﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.2 20190208//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd"[]>
<article xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="1.2" article-type="research-article">
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
      <journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">ijese</journal-id>
      <journal-title-group>
        <journal-title>Interdisciplinary Journal of Environmental and Science
Education</journal-title>
      </journal-title-group>
      <issn publication-format="electronic">2633-6537</issn>
      <publisher>
        <publisher-name>Modestum</publisher-name>
      </publisher>
    </journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.29333/ijese/19449</article-id>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>From cellphilm to viewer response: MTH belonging,
affective, and digital reception in ecopedagogic
practice</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes">
          <contrib-id contrib-id-type="orcid">0009-0003-3171-8437</contrib-id>
          <name>
            <surname>Chbib</surname>
            <given-names>Bachar</given-names>
          </name>
          <email>bacharchbib@gmail.com</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff-1" />
          <xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor-true">
            <sup>*</sup>
          </xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff-1">
          <label>1</label>
          <institution-wrap>
            <institution>Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, QC,
CANADA</institution>
          </institution-wrap>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <pub-date date-type="pub" publication-format="electronic" iso-8601-date="2026-09-28">
        <day>28</day>
        <month>9</month>
        <year>2026</year>
      </pub-date>
      <volume>22</volume>
      <issue>4</issue>
      <elocation-id>e2621</elocation-id>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright © 2026 by Author/s and Licensed by
Modestum DOO, Serbia.</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2026</copyright-year>
        <license license-type="open-access" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">
          <license-p>This is an open access article distributed under the Creative
Commons Attribution License which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work
is properly cited.</license-p>
        </license>
      </permissions>
      <abstract>
        <p>
This article examines ecopedagogic cellphilming – short films made
entirely on mobile devices – as a critical, embodied approach to
environmental education, and extends the inquiry to viewer reception
through YouTube comments. Grounded in autoethnography and a relational,
more-than-human approach to research, the study asks whether short,
sensory-focused cellphilms can foster kinship, belonging, and ethical
attention to ecological crisis. Fifty selected cellphilms were shared on
a YouTube channel, where friends, colleagues, and family were invited to
comment on their sensory, emotional, and bodily responses. Over five
weeks, these comments were read as affective and situated responses
rather than as simple feedback, using a combined thematic, sensory, and
sentiment-based approach that stayed open to ambiguity and
contradiction. Viewer responses revealed recurring themes of wonder,
empathy, discomfort, ecological concern, and sensory immersion,
suggesting that the cellphilms prompted affective recognition as well as
reflection. At the same time, the study indicates that meaning changed
when the cellphilms moved from embodied making to mediated circulation
on YouTube, where there was a lack of direct interaction and platform
dynamics shaped reception. Because participants were drawn from the
researcher’s own social network, these positive and empathetic responses
should be read partly as an effect of that relationship rather than as
evidence of the cellphilms’ impact on a general audience. The researcher
notes several ethical problems in this viewer-response analysis, mostly
around consent, privacy, power, and data use. Rather than following a
fixed methodology, the study adopts an exploratory and reflective
approach suited to the open-ended, practice-based nature of
environmental art research, and its findings should be read as situated,
exploratory observations shaped by a limited and context-specific sample
rather than as quantitatively generalizable or conventionally rigorous
qualitative results. Despite these limitations, this research shows that
watching cellphilms informed by ecopedagogy on YouTube can still
generate a strong sense of ecological belonging, as viewers express
wonder, discomfort, and care even without direct embodied experience.
</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group kwd-group-type="author">
        <kwd>cellphilming</kwd>
        <kwd>more-than-human</kwd>
        <kwd>sentiment analysis</kwd>
        <kwd>ecopedagogy</kwd>
        <kwd>affect</kwd>
        <kwd>YouTube</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="introduction">
      <title>INTRODUCTION</title>
      <p>My recent research/creation inquiries aim to expand the application
  of environmental education – defined comprehensively in this article
  as education of the environment
  (EoE)<xref id="fnref1" alt="1" rid="fn1"><sup>1</sup></xref> – to help
  learners and teachers develop transformative, engaged practices and
  approaches to outdoor/indoor ecopedagogies. Misiaszek (2021) gives us
  a broad definition:</p>
      <disp-quote>
        <p>Ecopedagogies are grounded in critical thinking and
    transformability, with the ultimate goal being to construct learning
    with increased social and environmental justice. Rooted in critical
    theories and originating from popular education models of Latin
    America, ecopedagogy is centered on better understanding the
    connections between human acts of environmental violence and social
    violence that cause injustices/ oppressions, domination over the
    rest of Nature, and planetary unsustainability. (p. 2)</p>
      </disp-quote>
      <p>Ecopedagogies therefore teach to disrupt the repetition of the
  unending cycle of extraction, bio-destruction, ecocide, oppression,
  injustice and anthropocentrism that a socio-cultural politics of
  (un)sustainable economics promises.</p>
      <p>In my recent research, my autoethnographic approach was central,
  using my own embodied experiences of filming and viewing to examine
  how meaning emerges through sensation, emotion, and reflexivity
  (Chbib, 2026). Affect is treated as an educational force that shapes
  perception and ethical orientation, shifting the focus from
  understanding climate change to feeling and responding to ecological
  entanglement. The use of short films resists narrative closure,
  encouraging repetition and cumulative resonance as a form of
  ecological learning.</p>
      <p>In 2023-24, I produced 200 short cellphilms informed by
  ecopedagogy<xref id="fnref2" alt="2" rid="fn2"><sup>2</sup></xref>. I
  then choose amongst them 50 non-representational cellphilms that
  explore how affect circulates between image, sound, body, and
  environment. Rather than treating Nature as an object, these
  cellphilms foreground more-than-human (MTH) presences such as wind,
  water, plants, animals, decay, light, and infrastructure, inviting
  sensory attunement and ethical
  reflection<xref id="fnref3" alt="3" rid="fn3"><sup>3</sup></xref>.
  Grounded in ecopedagogical thought, the cellphilming project linked
  ecological crisis to broader systems of colonialism, extraction, and
  injustice, framing education as a critical and relational
  practice.</p>
      <p>My own positionality as both filmmaker and researcher is
  inseparable from this research and its analysis. I have worked as a
  professional storytelling filmmaker for 40 years, and this expertise
  shaped the cellphilms themselves, including: their pacing, framing,
  and sensory emphasis as they were crafted, even within an otherwise
  spontaneous and unscripted practice, decades of narrative instinct. I
  flag this here, before presenting findings, because it bears directly
  on how viewers responded: skill in evocative visual storytelling
  likely shaped the type and intensity of emotional response the
  cellphilms elicited, independent of their ecopedagogical content. An
  amateur filmmaker using the same praxis might generate a different
  distribution of viewer responses, a possibility I return to when
  interpreting the thematic results below.</p>
      <p>To broaden my research inquiries, the cellphilms were shared on
  YouTube, where viewers were invited to comment on their sensory and
  emotional responses. These comments became a site of collective
  meaning-making, revealing how viewers experienced connection,
  discomfort, and reflection. Sifting through the viewers’ comments, I
  decided to go with a collage-driven, integrated method of analysis
  that drew from postdigital, post-qualitative, and non-representational
  research models. This multifaceted approach enabled me to capture the
  complex ways in which adult viewers engaged with my ecopedagogical
  cellphilms, moving beyond traditional content analysis to explore the
  affective, embodied, and sensory dimensions of their responses. This
  also allowed me to understand data through thematic and sensory
  perspectives for an enhanced analysis of the cellphilm viewing
  experience. In this way, my larger research project moves from
  individual practice to shared experience, showing how digital
  platforms can both mediate and extend ecopedagogical belonging.</p>
      <p>Accordingly, the findings are best understood as situated,
  exploratory insights drawn from a limited, context-specific sample
  rather than as generalizable or conventionally rigorous qualitative
  results. More explicitly, differences in engaging with affective
  belonging exposes the making/reception gap as pedagogically
  significant. The contrast between embodied cellphilming and mediated
  viewing highlights two distinct modes of belonging: one grounded in
  direct, sensory participation with MTH entities, and the other in
  reflective, affective interpretation shaped by digital interfaces.</p>
      <p>This article elaborates on the research question: <italic>How do
  viewers of ecopedagogically informed cellphilms on YouTube experience
