Introduction

The popular fundamental theory by Lev Semenovich Vygotsky, a Russian psychologist and teacher, that use of appropriate artefacts can aid higher cognitive realization during socio-cultural interactions² is very relevant even in today’s educational systems throughout the world. This is because for meaning and/or knowledge to be constructed and/or acquired, relevant mediation tools must be employed to make learning possible, and sometimes more active and enjoyable. Various mediation tools have been used to facilitate interactive, learner-centered learning in an effort to produce more practical and self-directed individuals. Some of these mediating artifacts range from the conventional tools such as chalk and blackboard, and teachers or instructors knowledge in form of language, to the current and emerging technologies such as information communication technology (ICT) which includes computers, mobile phones, internet and such related technologies. In Vygotsky’s socio-cultural theory of cognitive development, sometimes referred to as the first generation Activity Theory³, he emphasized the need to accomplish an outcome by meeting an object(ive) by the subject (in education, often a teacher) through use of the most appropriate and effective mediation tools.

With the current changing trends in education systems throughout the world, emphasis is now put on the employment of technological tools that engage learners more. The impact of these changes is making inroads in the developing countries thanks to the availability of low cost technologies, communication and learning devices. This, together with free online learning resources is geared towards promoting higher cognitive thinking by actively engaging students.

The Zone of Proximal Development(ZPD) is a concept which is highlightedby Vygotskyas of paramount importance in the learning process. Technology currently used and/or tested in the learning environment has been demonstrated to ‘move’ learners from what they can comfortably do to what they are capable of doing, thus helping in their development of higher cognitive skills. Therefore, use of appropriate technologies and tools such as YouTube videos in managing the ZPD to facilitate learning can be viewed as serving the same purpose as making use of the More Knowledge able Other (MKO) or scaffolding to solve the same problem.

Integration of Technology in Learning

Information communication technology has greatly positively influenced our lives in recent times because among other things, it has made us comprehend things better, do certain tasks faster and even more efficiently, often saving us time and expenses⁴. For instance, Oprea⁴ observed that ‘the success of the network World Wide Web is the fact that it is a huge source of information storage that can be accessed by anyone, anytime and anywhere in the world and that any administrator, with limited funds, has a chance to become an information provider’.The author notes that adoption of information technology has helped in substituting the more passive mode of learning to a more active one where learners takes part in knowledge creation and problem-solving. Creative classroom techniques incorporating technology have been shown to enable a more proactive and engaging learner environments⁵ as students usually have a wide choice of technologically sound tools to easilyaccess to information and use it.Vygotsky¹ believed that adults in the society helped in the development of children’s cognitive ability by engaging them in challenging and meaningful activities through use of various mediation tools. Mediation is the interaction of a learner with the learning environment using various means and/or tools such as other people(for example teachers),as well as through use of various educational technology tools to promote knowledge creation and acquisition.⁶

It is of paramount importance that innovative instructors, teachers or lecturers become mediators of the students’ knowledge-acquisition process rather than for example, teaching/lecturing them only, which does not promote active learning, instead, leads to passive receiving of information in a less interesting manner. In the context of learning new material, Vygotsky highlights the significance of the ZPD⁷ which as previously mentioned, is an area in which the student can learn with the facilitation from others, more knowledgeable individuals such as teachers through use of mediating technology tools. This learning facilitation may be in form of scaffolding, whereby as the learner improves their skills, the scaffolding is removed. It can also be in form of collective working/activity that has been shown to increase the learning opportunities for students.⁷ It is in recognizing the importance of addressing the ZPD that Vygotsky discussed the role of More Knowledgeable Other (MKO). The Vigotsky’s idea of learning as mediated by a culturally MKO implies a pedagogy that aims to openly structure and facilitate students learning.⁸ The MKO can be an experienced and skilled person or a technology mediating tool with numerous affordances such as a computer, a computer program or various freely available online learning resources and applications that have‘more knowledge’ than the learner and sometimes even the instructor.

