Video sharing sites including YouTube used by 90% of 18-24 year olds1

• Educational YouTube videos sought by 75% of BIO and CHM courses with 72% believing videos are academically professional and accurate2

• Frequency of YouTube use and Richard Mayer’s Multimedia Learning Principles3 informed prior work in the YRG4,5 on bonding, intermolecular forces, and acid-base chemistry, building methodological knowledge to evaluate the quality of YouTube videos across multiple topics.

• For oxidation-reduction, other work in the YRG surfaced limitations on traditions of instruction because of over reliance on the symbolic level6 (a la Johnstone’s representational domains7).

• Dominant treatment of redox symbolically has left little opportunity for the development of representational competence.8

• Research on common redox misconceptions9,10 shows promise for criteria for evaluating the quality of chemistry content knowledge (and potential to support learning) for redox YouTube videos. 

1. YouTube videos on redox chemistry were selected based on having over 100,000 views. 

2. A comprehensive checklist of features relevant to the effective teaching of redox chemistry concepts was developed. 

3. The selected videos were rated, according to the checklist: Videos that accurately represented a feature received a 1 for the corresponding feature, videos that did not accurately represent the feature received a 0 for the corresponding feature, and videos that both accurately and inaccurately represented the feature received a 0.5 for the corresponding feature.

4. To ensure interrater reliability, raters reached consensus on all feature ratings for each video. To assess intrarater reliability, a random subset of videos was reselected, rewatched, and rerated.

5. After identifying little representation of the particulate domain, a second round of YouTube video selection occurred, specifically targeting videos that appeared to show particulate-level representations.

6. Steps 2, 3, and 4 were repeated for the particulate-selected videos.

7. Frequency of each feature was calculated.

8. Results were visualized.

• RQ#1. The symbolic domain is most prevalent in YouTube redox videos.

• RQ#2. No videos had the feature that shows the role/ importance of spectator ions. 

• RQ#2. The most occurring redox learning concept was “Oxidized/Reduced use in example.” 

• RQ#3. The physical reality of redox is better represented in particulate-focused videos (as seen by checklist features #4, #3, and #17).

• RQ#3. States of matter are more often specified in high view count videos, whereas in particulate-focused videos, a state of matter may be implied by the structure.

• RQ#3. A greater range of reaction types is shown in videos with high view counts, where higher-density content often rapidly switches from segment to segment. 

• Implication: Since the particulate domain is the least prevalent among high view count videos, and the particulate-focused videos have low view counts, students performing searches for explanatory YouTube videos will not often discover particulate representations of redox chemistry.

1. Madden, M. (2009). The audience for online video-sharing sites shoots up. Washington, DC: Pew Internet & American Life Project. 

2. Cherif, A. H., Siuda, J. E., Movahedzadeh, F., Martyn, M., Cannon, C., & Ayesh, S. I. (2014). College Students' Use of YouTube Videos In Learning Biology and Chemistry Concepts. Pinnacle Educational Research & Development, 2(6), 334337. 

3. Mayer, R. E. (2002). Cognitive theory and the design of multimedia instruction: an example of the two‐way street between cognition and instruction. New directions for teaching and learning, 2002(89), 55-71. 

4. Magnone, K. Q., Ebert, J. A., Creeden, R., Karlock, G., Loveday, M., Blake, E., Pratt, J. M., Schafer, A. G. L., & Yezierski, E. J.  (2023). Cognitively loaded: An investigation of educational chemistry YouTube videos’ adherence to Mayer’s Multimedia Principles. Journal of Chemical Education, 100(2), 432-441. 

5. Barman, M. E., Mikes-Thacker, M. L., Moorehead, M. E., Wissman, M., Gerken, W., Ryland, S. M., & Yezierski, E. J. (2026). Examining generative, extraneous, and essential features in chemistry YouTube Videos: Recommendations for Practice, Journal of Chemical Education, 103(4), 1768-1778.    

6. Wu, M. Y. M., & Yezierski, E. J. (2023). Investigating the mangle of teaching oxidation–reduction with the VisChem approach: problematising symbolic traditions that undermine chemistry concept development. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 24(3), 807-827. 

7. Johnstone, A. H. (2010). You can’t get there from here. Journal of Chemical Education, 87(1), 22-29. 

8. Kozma, R., & Russell, J. (2005). Students becoming chemists: Developing representational competence. Visualization in science education, 1, 121-146. 

9. Brandriet, A. R., & Bretz, S. L. (2014). The development of the redox concept inventory as a measure of students’ symbolic and particulate redox understandings and confidence. Journal of Chemical Education, 91(8), 11321144.

10. Brandriet, A. R., & Bretz, S. L. (2014). Measuring meta-ignorance through the lens of confidence: Examining students' redox misconceptions about oxidation numbers, charge, and electron transfer. Chemistry Education Research and Practice, 15(4), 729-746.

The YRG followed the best practices for mixed methods research with high standards for theoretical grounding and robust evidence.