  and articulate affective, embodied, and MTH belonging, and what does
  this reveal about the pedagogic potential of short-form digital
  ecopedagogy praxis?</italic> I analyze the responses to
  ecopedagogically informed cellphilms with a limited audience shared on
  a YouTube channel for a viewing period of five
  weeks<xref id="fnref4" alt="4" rid="fn4"><sup>4</sup></xref>. Adult
  viewers were asked to engage with their emotions, feelings, and sense
  of embodiment to understand and engage in a kinship and/or sense of
  belonging with the MTH co-participants in my cellphilms.</p>
      <p>I examined how viewers responded to the cellphilms as MTH
  encounters, and how their comments illuminate the pedagogic potential
  of short form ecopedagogic media use. I shared the cellphilms online
  to further my preceding inquiries and compare the generation of
  empathy, belonging and kinship between cellphilming praxis and
  cellphilm viewing. I also situated the project within a broader
  ecopedagogical commitment to relational learning, where environmental
  understanding emerges through feeling-with, watching-with, and
  thinking-with MTH others.</p>
      <p>Embracing participatory media as a powerful tool for social change
  and community empowerment, I utilized platforms like YouTube and Vimeo
  to share and/or store my cellphilms. These platforms not only
  facilitated the dissemination of my work but also created spaces for
  dialogue and collective meaning-making (Burgess et al., 2018; Freeman
  et al., 2014; Hall &amp; Walsh, 2015; K.-H. Yang, 2015). The comment
  section became a rich source of data, offering insights into how
  viewers connected with MTH entities whilst viewing the cellphilms.</p>
      <p>Throughout this sharing process, I remained acutely aware of my
  role as both cellphilm maker and researcher as I engaged with the data
  (Ellingson &amp; Sotirin, 2020). As a research-creation project
  drawing on voluntarily offered, publicly posted anonymous responses to
  a screened cellphilm, this inquiry fell outside the scope of work
  requiring formal research ethics review; I nonetheless held myself to
  the protections such review would require, informing viewers of the
  project’s purpose before they responded, allowing comments to be
  withdrawn on request during the five-week screening window, and
  removing all identifying information prior to analysis, such that only
  the emotional content of statements – never the persons behind them –
  entered the analysis. Within that self-imposed ethical framework, I
  acknowledge unresolved concerns related to consent, privacy, power,
  and data use – particularly given that participants were also personal
  contacts – noting that the inquiry is inherently partial, messy, and
  reflexive rather than methodologically fixed (St. Pierre, 2012), an
  approach well suited to research-creation work of this kind. This is
  further discussed in the section on limitations. In the following
  sections, I will detail my methodological approach, present my
  findings, and discuss the implications of this work for
  ecopedagogy.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="purpose">
      <title>PURPOSE</title>
      <p>Climate change discourse increasingly demands urgent action
  intertwined with economic development, social justice, and planetary
  survival. Yet despite promises of low-carbon and digital transitions,
  progress remains uneven due to regional inequalities, ongoing
  fossil-fuel dependence, and unequal climate vulnerability. The slow
  pace of change reveals not only technological and policy limitations
  but also a deeper failure of imagination, affect, and environmental
  citizenship education. Education for environmental citizenship (EEC)
  is argued to be very significant in the development students learning
  about ecology, sustainability and active environmental democratic
  citizenship (Gericke &amp; Torbjörnsson, 2022; Hadjichambis &amp;
  Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, 2020). Furthermore, the use of digital and
  alternative technologies, imagination and storytelling is shown to
  promote biodiversity and educate students about sustainability – thus
  facilitating a successful environmental citizenship education (Brečka
  et al., 2022; Hadzigeorgiou, 2018; Oladosu, 2020; Schelly &amp;
  Banerjee, 2018; Xia, 2024)</p>
      <p>According to the Ericsson mobility report, by the beginning of
  2026, there were approximately 8.83 billion mobile subscriptions
  worldwide, 84% of the population, with 7.41 billion being smartphone
  subscriptions (Davis, 2026). It is evident by the numbers, that the
  smartphone revolution has made the use of phone cameras very
  accessible for the majority of the World’s human population.</p>
      <p>The use of new technologies has been shown to enhance education
  across several curricula and subject matters, including STEAM, citizen
  science, and mathematics (Chozas et al., 2023; Quigley et al., 2020;
  Schacter &amp; Jo, 2016). Smartphone and other mobile digital
  recording device use has also been shown to enhance learner (in)formal
  education in ecology-related curricula (Adams et al., 2024; Caiman
  &amp; Kjällander, 2024; Hillman et al., 2016; Hjorth &amp; Richardson,
  2018). In recent years ‘intelligent’ technologies such as smartphones
  and tablets have entered participatory action research in social work,
  healthcare, and pedagogy (Burkholder, 2018; MacEntee et al., 2016;
  Milne et al., 2012; Mitchell &amp; de Lange, 2013). Taken together,
  these studies converge on a consistent finding: mobile and digital
  tools reliably increase engagement, accessibility, and content
  delivery across formal and informal learning contexts. What they do
  not examine, however, is whether that increased engagement produces
  the affective, embodied, or relational shift that ecopedagogy
  specifically calls for – none asks whether a learner who watches or
  makes mobile media on a screen comes to <italic>feel</italic>
  differently about their relationship to Nature, as opposed to simply
  learning more effectively. Mobile devices can therefore enhance
  environmental education but should not be viewed as a panacea; whether
  they can also cultivate ecological belonging remains largely untested,
  which is the gap this study addresses.</p>
      <p>My recent inquiries argue that environmental education must move
  beyond fact-based instruction toward post-digital ecopedagogies that
  are sensory, affective, relational, and ethically transformative
  (Chbib, 2023, 2026). Current approaches often raise awareness without
  enabling meaningful action, leaving learners informed yet emotionally
  disconnected or overwhelmed. This is especially true for younger
  audiences, who encounter climate crisis through abstract data and
  distant imagery that fail to connect with lived, embodied experience.
  As a result, education risks reinforcing passivity rather than agency.
  What is needed is an approach that engages feelings, perception, and
  relational awareness alongside critical understanding. Also, more
  recently ecopedagogy research has pursued MTH inclusivity to enhanced
  democratic EEC (Chbib &amp; Misiaszek, 2025).</p>
      <p>My theoretical framing maps onto a specific arm of the research
  question rather than functioning as free-floating conceptual
  scaffolding. Braidotti’s (2012) nomadic thought informs how I tracked
  affect as it moved fluidly across the making process, resisting any
  fixed or stable account of what “belonging” with MTH entities looks
  like. Framing the work as an “ethico-onto-epistemological” inquiry
  (Barad, 2007, p. 185) grounds the specific claim, developed in later
  sections, that knowing and ethical responsibility are inseparable from
  the act of cellphilming itself. And the postdigital lens (Jandrić
  &amp; Ford, 2022) is what subsequently allows me to ask whether that
  same affective belonging survives, changes, or diminishes once the
  cellphilms leave my hands and enter YouTube’s mediated,
  platform-governed space. In response, my research positions
  cellphilming as both method and pedagogy. My research-creation
  inquiries do not just study MTHs, the World and Nature, I enact new
  relational possibilities through them. By foregrounding materiality,
  MTH agency, and creative experimentation.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="the-decision-to-share-on-youtube">
      <title>THE DECISION TO SHARE ON YOUTUBE</title>
      <p>In general throughout this analysis, I followed a praxis guideline
  for disseminating cellphilms as an ecopedagogical tool that I outline
  in earlier research (Chbib, 2023). This guideline included
  step-by-step instructions for creating, sharing, and analyzing
  cellphilms, as well as strategies for facilitating discussions and
  reflections around the content. It is important to note that the
  primary focus of my early research was on understanding and
  potentially inducing a sense of belonging with MTHs for the learner
  engaged in cellphilming, rather than on audience reception.</p>
      <p>Recent research demonstrates that video’s multi-sensory Nature
  offers significant advantages for learning, particularly in
  educational contexts. These studies also examined how communities
  utilize YouTube for learning purposes, focusing on perception,
  academic usage, and the impact of user-generated metadata on video
  selection (Koc &amp; Yucel, 2022; Lee, 2012; Pokharel, 2014; Qi,
  2019). Online video supports individual learning, increases
  engagement, and effectively demonstrates complex subjects and dynamic
  processes (Burgess et al., 2018; Lee et al., 2017; S. Yang et al.,
  2022). Online comments create a dynamic and communal space for
  collaborative learning and knowledge production.</p>
      <p>YouTube has become the most popular posting site because of the
  ease with which sharing videos has been prioritized since its
  inception (Balakrishnan &amp; Griffiths,
  2017)<xref id="fnref5" alt="5" rid="fn5"><sup>5</sup></xref>. YouTube
  has also become a ubiquitous tool in higher education, offering
  diverse learning opportunities despite lacking standardized quality
  assurance (Bardaki, 2019; Greeves &amp; Oz, 2024; Koc &amp; Yucel,
  2022). This inevitably poses a challenge for users, who must navigate
  a vast library of content to select suitable educational videos.