In addition to computers and computer programs, other recent technologies and technological devices such as smartphones, smartwatches and tablets can also be used to promote social interaction and promote the learning process. For example, through online collaborative interaction with peers, students can learn from each other and also be able to access the internet at their own convenience to expand and/or improve their knowledge in certain areas that they may be deficient in. In addition, it makes it possible for the learners to engage with each other and with the educational materials available via social networking sites and social media platforms including Facebook, Wikis and YouTube, among others.

Both current and rapidly emerging technological innovations provide learners and instructors in various educational systems and set ups with alternative tools and means of accomplishing day-to-day tasks and solving a myriad of other problems that would otherwise be impossible to do.⁹ These educational technology tools may be regarded as ‘new cultural tools’ which have affordances in that they can effortlessly mediate actions or learning in a classroom environment although the process of implementing them under various learning settings¹⁰ may present some challenges or resistance from the would-be users. On their research work on ‘understanding innovation in education using Activity Theory’, some researchers⁹ highlighted the importance of using technology tools in learning which promotes constructivist theoretical framework to learning.

Application of Web 2.0 Technologies in Learning

Web 2.0 which is sometimes called ‘read write web’ is a terminology which was first used by O’Reilly in 2003.¹¹ It is considered a more interactive version of Web 1.0 which was, and still is considered a less engaging version i.e. Web 2.0 is an improvement of Web 1.0.¹¹ Unlike Web 1.0, Web 2.0 can promote problem-solving, a great pedagogical strategy in support of constructivist theory of learning.¹² For example, in Web 2.0, learners can actively engage in learning through online discussions in real time and this is often instantaneous, either through texts or videos which was and is not possible through Web 1.0 technology.¹³ In Web 2.0 technology, the users actively participate in content creation rather than just passively receiving it. By definition, Web 2.0 technology is, according to Cambridge Online Dictionary.¹⁴ A name for all the internet features and websites that allow users to create, change and share internet content’. Use of Web 2.0 does not require expertize training to engage with, making it very user-friendly, particularly to novice learners.¹⁵ Some of the key Web 2.0 applications are Wikis, blogs and YouTube, among others.

The current learning theories such as connectivist and constructivist (a concept underlying Vygotsky’s theory) seem to be well supported by Web 2.0 technologies^15,16 as they are viewed to be very interactive and promoting active learning. Research has demonstrated that these technologies stimulate active collaborative learning, immensely improving learners’innovative creativity, thus knowledge acquisition and retention.¹⁵ It is evident, from previous research that these technology applications can be blended in pedagogies as mediation tools to improve the learners experiences. Technology applications have several affordances,¹⁷ for example, the same application can be accessed from different devices from anywhere in the world and most applications are freely available online. The current availability of affordable communication devices such as smartphones, tablets, laptops and desktop computers, especially in developing countries, which were lagging behind in matters educational technology,seems to drive the take-up and usage of Web 2.0 technologies.¹⁸

In recent times, new technologies rooted in Web 2.0 are continuously changing and challenging the way educational content is delivered to learners, especially in higher education context.¹⁹

It is without a doubt that currently, many academicians are increasingly embracing the utilization of Web 2.0 technologies in teaching and learning in their learning spaces.There is need to embrace these kind of technologies in these kind of educational set ups as ‘the failure to embrace emerging technologies in higher education courses can lead to pedagogies that risk alienating a generation of learners, some of whom demand basic instruction using new technologies.²⁰ This is because pedagogies change with changes in mediation tools and adaptation is necessary in order to remain relevant in this dynamically changing learning environment. The need of embracing these technologies is obvious in many institutions of higher learning where many online networking and learning applications such as YouTube, Wikis, blogs, podcasting, and others²¹ are increasingly used as mediation tools to enhance knowledge construction while improving learners’ engagement.