  Recent studies compared how college instructors and learners
  prioritize YouTube video features during selection (Greeves &amp; Oz,
  2024; Lee, 2012). The studies found that both groups value accuracy,
  expertise, duration, and style. They also indicated that learners
  place more emphasis on features like view count and comment feedback.
  However, concerns about educational content quality persist, partly
  due to algorithmic factors that may favour entertainment over
  educational content (Noetel et al., 2021; Shoufan &amp; Mohamed, 2022;
  Snelson, 2018). Despite these concerns recent research also supports
  the view that entertainment can be educational (Archambault, 2023;
  Turan-Özpolat,
  2020)<xref id="fnref6" alt="6" rid="fn6"><sup>6</sup></xref>. In
  addition, YouTube along with many other platforms have also become
  crucial for civic engagement, activism, and knowledge sharing. They
  offer a space for self-expression and commercial media, influencing
  social connectivity and community building (Burgess et al., 2018;
  Cicchino et al., 2023; Lange, 2014).</p>
      <p>The platform’s key features include interactive engagement,
  multimodal content, public accessibility, collaborative knowledge
  production, and digital literacy integration. YouTube has become
  integral to self-presentation, blurring lines between online and
  offline selves (Balleys et al., 2020; Hjetland et al., 2022). Digital
  sharing technologies such as YouTube create new forms of materiality,
  acting as agents that shape social relations and influence which
  identities can materialize in both virtual and physical spaces
  (Bollmer, 2019; Yengin &amp; Bayrak,
  2023)<xref id="fnref7" alt="7" rid="fn7"><sup>7</sup></xref>. This
  aligns seamlessly with ecopedagogical principles by fostering a
  justice-based, socially minded learning environment that facilitates
  meaningful rapport with participants through multimodal engagement
  (Epstein-HaLevi, 2021; Misiaszek, 2022). The widening of reflexive
  practices to include viewers as participants, potentially leads to
  more nuanced understandings of environmental issues and
  human-more-than-human-Nature (H-MTH-N) relationships. The platform
  also fosters a global perspective on environmental issues by linking
  to similar projects and research within the postdigital environment –
  a crucial aspect of ecopedagogy (Buch et al., 2024; Fawns et al.,
  2023; Jandrić &amp; Ford, 2022). Consequently, the pedagogic aspects
  of YouTube posting, and sharing are numerous, offering collaborative
  (in)formal education environments and spaces for community
  building.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="how-i-shared-the-cellphilms-for-feedback">
      <title>HOW I SHARED THE CELLPHILMS FOR FEEDBACK</title>
      <p>I began by setting up a website
  <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.ecopedagogy.ca/">www.ecopedagogy.ca</ext-link>
  that had links to the cellphilms. This website described the
  parameters and limits of the viewer participation and comments needed
  in relation to my research-creation questions. The site not only
  presented a link to the YouTube channel (playlist) that showcased the
  cellphilms but also facilitated discussions about ecopedagogy and
  human-Nature connections through previously selected links to
  ecopedagogy on-line videos.</p>
      <p>I proceeded by uploading my fifty cellphilms to both Vimeo as
  backup and YouTube as a platform for viewer interaction. I chose only
  one platform for the purpose of sharing and screening my cellphilms –
  YouTube. YouTube made retrieving data (comments) easier. The analytics
  dashboard provided me with immediate access to key performance metrics
  such as views, likes, comments, engagement rates, allowing for easy
  tracking and comparison of video performance over time. YouTube also
  provided easy access to download all comments including metadata such
  as author, posting date, and replies, which were exported in formats
  like CSV for further analysis. Also, I used user-friendly third-party
  tools and web-based scrapers to simplify the process, letting me
  extract and download large volumes of comments without technical
  expertise.</p>
      <p>I sent out emails to my friends, colleagues, and family members
  inviting them to participate in the project; 41 of approximately 70
  people contacted responded positively and agreed to view and comment
  on the cellphilms, a response rate that reflects the personal,
  relational nature of the recruitment rather than a randomized or
  purposive sampling strategy common to conventional audience research.
  I did not collect demographic information (age, gender, cultural
  background, prior familiarity with environmental education) from these
  viewers, a decision consistent with my narrow focus on affective and
  sensory response but one that limits any claim about how
  representative these viewers are of a general YouTube audience.
  Comments were solicited via a public post that disclosed the purpose
  of research and stated that no usernames or identifying details would
  appear in any output; only the emotional content of statements was
  extracted, with no reference to individual commenters. Participation
  was voluntary and unremunerated, and no personal data were stored. I
  offered instructions in the email to introduce the project and gave
  them easy access to the cellphilms. In the email I asked that the
  viewers concentrate on:</p>
      <disp-quote>
        <p>“... the affect, emotion, empathy, kinship, and senses that you
    experience – as this is the purpose of the research. Choose any of
    the fifty to start according to your likes or dislikes of the
    descriptor. Then proceed in the playlist to the next one you want to
    do.” (invitation to participate; November 4, 2024)</p>
      </disp-quote>
      <p>I then waited a couple of weeks and sent a second email to remind
  the viewers to participate, re-sending these invitational emails two
  more times before thanking everyone and temporarily closing the
  comment section of the
  channel.<xref id="fnref8" alt="8" rid="fn8"><sup>8</sup></xref>
  Because I both recruited and personally knew every respondent, I
  return to how this shapes the emotional tone of the resulting data in
  the Limitations section below.</p>
      <p>Once the screening period of five weeks (November 4<sup>th</sup> to
  December 9<sup>th</sup>, 2024) ended, I downloaded various versions of
  the YouTube analytics describing viewer participation, length of
  viewing, and engagement over time to add a longitudinal approach to my
  research. YouTube data analytics stated that the average video
  duration was 147.5 seconds (about 2.5 minutes) and the total views
  during the five weeks was 803. There were 16 average views per video
  and average click-through was
  134.<xref id="fnref9" alt="9" rid="fn9"><sup>9</sup></xref> The total
  watch time was 17.6 hours, and the number of impressions was
  6,742.<xref id="fnref10" alt="10" rid="fn10"><sup>10</sup></xref> The
  average impressions click-through rate (CTR) was 6.74 percent. There
  were 258 comments posted. These metrics indicated a modest,
  consistent, but engaged audience, with viewers spending an average of
  1.18 minutes per video, watching on average halfway through each
  video. These responses were then analyzed for how viewers engage with,
  embody, and interpret the audio-visual content provided by the
  cellphilms.</p>
      <p>While prior research has examined cellphilming as an embodied
  making-practice that cultivates kinship with MTH entities (Chbib,
  2023, 2026), and a separate body of work has studied YouTube as a site
  of informal and educational engagement (Burgess et al., 2018; Koc
  &amp; Yucel, 2022; Lee, 2012), these two literatures have not been
  brought together. No study has yet traced what happens to
  ecopedagogical meaning as it moves from the intimate, embodied act of
  cellphilm-making to its mediated circulation and reception by an
  audience on a digital platform. This article addresses that gap by
  asking not only how cellphilming produces belonging for the maker, but
  how differently that belonging is taken up, attenuated, or transformed
  when the same cellphilms are viewed by others online.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="methodological-approach-to-commentaries">
      <title>METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH TO COMMENTARIES</title>
      <p>I monitored the comments and their engagement metrics such as
  author, posting date, and viewing data, while they were posted. I
  noticed distinct patterns emerging in how viewers interacted with the
  content. I also downloaded all the comments made during the viewing
  period using Apify’s YouTube comments
  scraper<xref id="fnref11" alt="11" rid="fn11"><sup>11</sup></xref>.
  Analyzing the comments and their analytics allowed me to observe how
  viewers’ perceptions and connections to the cellphilms shifted over
  time and during the views. It also gave me data regarding the date of
  access, the number of views, the (not)liked cellphilms, the most and
  least number of comments on each cellphilm, and the watch time spent
  on each cellphilm.</p>
      <p>As a solo-coded, post-qualitative analysis, this study does not
  employ conventional inter-rater reliability checks, since no second
  coder cross-verified theme or sentiment assignments. In place of that
  convention, I relied on the transparency, reflexivity, and audit-trail
  practices recommended for PQI research (St. Pierre &amp; Jackson,
  2014) by retaining and quoting original, unedited comments (including
  spelling errors and emojis), documenting my coding decisions in a
  research diary, and revisiting initial codes multiple times as themes
  were refined. I evaluate comments against criteria more appropriate to
  autoethnographic and post-qualitative work: verisimilitude (does the
  account feel true to lived experience), resonance (does it evoke
  recognition in readers who have not shared the experience), and
  reflexive transparency (is the researcher’s influence on the data made
  visible rather than hidden) (Ellis &amp; Bochner, 2000). Judged
  against these criteria rather than conventional qualitative rigor,
  this analysis aims to offer a credible, if partial and situated,
  account of viewer reception – not a replicable measurement of it. This
  is a deliberate methodological trade-off rather than an oversight: it
  sacrifices quantitative reliability in exchange for the kind of
  situated, reflexive engagement with the data that a PQI approach
  requires, and the findings below should be read with that trade-off in
  mind.</p>
      <p>The first step in my analysis involved meticulous data preparation.
  I focused on preliminary immersion and organization, which served as
  the foundation for the entire analytical process. Having already
  exported the data into an Excel file and a Word file from YouTube
  analytics, I ensured that all columns were clearly labeled with
  appropriate headers: Timestamp, Username, VideoID, Comment, and Date.
  I removed the Usernames and gave them a number (commentator 1, 2, 3,
  etc.) This organization facilitated an easier navigation, engagement,
  and sharing of the dataset.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="theoretical-foundations-of-the-data-analysis">
      <title>THEORETICAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE DATA ANALYSIS</title>
      <p>I relied heavily on a discourse analysis approach for the
  processing of my eventual research data (cellphilms and viewer
  response)<xref id="fnref12" alt="12" rid="fn12"><sup>12</sup></xref>.
  This seemed insufficient for understanding the affective sensual,
  emotional, embodied and intra-active perspective of belonging and
  kinship formations with MTH entities. Traditional methods wouldn’t
  suffice to capture the complex, multifaceted nature of viewers’
  responses to my ecopedagogical content. More recently, researchers
  unconventionally resist anthropocentric domination, recognizing
  various forms of MTHs such as algorithms, plants, and urban wildlife
  as collaborators rather than passive subjects. I needed to be
  ‘inclusive’ of the data – to let the data speak (St. Pierre &amp;
  Jackson, 2014). I approached the data from a PQI perspective which
  allowed for a more organic understanding of the data to emerge as the
  MTH data communicated with me its intentions. PQI researchers engage
  with data as dynamic assemblages where agency emerges through
  interactions between humans, MTH actants (e.g., algorithms and
  ecosystems), and digital infrastructures.</p>
      <p>I examined the comments as part of a complex ecosystem where
  digital and non-digital elements intertwined and blurred (Jandrić
  &amp; Ford, 2022; Jandrić &amp; Knox, 2022). I experimented with
  ‘thinking with theory,’ using concepts from ecopedagogy and new
  materialism as lenses through which to view the data. This approach
  allowed for a more fluid and creative engagement with the comments,
  opening up new possibilities for interpretation (Jackson &amp; Mazzei,
  2018; St. Pierre, 1997; St. Pierre &amp; Jackson, 2014).</p>
      <p>I additionally adapted Pink’s (2015) sensory ethnography methods, I
  paid close attention to how viewers described their sensory
  experiences and emotional responses to my
  cellphilms<xref id="fnref13" alt="13" rid="fn13"><sup>13</sup></xref>.
  This approach revealed deeper connections to MTH entities, as I noted
  references to specific senses, emotions, and bodily experiences
  described by viewers (Pink, 2015). The two (PQI and sensory
  ethnography) approaches to data participation made me better
  understand what the comments were expressing.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="data-analysis-procedure">
      <title>DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURE</title>
      <p>To implement this integrated PQI sensorial approach, I immersed
  myself in the data and created a series of analytical events where I
  engaged with the comments through different theoretical lenses. I
  mapped the assemblages of human and MTH actors involved in the
  comment-creation process, considering how these relationships might
  have influenced the content and tone of the responses. This process
  allowed me to develop a sensory map of the comments, noting references
  to specific senses, emotions, and bodily experiences described by
  viewers.</p>
      <p>Throughout the analysis, I experimented with creative and
  non-linear ways of presenting my findings. I looked at the cellphilms
  as I read the comments creating visual collages, audio spaces, in an
  interactive digital viewing experience that reflected the postdigital
  nature of the research. I wished to entangle the responses to my
  cellphilming praxis and experiences and to perform with the comments.
  These were intended to capture and convey aspects of the viewers’
  responses that might have been lost in a more traditional textual
  analysis. This multifaceted approach allowed me to explore the complex
  ways in which viewers engaged with my cellphilms as compared to my
  autoethnographic cellphilming praxis.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="categorized-data-analysis-of-youtube-comments-through-theoretical-lenses">
      <title>CATEGORIZED DATA ANALYSIS OF YOUTUBE COMMENTS THROUGH
  THEORETICAL LENSES</title>
      <p>I used an integrated sentiment and thematic analysis as part of my
  PQI data analysis perspective and theoretical approach. I immersed
  myself in the data to identify initial emotional and thematic cues.
  Though I focus here on comments that clearly engaged with embodiment,
  belonging, kinship, emotions, affects and the senses, all comments
  were considered in my
  analysis<xref id="fnref14" alt="14" rid="fn14"><sup>14</sup></xref>. I
  did not discard, paraphrase, or narrow the original comments, and they
  all were analyzed as they were posted – with spelling errors and
  emojis.</p>
      <p>Then, I coded for both sentiment (positive, negative, and neutral)
  and themes reflecting the narrative’s emotional and sensuous aspects.
  I grouped codes into meaningful themes, reviewed and refined them to
  capture emotional depth, and integrated sentiment results with
  thematic patterns. Finally, I reported findings emphasizing embodied
  emotional expressions within the narrative. I did not use qualitative
  analysis software to aid this process.</p>
      <p>In general, I limited the discourse analysis to analyze the
  narrative of the commenters and approached the data from an emotional,
  embodied, and sensuous perspective. This allowed me to explore how
  commenters use contingent normative evaluations on the cellphilms,
  particularly concerning the value of belonging with MTH entities, and
  how the commenters positioned their discussions on their environmental
  concerns.</p>
      <p>Idiographic analysis of YouTube comments often aims to understand
  the commenter’s experience at various phenomenological levels (Rogers
  et al., 2023). This included in my investigation of the comments the
  emotional and sensuous aspects of the viewer’s experience. This
  tailored the approach of the data to the specific emotions, needs and
  characteristics of MTH entities interacting with them (Piccirillo
  &amp; Rodebaugh, 2019). I thus demonstrated idiographic sensibility by
  giving equal consideration to both individual comments that do not fit
  overarching patterns and those that can be thematized (Beltz et al.,
  2016). I gave equal weight to both comments that fit into broader
  themes and those that stand out as unique or divergent. This ensures
  that valuable insights are not overlooked simply because they don’t
  conform to the majority opinion.</p>
      <p>Idiographic analysis allows researchers to identify themes and
  patterns that emerge organically from the data, rather than imposing
  pre-existing categories (Lamont et al., 2023). For a theme to qualify
  and prompt me to delve more deeply into the comments, a shared matter
  of concern had to appear in at least eight separate instances. For
  example, wildlife interaction, plant life, urban ecology,
  sustainability, pollution, climate change, anxiety were all recurring
  themes in the comments.</p>
      <p>Initial impressions suggested that viewer interest was shaped by
  the wide range of ecological themes across the cellphilms, with
  comments often tied to specific subjects such as wildlife, plant life,
  natural phenomena, H-MTH-N interactions, urban environments, and
  cultural-ecological events. This diversity prompted engagement across
  multiple scales of MTH life, reflecting an awareness of ecological
  interconnectedness. The comments also revealed varied emotional
  responses, ranging from appreciation and excitement to discomfort and
  frustration, with many expressing empathies generated through the
  viewing experience.</p>
      <p>At the end of this phase of the analysis, I realized that I had not
  addressed the unique relationship between myself, as the researcher
  and creator, and the viewers of the cellphilms, who were also my
  friends. They weren’t simply an anonymous audience; they were watching
  cellphilms that I had made and had personally invited them to watch.
  This pre-existing affectual connection inevitably shaped the way they
  engaged with the content, plausibly making them more likely to respond
  with courtesy, encouragement, or affirming empathy than a
  stranger-audience would, and less likely to post indifferent,
  critical, or disengaged comments out of consideration for our
  relationship. Their responses were influenced not just by the
  cellphilms themselves, but by their relationship with me as the
  creator and by my prompts in the invitation. I return to this dynamic
  directly when interpreting the predominance of positive sentiment in
  the findings below.</p>
      <p>Through my proposed approaches in my integrated perspective, I
  analyzed and participated ‘with’ the data. I focused on how each
  approach operates uniquely within my integrated method ending with
  some clarifying results. Mixed quantitative-qualitative and
  post-qualitative methods normally require more information is
  collected about the viewers (gender, age, education, culture, race,
  social background, education etc.) and their environment (where they
  are watching, what support and technology, with whom, web
  accessibility and the ecosystem in general). I was only interested in
  the emotional, sensorial and affective comments made by viewers in
  their comments. These missing parameters may influence the data,
  screenings, reception, shareability, accessibility and the emotional,
  sensual, and affective impact of the screenings.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="a-pqi-approach-to-data">
      <title>A PQI APPROACH TO DATA</title>
      <p>The PQI approach enabled interpretations that move beyond fixed
  coding by engaging comments as reflective sites shaped by
  ecopedagogical concepts such as environmental ethics,
  interconnectedness, and place-based learning. Through dialogue,
  critical reading, and experiential engagement, this approach
  foregrounded climate justice, challenged anthropocentric narratives,
  and supported pluriversal perspectives that recognize MTH agency.