YouTube as an Example of Web 2.0 Educational Technology Tool

YouTube was created by three people; Hurley, Chen and Karim in 2005²² to aid sharing of videos online.^{23, 24} Besides being a source of entertainment, it has also tremendously grown to be a free teaching resource for educators in recent times.⁵ Any interested user of the servicecan access it on www.youtube.comso long as they have internet connectivity capabilities.YouTube has in recent times caught the attention of many innovative educators owing to its potential for use as a teaching and learning mediation tool. Several institutions of higher learning are using it, for example,Google for Education (https://www.youtube.com/user/eduatgoogle) demonstrates acknowledgement and continued use by institutions of higher learning of video recorded lectures and other institutional activities online.YouTube provides a wide category of people with a variety of freely available videos, all what is required is internet connection and a device or a tool on which to stream or download the video(s). YouTube ‘is a service for educators which contains short lessons from teachers, full university courses and professional development videos from academicians²³ which indicates how rich of a resource it is for lay persons, instructors, learners and researchers among others. ‘YouTube for schools allowsinstitutions to access thousands of educational videos from vetted YouTube channels like TED and Khan in a secure environment.²³

Together with other web-based video sharing sites, YouTube is considered an important innovative emerging technology in higher education.²⁵ The use of online networking sites such as YouTube as engaging and entertaining learning mediation tools in classrooms have become vital among instructors in an effort to promote active learning and improve motivation among the learners to want to learn even more according to several researchers.²⁶ There is currently an increasing trend in the number of educators who are introducing YouTube as a mediation tool in their pedagogies. For example, research has indicated that 33.3% of ICT lecturers in South Africa used YouTube for teaching while 66.7% felt it was a good idea to incorporate it in classroom.²⁶  According to Pew Internet and American Life Project findings, many students in higher education can comfortably engage with content using technologies analogous to YouTube in carrying out certain tasks,⁵ which means that YouTube can support these students’ digital learning approaches. In addition, this technology can offer an opportunity for new learners to experience new technologies that would equip them with lifelong skills for their future careers.⁵

Using YouTube as a Learning Mediation Tool to Bridge Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development

The ZPD is probably the mostwell-known concept of Vigotsky’stheory which wascommonly in use in the developmental process of children.²⁷ Vygotsky emphasized on assessing, not onlyon the child’s developed level, but also the child’s probable or potential development.²⁷ This ZPD concept though previously used in child developmental psychology, can be extrapolated to learning in higher education (where we can substitute a ‘child’ for a ‘learner’) where various means to bridge ZPD have been explored and reported in literature. It is not uncommon to find usage of terms/phrases such as scaffolding and More Knowledgeable Other (MKO) or More Capable Other (MCO) being used as means of addressing the ZPD. Scaffolding is a means of assisted learning i.e. offering a non-permanent support to a learner²⁸ which is made possible through intervention by more experienced persons such as teachers/lecturers, parents or any other individual who has more knowledge and/or skills than the learner (i.e. MKO).Scaffolding can also be defined as ‘a bridge used to build upon what students already know to arrive at something they do not know.²⁹