  Attention to materiality was central – cellphilms, technologies, and
  environments actively shaped meaning. For example, the intimate scale
  of cellphilms and specific contexts, such as forests or oil tanks,
  elicited distinct affective responses. Using a diffractive methodology
  (Barad, 2014), meanings were understood as emerging through
  material-discursive intra-actions, producing themes as provisional and
  relational rather than fixed.</p>
      <p>Viewer responses ranged from explicit ecological critique to
  affective and sensory engagement, including feelings of awe,
  fragility, and loss, as well as political resistance and reflexivity
  about media representation. The relational proximity between
  researcher and participants added intimacy, highlighting the situated
  nature of the data. Comments also reflected ecopedagogical concerns
  such as intergenerational responsibility and sustainability. A new
  materialist lens further revealed how meaning emerges through
  assemblages of humans, technologies, and infrastructures, while
  platform dynamics like algorithms and visibility shaped audience
  engagement.</p>
      <p>Comments were analyzed with a PQI approach not just for content,
  vitality and intra-activity but for how they critique anthropocentric
  views or express ecological responsibility. The materiality of
  cellphilms and the environmental settings were considered for their
  impact on viewer responses. Comments used sarcasm, political activism,
  emotional connections to Nature, and reflections on intergenerational
  responsibility and sustainability. In addition, the physical
  environments shown in the cellphilms evoked strong emotional and
  cognitive responses, influencing viewers’ perceptions of Nature and
  environmental issues. Comments revealed that responses broadened their
  perspectives by acknowledging the interconnectedness of elements,
  moving beyond their human-centric view. This is evident in comments
  that reflect on the inclusion between human technology and MTH life –
  such as the impact of technology on animals and Nature.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sensory-ethnography">
      <title>SENSORY ETHNOGRAPHY</title>
      <p>Pink’s (2015) sensory ethnographic method for data analysis focuses
  on reading and understanding the viewers’ sensory experiences and
  emotional responses to the cellphilms. Sensory ethnography asks that
  we identify the sensory language by extracting all comments that
  explicitly mention senses: sight, sound, smell, taste, touch, balance,
  intuition, etc. This requires that we look at how vividly and
  precisely the viewers describe their sensory experiences. Questions
  arose when doing this approach that helped me understand the
  interactions between the viewer and the cellphilm: How did sensory
  experiences trigger emotional responses? What are the specific details
  sensed by the viewers? Are there recurring sensory themes across
  different cellphilms (e.g., the sound of water, the smell of earth,
  and the feeling of sunlight)?</p>
      <p>Paying close attention to how viewers described their sensory
  experiences and emotional responses to the cellphilms revealed deeper
  connections to MTH entities. One viewer wrote “<italic>I can smell the
  grass, what a beautiful scene, the neighborhood &amp; the time of day
  makes me feel nostalgic,</italic>” in response to the “Deer walking
  through town, Ashland, Oregon”
  cellphilm.<xref id="fnref15" alt="15" rid="fn15"><sup>15</sup></xref>
  It displayed the power of connecting memories with sensual elements.
  When viewers encounter sensory cues in a cellphilm – such as the sight
  of a landscape, the sound of birds, or the imagined smell of grass –
  these cues can evoke imposing emotional reactions. This is because
  sensory information is processed in the brain in ways that are
  directly tied to regions responsible for emotion and memory, such as
  the amygdala and hippocampus (Rodriguez &amp; Kross, 2023; Royet et
  al., 2000).</p>
      <p>Several viewers became distracted by the sensory intensity of the
  cellphilms, pointing to the embodied nature of their engagement. As
  one noted, “<italic>first the fig leaf gave me such joy… halfway
  through I got distracted by the shaky camera movement that made me
  nauseous</italic>.” This response suggests that viewing was not purely
  cognitive but physically felt, producing sensations such as imbalance,
  discomfort, and dizziness. Even when unpleasant, these visceral
  reactions demonstrate the capacity of cellphilms to affect the body
  directly. Following Boler (1999), such discomfort can act as a
  catalyst for transformation, fostering a more flexible sense of self
  and a deeper commitment to environmental awareness. Rather than
  signaling disengagement, this unease may reflect the immersive depth
  of the cellphilms, unsettling habitual perception and blurring
  boundaries between viewer, medium, and environment.</p>
      <p>A sensory ethnographic lens further reveals how specific senses
  intertwine with cognition, reflexivity, and affect. One viewer
  described a meditative experience while watching a railway scene,
  becoming absorbed in the stillness of waiting before being startled by
  the train’s arrival. As reflected in my diary notes, this shift
  exposed how their sensory, emotional, and temporal awareness became
  entangled with the machine’s movement, dissolving distinctions between
  observer and environment into a moment of relational becoming.</p>
      <p>Other responses highlighted the activation of multiple senses. One
  viewer wrote, “<italic>Sleepy, I can smell the rain, want to make some
  tea &amp; read a book,</italic>” while another noted,
  “<italic>Beautiful, soothing sounds … I can feel my breastbone
  vibrating</italic>.” Such comments demonstrate how sound, smell, and
  tactile imagination extend the viewing experience beyond the screen,
  prompting introspection and embodied recall. Viewers frequently
  described missing or reawakening their senses, indicating that
  cellphilms can stimulate reflexive awareness of one’s own perceptual
  capacities.</p>
      <p>Affective responses were equally prominent. Feelings of awe,
  nostalgia, and unease connected viewers to their own lived
  experiences: “<italic>Ominous feeling … awe and unease</italic>,” or
  “<italic>My ears hurt just from hearing the wind … the noise takes
  precedence over everything.</italic>” These reactions show that
  viewers are not passively interpreting images but actively “feeling
  with” them, as sensory memory and emotion converge.</p>
      <p>Overall, the analysis suggests that cellphilm viewing operates as
  an embodied, affective encounter. Through sensory stimulation and
  emotional resonance, viewers engaged deeply with the material, often
  experiencing a temporary merging of self, technology, and MTH
  environments. For example: “<italic>I watched the ivy over the tree
  and had feelings of sadness that they’ve really taken over and sucked
  the life out of that tree</italic>”, and, “<italic>Loved it. Always
  fascinated by nature. LOTS going on but we don’t know WHY! Interesting
  to note all the different sizes of ants all co-mingled with each
  other. One stops and washes himself. VERY curious what they were
  pulling and WHY? What will they do with it?</italic>” Through these
  expressions of awe, nostalgia, discomfort, and fascination, viewers
  revealed that their connection to the cellphilm images is not merely
  intellectual, but profoundly embodied and reflexive. These comments
  showed how the shift of perspective allowed sadness, wonderment, and
  amazement to be included in the understanding of how humans relate to
  MTH entities.</p>
      <p>More than 50% of the comments described sensory experiences evoked
  by the cellphilms. For example some stated: “<italic>The smell of
  saltwater, feeling the coolness on my toes, the heat of the sun on my
  face”,</italic> “<italic>Warmth, humid air, the smell of
  summertime”,</italic> “<italic>I smell the fireworks, feel the warm
  evening air, startled at the sounds, feeling curious to see where
  they’re coming from”,</italic> and “<italic>I love the immersive
  feeling of being in nature, the fluffy green ferns, flowers wafting in
  the breeze, the quietness of nature accented by the crunch of solitary
  footsteps”.</italic> Analyzing the sensory dimensions of the viewers’
  responses, revealed viewer’s deeper connections to MTH entities. The
  senses served as a bridge to the MTH. By engaging sight, sound, and
  embodied memory, viewers were able to move beyond passive observation
  to a state of affective kinship caring and feeling for MTHs and
  Nature.</p>
      <p>Through awe, curiosity, and personal memories – like recalling the
  sound of crystal bowls or marveling at the lives of ants – viewers
  expressed not only their sensory and emotional engagement, but also a
  feeling of connection and kinship with Nature. The cellphilms invited
  viewers to reflect on their place within a shared environment,
  allowing emotions such as wonder, sadness, and fascination to deepen
  their sense of being part of a larger, interconnected community that
  includes both humans and MTHs. This underscores the power of
  cellphilms to nurture empathy and belonging with MTH entities. Thus,
  the overarching analysis of YouTube comments gave me an overview of
  the comments and allowed for further integration by indicating the
  emotional, sensuous, and embodied experience caused by the
  cellphilms.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="integrated-thematic-and-sentiment-analysis">
      <title>INTEGRATED THEMATIC AND SENTIMENT ANALYSIS</title>
      <p>I analyzed the comments made on YouTube qualitatively, integrating
  the two approaches (PQI and Sensory Ethnography) to bring out the main
  themes and sentiments that were addressed. Rather than reducing the
  comments to variables, I read across them for patterns of sensory
  description, affect, and reflection – attending to what viewers
  noticed, felt, and left unsaid. The key sensory and thematic lenses I
  used to analyze viewers’ responses to the cellphilms each focus on a
  distinct aspect of audience engagement, including:</p>
      <list list-type="order">
        <list-item>
          <p>
            <italic>Sensory engagement and immersion:</italic> which
      investigated how vividly and affectively the viewers describe
      their sensory experiences. I looked for comments that detail
      sensual (visual, auditory, olfactory, or even imagined tactile and
      taste) experiences evoked by the cellphilms.</p>
        </list-item>
        <list-item>
          <p>
            <italic>Emotional connection to Nature:</italic> which focused
      on the emotions that the cellphilms evoked in viewers. This ranged
      from awe and wonder to concern or nostalgia, providing insight
      into the emotional impact of the Nature-focused cellphilms.</p>
        </list-item>
        <list-item>
          <p>
            <italic>Reflections on H-MTH-N relationship:</italic> which
      allowed for an examination on whether viewers expressed a sense of
      responsibility, concern, or connection to MTH entities and/or
      Nature. It helped gauge the potential of cellphilms to inspire
      environmental consciousness.</p>
        </list-item>
      </list>
      <p>Yet, some responses exposed silences – discomfort, avoidance, or
  emotional fatigue – that signal the limits of viewers’ willingness to
  confront ecological loss and responsibility. This approach allowed me
  to systematically explore how cellphilms influence viewer perceptions
  and engagement with MTH entities and Nature.</p>
      <p>I familiarized myself with the data, then generated initial codes,
  searched for themes, reviewed and refined them, and finally I defined
  and named the themes (Braun &amp; Clarke, 2006, p. 87). I based my
  investigation on a sentiment analysis that interprets and quantifies
  emotions and opinions expressed in the comments (Chaudhuri, 2019; Lei
  &amp; Liu, 2021). Sentiment analysis normally employs machine learning
  and natural language processing to determine whether a piece of text
  is positive, negative, or neutral in order for researchers to
  understand such phenomena as customer feedback, brand reputation, and
  to predict market trends (Iglesias &amp; Moreno, 2019; Liu, 2020;
  Zhang et al., 2018).</p>
      <p>I relied on recent research that used thematic and sentiment
  analysis of short educational films in environmental studies and film
  studies to help me integrate my approaches. Some studies that utilized
  thematic and/or sentiment analysis touched on features resembling my
  own research-creation (Li et al., 2024; Mizan-Rahman, 2024; Zhao,
  2021)<xref id="fnref16" alt="16" rid="fn16"><sup>16</sup></xref>.
  Hiltunen and Rainio (2023) conducted a reception study of three
  environmental films, focusing on emotional reactions and the films’
  impact on viewers’ environmental awareness. They identified key themes
  including emotional affectivity of the films, connections between
  emotional and bodily responses, film style, dystopias and
  utopias/ecotopias, influence on viewers’ relationship to Nature, and
  engaging environmental awareness. Dewi et al. (2022) analyzed how
  short films can serve as commentary on social issues, including
  environmental topics. They used thematic and visual analysis to
  examine how short films convey messages about current societal
  concerns. These studies informed my process and helped me integrate
  the approaches into a comprehensive thematic and sentiment
  analysis.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="thematic-analysis">
      <title>THEMATIC ANALYSIS</title>
      <p>In my thematic analysis, I identified recurring experiences,
  perceptions, and emotions in viewer responses to the cellphilms. Key
  themes included emotional connection to Nature and MTH entities, with
  viewers describing immersive, reflective encounters shaped by sensory
  detail, memory, and affect. Many responses conveyed a deep sense of
  presence, highlighting sounds, textures, and atmospheres that evoked
  calm, nostalgia, or subtle unease.</p>
      <p>Heightened sensory awareness was another dominant theme, as viewers
  reported feeling transported into the environments depicted, often
  imagining smells, sounds, and tactile sensations. This sensory
  immersion frequently supported an appreciation for the
  interconnectedness of life, with viewers reflecting on how natural
  elements – such as trees, water, and animals – sustain and relate to
  one another across time.</p>
      <p>Several comments also revealed shifts in perspective toward MTH
  entities, moving beyond purely human-centered interpretations to
  recognize nonhuman agency, resilience, and value. In parallel, viewers
  engaged critically with human impacts on the environment, expressing
  concern about pollution, environmental degradation, and the long-term
  consequences of human activity.</p>
      <p>A smaller but significant set of responses focused on filmmaking
  itself as a reflective process, drawing attention to framing, screens,
  and mediation. These comments suggested an awareness of the
  postdigital condition, where perception is shaped through layered acts
  of viewing and recording.</p>
      <p>Concerns about environmental crisis were also present, often
  articulated through emotionally charged or critical language. Across
  themes, responses frequently overlapped, indicating that sensory
  immersion, emotional engagement, and ecological reflection are deeply
  interconnected. Themes were not mutually exclusive; a single comment
  could be coded into multiple categories.</p>
      <p>In terms of distribution, emotional and sensory immersion appeared
  most frequently (approximately 41% of comments), followed by Nature
  appreciation and H-MTH-N relationships (around 38%). Other responses
  emphasized technical, narrative, or aesthetic critique rather than
  ecological engagement. While some viewers appeared to move beyond
  anthropocentric perspectives, this analysis assumes an initial
  anthropocentric baseline; further research could explore how viewers
  differ along a spectrum of MTH inclusion.</p>
      <p>Environmental concern and critique of human impact emerged in
  roughly 31% of comments, with participants voicing anxiety over
  pollution, climate change, and the consequences of technological or
  urban encroachment on ecosystems. Curiosity and reflection formed
  another key theme, present in about 28% of responses, as viewers posed
  questions, speculated about unseen details in the cellphilms, or
  analyzed the broader meaning behind what they observed.</p>
      <p>Community and social connection appeared in about 23% of the
  comments, with users referencing shared experiences, collective
  emotions, or the sense of unity and division within human and MTH
  communities. Finally, adaptation and resilience, both of Nature, MTH
  entities and individuals, was a recurring motif in approximately 18%
  of comments, highlighting how living beings and systems respond to
  change, adversity, and the passage of time.</p>
      <p>Overall, these themes demonstrated that the content elicited a
  complex blend of emotional engagement, critical reflection, and social
  awareness. The high frequency of emotionally immersive and
  Nature-MTH-focused responses underscored the cellphilms’ ability to
  connect viewers both personally and collectively, while the presence
  of environmental critique and curiosity points to a thoughtful,
  questioning group of participant viewers attuned to the broader
  implications of what they witness. This analysis highlights how the
  cellphilms prompted critical reflections on several human
  environmental impacts and elicited concerns about environmental
  degradation.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sentiment-analysis">
      <title>SENTIMENT ANALYSIS</title>
      <p>Sentiment analysis was used to determine the emotional tone of
  viewer comments, offering insight into how audiences felt about MTH
  entities after watching the cellphilms. Automated natural language
  processing and classification assisted in handling the data, while
  manual coding was used to categorize comments as positive, negative,
  or neutral and to track shifts in sentiment across different
  cellphilms (Liu, 2020). I used valence aware dictionary and sentiment
  reasoner (VADER), a lexicon- and rule-based sentiment classifier
  developed for short social-media text and sensitive to both the
  polarity and the intensity of expressed sentiment (Hutto &amp;
  Gilbert, 2014), to generate an initial positive/negative/neutral pass
  across the comment set. Comments were classified using VADER’s
  compound score with the standard thresholds (positive ≥ 0.05, negative
  ≤ -0.05, neutral otherwise), computed via the standalone
  vaderSentiment package (v3.3.2). I then manually reviewed and, where