Vygotsky¹ is cited by an author defining an MKO as ‘an essential component of the learning process with more knowledge or a greater understanding of a particular task or process than the learner.³⁰  It can also be a technology mediating learning tool such as YouTube which has the potential to significantly increase the learning opportunities forboth the learners and the instructors.³⁰ What this means is that YouTube as an example of Web 2.0 technologies can be used by an MKO or even by itself to address the ZPD through scaffolding. Use of YouTube as a mediation tool should be integrated into guided learning opportunities that offer technology-assisted situations in which students are supported in the construction of relevant understanding within an authentic context.³⁰ According to Vygotsky's theory, tools or artefacts caninfluence the way students learn and interact with their learning environments.²⁷ Use of YouTube to mediate learning in a classroom environment can be an innovative, creative and an engaging means of addressing the ZPD as it can bridge the gap between digital native students and their teachers.³¹ Extensive research has demonstrated that students learn and retain content better when, in addition to their audio stimulation, visual stimulation is aroused as well, as this tend to significantly improve their cognitive abilities, and more learning occurs³² helping in more knowledge acquisition and retention, thus helping in the narrowing of the ZPD.³² YouTube give an opportunity to the learners to study content like they would in a face-to-face class with an MKO, even in his/her absence. This is particularly important as it can be done in an asynchronous manner and greatly enhance change of pedagogies for the better e.g. facilitating adoption of flipped classes.³¹ With widespread availability of affordable and portable electronic learning and communication devices, coupled with cheap internet connectivity and sometime free WiFi, lecturers can effortlessly share content with their learners aiding them revise content better.³³
.
Extant literature highlights the importance of incorporating educational videos in pedagogies in higher education to promote student-centered and collaborative learning.Videos have been demonstrated to evoke emotions in learners’ mind arousing learning, heightened engagement and excitement in the classroom environment,³⁴ effects of which have been shown to promote self-directed learning.³⁵ Enhanced learners’ interest and motivation in a given subject as a result teaching using educational videos promotes constructivists pedagogic model of learning. Engaging learners by use interactive social media technologies such as YouTube has been reported to contribute towards the achievement of higher order thinking³⁶ and according to Archambault 
et al.³⁷, motivation to learn more evoked by use of videos is a good case of cognitive engagement. YouTube has greatly enhanced learner-centered and collaborative approaches of learning where they have also been shown to trigger discussions amongst learners that can be guided by the instructor enhancing behavioral engagement.^33,38,39 Some researchers have also reported that learners felt that a blend of asking questions, response and additional explanation from the instructor augmented the value of the educational video which is considered an excellent example of emotional engagement in practice.⁴⁰

Challenges that May be Experienced in Incorporating YouTube Videos in Teaching and Learning

Even with several benefits associated with videos in learning, there are challenges. For example, obtaining a relevant video of interest may not only be a difficult task but also time-wasting, especially when the instructor has no specific video in mind as the website may contain numerous videos to search through.⁵ As YouTube is a platform where any user is free to share whatever they want, learners may have challenges in obtaining the appropriate videos in terms of correctness of content, that is, accuracy and credibility of the videos posted may often be questionable.²⁵ There is need for instructors to carefully review the entire YouTube videos content they wish to engage the learners with before using them in class to ensure that both the language and content are appropriate for learning.³¹ It is also advisable for the instructors to add a disclaimer indicating that that the video (content) is from YouTube.⁵ Lack of ICT infrastructure within a higher education institution may also hinder uptake of YouTube as a mediating tool in learning, for example, lack of enough bandwidth and hardware in classrooms or lecture halls, which may be a common scenario in many developing countries which are not yet tech savvy. An excellent YouTube educational video may also not always be online for learners and instructors to refer to at their convenience as it may be removed from the site for various reasons.³¹

Conclusion

Recent advancement, implementation and use of current and emerging technologies as mediation tools in higher education training has significantly promoted and improved active learning and production of self-directed learners, which is the main goal of today’s education systems worldwide. Vygotsky’s theory advocates use of appropriate mediation tools in the development and acquisition of knowledge, addressing his famous concept of ZPD. Several technologies can be integrated in pedagogies to address this ZPD, and one of the most important of these technologies are highly engaging mediation tools within the Web 2.0 technologies. One of the excellent tools that have witnessed significant usage in higher education in recent times is YouTube which promotes learning through use videos posted online. YouTube can be used by the MKO to guide students learning, or it can be used by learners themselves directly as an MKO owing to its several affordances. Use of YouTube in higher education has particularly been very useful and effective in flipped classes where learners study using them before lectures, and contact time used for hands-on collaborative activities fostering active rather than passive learning. Teaching using this mediation tool is on an upward trajectory in developing countries and with the increasingly upgrading of the ICT infrastructure, the momentum of usage can only get better.