  necessary, overrode the automated classification – most commonly in
  cases involving sarcasm, mixed sentiment within a single comment, or
  culturally specific phrasing that the tool misread.</p>
      <p>I did a second-pass label on all 258 comments and counted the
  disagreements: 82 of 258 (31.78%) classifications differ in polarity
  label from VADER’s, i.e., 68.22% agreement. They were manually
  adjusted during this review. Beyond simple categorization, I examined
  the emotional undertones expressed through full sentences, short
  phrases, single words, onomatopoeia, similes, and metaphors, since I
  judged automated sentiment scoring alone insufficient to capture the
  affective register this study sought to describe. Beyond simple
  categorisation, I examined the emotional undertones expressed through
  full sentences, short phrases, single words, onomatopoeia, similes,
  and metaphors. This close engagement with the data revealed that many
  comments contained overlapping sentiments, reflecting the complexity
  of viewers’ affective responses.</p>
      <p>Positive sentiments often expressed warmth, calm, or anticipation,
  such as “<italic>Warms my heart, calming, excited for
  spring</italic>.” Negative sentiments conveyed discomfort, distress,
  or moral concern. For example: “<italic>I was appalled and grossed out
  … What the fuck</italic>!” or “<italic>I feel his anxiety and
  confusion. Why are these humans torturing me.</italic>” Neutral
  comments tended to adopt a more analytical or reflective tone, such
  as: “<italic>It would be more interesting if we could see more details
  of the birds</italic>,” or observations comparing human-made and
  natural environments. These categories helped identify how viewers
  emotionally and cognitively engaged with the cellphilms, with neutral
  responses often signaling curiosity or critical distance rather than
  disengagement.</p>
      <p>The analysis showed that many comments were deeply sensory and
  affective. Viewers frequently described immersive experiences that
  connected sight, sound, and imagined touch or smell, as in:
  “<italic>LOOOVED the sound of the raindrops … soothing,
  relaxing</italic>,” or “<italic>Appeasement. Comfort. Well-being …
  dancing in the rain.</italic>” Such responses suggest that the films
  prompted embodied engagement, where sensory perception and emotional
  resonance were intertwined.</p>
      <p>Emotional bonds with MTH entities were also evident. Comments like
  “<italic>Grace. Fragility. Magic. Need protection</italic>” reflected
  care and empathy, while others expressed discomfort tied to
  environmental harm, such as associations with pollution or nuclear
  power. Some viewers explicitly recognized MTH agency and intrinsic
  value, noting cooperation among animals or the ecological significance
  of trees sustaining multiple life forms. These responses indicate a
  shift away from purely anthropocentric perspectives toward more
  relational understandings.</p>
      <p>Many comments also addressed human impacts on the environment,
  often critically. Viewers reflected on pollution, habitat destruction,
  and extractive practices, as seen in remarks like “<italic>It’s sad a
  nest should be made of natural materials</italic>” or “<italic>It’s
  astonishing that it’s permissible to disfigure the shores.</italic>”
  Others engaged broader ecopedagogical concerns, including climate
  crisis, pesticides, and ecological balance, suggesting that the
  cellphilms prompted reflection on complex environmental issues.</p>
      <p>In terms of distribution, positive sentiments were most prevalent,
  comprising approximately 41% of responses and often expressing joy,
  fascination, or appreciation. Negative sentiments accounted for 31%,
  typically reflecting discomfort, ethical concern, or critique of human
  behavior. Neutral comments made up 28%, focusing on observation or
  analysis without strong emotional language. Overall, the predominance
  of positive sentiment suggests that the cellphilms fostered favorable
  emotional orientations toward MTH entities, while still encouraging
  critical reflection.</p>
      <p>This 41% positive – 31% negative – 28% neutral distribution is
  broadly consistent with Hiltunen and Rainio’s (2023) reception study
  of environmental short films, which similarly found that emotional
  affectivity outweighed analytical or critical response among
  viewers<xref id="fnref17" alt="17" rid="fn17"><sup>17</sup></xref>. It
  also echoes Dewi et al.’s (2022) observation that short-form
  environmental media tends to elicit immediate affective commentary
  rather than sustained social critique. Read against these prior
  studies, my results suggest that the predominance of positive,
  affect-laden comments is not unique to this project’s cellphilms but
  may be a broader feature of how audiences respond to short
  environmental media in general. At the same time, my sample’s
  positivity rate sits at the higher end of what comparable studies
  report, which is consistent with the relational sampling bias
  discussed in the Limitations section; the friends and family recruited
  for this study likely amplified an effect that would be more muted, or
  more mixed, with a general audience.</p>
      <p>At the same time, this method has clear limitations. Sentiment
  analysis simplifies complex emotional expression into broad
  categories, often missing nuance, mixed feelings, or varying
  intensities within a single comment. It can struggle with sarcasm,
  irony, and cultural context, leading to potential misinterpretation.
  Additionally, AI tools and platform dynamics, such as YouTube’s
  algorithms, may introduce biases based on incomplete or
  unrepresentative data. As a result, while sentiment analysis provides
  useful patterns, it cannot fully capture the depth and subtlety of
  human-MTH relationships expressed in the comments.</p>
      <p>Nevertheless, the sentiment analysis of the cellphilm comments
  captured how viewers emotionally connect with natural environments and
  MTH entities, revealing insights into their feelings of wonder, care,
  or concern. The analysis revealed viewers affective responses and
  highlighted ecological values, awareness and/or tensions.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="outlining-ecopedagogic-significance">
      <title>OUTLINING ECOPEDAGOGIC SIGNIFICANCE</title>
      <p>Analyzing the cellphilm data revealed strong engagement with
  ecopedagogical tenets, particularly reflexive learning and
  conscientization (41%), as viewers critically reflected on
  environmental degradation and H-MTH-N relations. Transformation themes
  (38%) appeared in discussions of resilience and systemic change, while
  ecopedagogic literacy around (un)sustainability (31%) and
  ecocide/climate change (31%) emerged through concerns about pollution,
  deforestation, and environmental crisis. Eco-justice (28%) was
  reflected in critiques of inequality and anthropocentrism, while
  global citizenship (18%) appeared more implicitly.</p>
      <p>Using a postdigital ecopedagogical lens, the analysis showed how
  YouTube mediates these engagements. For example, “Gecko escaping floor
  varnishing” blurred domestic and ecological boundaries, creating an
  intimate digital encounter (20 views, 10
  comments)<xref id="fnref18" alt="18" rid="fn18"><sup>18</sup></xref>.
  “Resting under the fig and pomegranate trees” (34 views, 0.7011 watch
  hours) evoked sensory reflection and contemplative awareness,
  supporting forms of environmental citizenship, though deeper
  conscientization requires participatory and dialogic engagement beyond
  viewing.</p>
      <p>A PQI approach further highlighted how meaning emerged through
  assemblages of human, MTH, and digital elements. “Solar eclipse NDG
  Montreal” (41 views) demonstrated a convergence of affect, urban
  space, and shared witnessing, while “Nest made partially of plastic …”
  (10.22% CTR) exposed entanglements of wildlife and human impact.
  “Sound from playing crystal bowls” (180 seconds, 8.2% CTR) emphasized
  sensory immersion, particularly sound, as a pathway to ecological
  connection.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="summary-of-the-analysis">
      <title>SUMMARY OF THE ANALYSIS</title>
      <p>The findings revealed strong concern for H-MTH-N relationships,
  often marked by feelings of ecological anxiety, memory, and affective
  response. Comments showed how cellphilms can prompt reflection on
  human-made environments and their impacts on MTH entities, including
  critiques of technology and dominant cultural perspectives, as well as
  occasional Global South insights that challenged Western assumptions.
  Viewers’ responses were both self-reflexive and postdigital, blending
  appreciation, confusion, and critique. Many formed personal, affective
  connections with MTH entities, linking digital viewing to lived
  experiences, memories, and spatial awareness. Sensory and emotional
  engagement was evident across multiple cellphilms, with reactions
  ranging from awe and empathy to discomfort and alienation,
  particularly in relation to environmental harm.</p>
      <p>Overall, the comments demonstrated that cellphilms elicit embodied,
  affective, and critical engagement beyond passive viewing. By
  activating sensory awareness and ecological reflection,
  autoethnographic cellphilming fostered connections with MTH entities
  while also encouraging awareness of environmental challenges.