Acknowledgment

The author wishes to thank the entire team of the Centre for Innovation in Learning and Teaching at the University of Cape Town who contributed towards his Postgraduate Diploma in Educational Technology qualification which greatly inspired and guided the writing of this publication.

Funding Source

No funding source to declare

References

1. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Interaction between learning and development. In:Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes, M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, and E. Souberman (Eds.), 79-91. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

2. Hardman, J. (2005). An exploratory case study of computer use in a primary school mathematics classroom: New technology, new pedagogy? Perspectives in Education;23, 1-13.

3. Engeström, Y. & Escalante, V. (1996). Mundane tool or object of affection? The rise and fall of the postal buddy. In: Context and consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interactions, Nardi, B. (Ed.). Cambridge, Mass: The MIT Press.

4. Oprea, C.L. (2014). The Internet - a tool for interactive learning. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences;142, 786-792.
   CrossRef

5. Burke, S. C., Snyder, S. & Rager, R.C. (2090). Assessment of faculty usage of YouTube as a teaching resource. The Internet Journal of Allied Health Sciences and Practice, 7, 1-8.

6. Nieto, C.H.G. (2007). Applications of Vygotskyan Concept of Mediation in SLA. Colombian Applied Linguistics Journal, 9, 213-228.

7. Roth, W.M. & Lee, Y. J. (2007). Vigotsky’s neglected legacy: Cultural-Historical Activity Theory. Review of Educational Research, 77, 186-232.
   CrossRef

8. Hardman, J. (2008), Researching pedagogy: Activity Theory approach. Journal of Education, 45, 1-30.

9. Russel, D.L. & Schneiderheinze, A. Understanding innovation in education using Activity Theory. Educational Technology and Society, 8, 38-53:

10. Wertsch, J. (1998). Mind as action, N.Y. Oxford University Press:

11. Duffy, P. (2007). Engaging the YouTube google-eyed generation: Strategies for using Web 2.0 in teaching and learning. European Conference on ELearning, ECEL, 173-182.

12. Greenhow, C., Robelia, B., & Hughes, J. E.(2009). Learning, teaching, and scholarship in a digital age Web 2.0 and classroom research: What path should we take now. Educational Researcher,38, 246-259

13. Weller, A (2013) .The use of Web 2.0 technology for pre-service teacher learning in science education. Research in Teacher Education, 3, 40-46.

14. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge online dictionary. Accessed on 16^th February, 2018.

15. Ullrich, C., Borau, K., Luo, H., Tan, X., Shen, L. & Shen, R. (2008). Why Web 2.0 is good for learning and for research: Principles and prototypes.International World Wide Web Conference Committee, April 21–25, Beijing, China.

16. Brown, S. From VLEs to learning webs. (2010).  The implications of Web 2.0 for learning and teaching. Interactive Learning Environments, 18, 1-10.

17. Karsten Krauskopf, K., Zahn, C. &  Hesse, F.W. (2012). Leveraging the affordances of Youtube: The role of pedagogical knowledge and mental models of technology functions for lesson planning with technology. Computers and Education, 58, 1194-1206.
    CrossRef

18. Mutula, S. M. 2018. Ethical Dimension of the Information Society: implications for Africa. In:YouTube as an academic tool for ICT lecturers. Proceedings of the e-Skills for Knowledge Production and Innovation Conference 2014, Cape Town, South Africa, 389-399. Available at http://proceedings.e-skillsconference.org/2014/e-skills389-399Roodt763.pdf. Accessed on 6^th February, .

19. Glass, R., & Spiegelman, M. (2007). Incorporating blogs into the syllabus: Making their space a learning space. Journal of Educational Technology System,36, 145-155.
    CrossRef

20. Herrington, J., & Parker, J.(2013). Emerging technologies as cognitive tools for authentic learning. British Journal of Educational Technology,44, 607-615.
    CrossRef

21. Abdoli-Sejzi, A. A., Aris, B., Ahmad, M.H. & Rosli, M.S.(2015). The relationship between Web 2.0 technologies and students achievement in virtual university. International Education Studies,8, 67-72.

22. Hansen, M. & Erdley, S. (2009).YouTube and other Web 2.0 Applications for nursing education. Online Journal of Nursing Informatics; 13: Available at http://ojni.org/13_3/Hansen_Erdley.pdf. Accessed on 6^th February, 2018.

23. Buzzetto-More, N. (2015). Student attitudes towards the integration of YouTube in online, hybrid, and web-assisted courses: An examination of the impact of course modality on perception. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 11, 55-73.

24. Snelson, C., Rice, K. & Wyzard, C. (2012) Research priorities for YouTube and video-sharing technologies: A Delphi study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 43, 119-129.
    CrossRef

25. Burke, S.C.& Snyder, S.(2008). YouTube: An innovative resource for college health education courses. International Electronic Journal of Health Education,11, 39-46.

26. Asaolu, A.O., Adebayo, O., Itsekor, V.O. & Osinulu, I. (2015). Use of social networking sites for academic research and collaboration: A survey of Covenant University academic staff. Information and Knowledge Management, 5, 120-124.

27. Verenikina, I.(2010). Vygotsky in twenty-first-century research. In: Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications, J. Herrington and B. Hunter (Eds.), 16-25. Chesapeake, VA: AACE

28. Tharpe, R. & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life: Teaching, learning, and schooling in social context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

29. Hardjito, D. (2010).The use of scaffolding approach to enhance students’ engagement in learning structural analysis. International Education Studies, 3, 130-135.
    CrossRef

30. Cicconi, M. (2013).Vygotsky meets technology: A reinvention of collaboration in the early childhood mathematics classroom. Early Child Education Journal.42, 57-65.

31. Abell, C. H. (2011). Using YouTube to bridge the gap between baby boomers and millennials. Journal of Nursing Education,50, 299.

32. Eick, C., & King, T. (2012). Non-science majors' perceptions on the use of YouTube video to support learning in an integrated science lecture. Journal of College Science Teaching, 42, 26-30.

33. Clifton, A., & Mann, C. (2011). Can YouTube enhance student nurse learning? Nurse Education Today, 31, 311-313.

34. Berk, R. A. (2009). Multimedia teaching with video clips: TV, movies, YouTube, and mtvU in the college classroom. International Journal of Technology in Teaching and Learning,5, 1-21.

35. Hiemstra, R. (2018). How the internet is changing self-directed learning. Center for Distance Learning, Empire State College. Available at http://roghiemstra.com/Internet-SDL.pdf. Accessed on 3^rd March.

36. Bosman, L., & Zagenczyk, T. (2011). Revitalize your teaching: creative approaches to applying social media in the classroom. Social media tools and platforms in learning environments, 3-6. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
    CrossRef

37. Archambault, I., Janosz, M., Fallu, J. S.& Pagani, L. S. (2009).Student engagement and its relationship with early high school dropout. Journal of Adolescence;32, 651-670.
    CrossRef

38. Lazarus, J., & Roulet, G.(2013). Creating a YouTube-like collaborative environment in mathematics: Integrating animated GeoGebra constructions and student-generated screencast videos. European Journal of Contemporary Education, 4, 117-128.
    CrossRef

39. Wandera, S., James-Waldon, N., Bromley, D., & Henry, Z. (2016). The influence of social media on collaborativelearning in a cohort environment. Interdisciplinary Journal of e-Skills and Life Long Learning, 12, 123-143.
    CrossRef

40. Wolters, C. A., & Taylor, D. J., 2012. A self-regulated learning perspective on student engageent. Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, 635-651.