  Integrating PQI, sensory ethnography, and postdigital perspectives
  highlights how these responses emerge through the interplay of digital
  mediation, embodied experience, and ecological perception.</p>
      <p>Overall, the cellphilms’ multisensory, relational depictions of
  human and MTH entanglements fostered emotional engagement, critical
  awareness, and a sense of belonging, aligning with ecopedagogy’s aims
  of care, reciprocity, and planetary responsibility. Taken together,
  these patterns point to a concrete educational application: short,
  sensory-rich cellphilms paired with structured viewer response –
  whether through YouTube comments or an equivalent classroom discussion
  format – offer educators a low-barrier way to introduce affective and
  relational environmental learning alongside more conventional,
  fact-based curricula. Because the cellphilms require only a smartphone
  to produce and a shared platform to circulate, the same maker-viewer
  structure tested here could be adapted for secondary or post-secondary
  environmental education courses, positioning cellphilming not only as
  a research method but as a replicable pedagogical tool for cultivating
  ecological empathy and MTH awareness in learners who may never have
  direct embodied contact with the environments depicted.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="comparing-cellphilm-praxis-and-viewing">
      <title>COMPARING CELLPHILM PRAXIS AND VIEWING</title>
      <p>My previous research explores how non-representational cellphilming
  can cultivate kinship, belonging, and ethical responsiveness with MTH
  entities through embodied, sensory, and affective practice (Chbib,
  2026). Drawing on autoethnography, posthuman theory, ecopedagogy, and
  decolonial and Indigenous knowledge systems, the inquiry positions the
  researcher not as detached observer but as a relational participant
  within human and MTH entanglements. It treats cellphilming as a praxis
  of attention in which the smartphone mediates direct encounters with
  texture, sound, movement, weather, and other everyday ecological
  presences. Single-shot, often unedited cellphilms were used to remain
  open to the unpredictable agency of MTH entities, technology, and
  environment, allowing wonder, discomfort, care, and responsibility to
  emerge through sensation rather than explanation. In this way, the
  research challenges anthropocentric and representational approaches to
  environmental education, instead of foregrounding embodied relation,
  sensory knowing, and ecological interdependence</p>
      <p>Through an iterative and deeply reflexive process, the inquiry
  moved from initial anthropocentric observation toward more embodied,
  relational practices that emphasized sensory awareness, MTH agency,
  and ethical engagement. This shift not only reshaped my understanding
  of Nature and belonging but also contributed to a practice-based,
  critically engaged model for advancing ecopedagogical theory and
  environmental education.</p>
      <p>Comparatively, the basic finding of this inquiry’s comment analysis
  is that viewing the cellphilms on YouTube created a different kind of
  belonging than cellphilming praxis. In the making process, belonging
  emerged through direct, sensory, and affective intra-action with MTH
  entities, while the YouTube viewing shifted belonging into a more
  mediated, reflective, and public form shaped by platform use and
  viewer comments.</p>
      <p>In simpler terms, the first event (cellphilming praxis) was
  embodied and relational: I felt kinship through touch, sound,
  movement, and response as I cellphilmed. The second event (cellphilm
  viewing) was interpretive and social: viewers encountered the
  cellphilms through digital circulation, and their comments showed how
  the films invited reflection, but not always the same depth of bodily
  connection or co-presence.</p>
      <p>The core consequence is that cellphilming itself produced affective
  kinship through lived encounter, whereas YouTube produced a different
  reception – one that was still meaningful, but more distanced,
  mediated, and conversational. This difference matters because it shows
  that ecopedagogic meaning changes when experience moves from embodied
  making to online viewing.</p>
      <p>In my email invitation to partake in my research-creation, I asked
  the participating viewers to concentrate on their emotions, senses and
  feelings. This skewed the comments in favour of my research aims. I
  nevertheless found that viewers engaged with my ecopedagogical
  content, moving beyond traditional content and discourse analysis to
  explore the affective, embodied, and sensory dimensions of their
  responses. Kinship and belonging were shown to be enhanced in the data
  analysis. The online platform enabled participatory engagement,
  blurring boundaries between digital and physical experience. Viewers
  often connected what they saw on screen with real-world sensations,
  suggesting partial resonance with the embodied belonging that I
  experienced in situ. However, while my cellphilming relied on direct,
  relational co-presence and responsiveness to environmental cues,
  online engagement remained interpretive and mediated through memory,
  imagination, and language.</p>
      <p>Analyzing YouTube comments revealed limitations for fostering
  embodied ecological awareness. Unlike <italic>in situ</italic>
  practice – where belonging emerged through sensory attunement,
  reciprocity, and co-creation with MTH entities – the platform’s design
  compresses multisensory encounters into brief, affective reactions.
  Although comments sometimes expressed sensory imagination, these
  remained projections rather than lived entanglements, lacking the
  ethical and relational negotiations central to my praxis.</p>
      <p>Methodologically, combining post-qualitative inquiry and sensory
  ethnography showed that while viewers expressed awe and occasional
  embodied responses, their engagement differed from the intra-active
  belonging of cellphilming. Online belonging was shaped by discourse,
  platform norms, and human-centered sentiment. Ultimately, belonging is
  not lost in digital translation but transformed from an embodied,
  co-constitutive experience into a mediated, interpretive form of
  ecological connection that, while valuable, remains relationally
  attenuated.</p>
      <sec id="limitations">
        <title>Limitations</title>
        <p>Relying solely on YouTube limited audience diversity and forms of
    engagement reduced the range and depth of responses to the
    cellphilms. Although participation was open, recruiting friends,
    colleagues, and family introduced ethical concerns, as existing
    relationships may have created implicit pressure and influenced
    consent. Even though the identity of the participants was
    anonymized, the invitation to participate also blurred informal
    participation with formal data collection, lacking clarity around
    privacy, data use, and withdrawal. This relational sampling almost
    certainly also shaped the <italic>content</italic> of the findings,
    not just their ethics: the high proportion of positive sentiment
    (41%) and the recurring themes of wonder and empathy reported in the
    Sentiment Analysis and Outlining Ecopedagogic Significance sections
    should be read as likely inflated by respondents’ courtesy toward,
    and prior familiarity with, the researcher, rather than as a neutral
    measure of how the cellphilms would land with an unfamiliar
    audience. A stranger-recruited sample would be needed to disentangle
    the affective power of the cellphilms themselves from the social
    obligation of commenting on a friend’s or family member’s creative
    work.</p>
        <p>In addition, there were 258 comments posted made by nineteen
    individual viewers – meaning that of the 41 people who initially
    agreed to participate, fewer than half actually left a comment
    during the five-week window. This attrition is itself informative:
    it suggests that agreeing to watch is a lower-commitment act than
    agreeing to comment, and that the 19 who did comment may represent a
    further self-selected subgroup – those most comfortable sharing
    personal or emotional reflections with the researcher, or most
    personally invested in supporting the project. I did not follow up
    with non-commenting participants to ask why they did not post, which
    limits my ability to distinguish disengagement from simple
    reluctance to write publicly.</p>
        <p>A related concern is that the 258 analyzed comments were not
    evenly distributed across the 19 commenters; on average each viewer
    left roughly fourteen comments, and I did not calculate, or report
    how concentrated this distribution was. It is therefore possible
    that the thematic and sentiment percentages reported above (e.g.,
    the 41% figure for emotional/sensory immersion) are
    disproportionately shaped by a small number of unusually prolific
    commenters rather than representing the range of the full group.
    Future iterations of this analysis should report
    comments-per-participant alongside theme frequencies to make this
    risk visible rather than
    implicit.<xref id="fnref19" alt="19" rid="fn19"><sup>19</sup></xref></p>
        <p>Prompting viewers to focus on affect and sensory responses may
    have further shaped feedback, constraining authenticity. In
    addition, YouTube’s platform raised privacy issues, as comments are
    embedded within commercial data systems with uncertain visibility
    and retention. The cellphilms themselves also posed representational
    ethical questions regarding MTH entities filmed without consent.</p>
        <p>These limitations show how researcher proximity, platform
    constraints, and methodological framing can affect the ethical
    integrity of audience research. Despite this, the project
    demonstrates the potential of cellphilms to evoke ecological
    empathy, while highlighting the need for complementary embodied and
    participatory approaches beyond digital platforms.</p>
        <p>These limitations collectively highlight the complex navigation
    required when I tried to bridge digital ecopedagogies with
    ecological consciousness, belonging, and ecoliteracy. They
    underscore the necessity of situating techno-mediated environmental
    education within critical examinations of technology’s material
    impacts, while acknowledging the persistent pull of anthropocentric
    frameworks in even the most conscientized research paradigms.
    Ultimately, I suggest that effective ecopedagogies may lie not in
    resolving these contradictions, but in consciously working through
    them as sites of generative tension, agency, and exploration.
    Translating my praxis into all levels of standardized education
    curricula for both adult and young participants would require
    further study.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="conclusion">
      <title>CONCLUSION</title>
      <p>This research demonstrates several concrete insights about
  ecopedagogic cellphilming potential. While the year-long
  autoethnographic practice for my dissertation produced deep,
  sensory-rich encounters that shifted perception from human-centered
  observation to MTH kinship. The participant YouTube viewing experience
  translated this into an indirect, imaginative, and interpretive
  connection generating a different, mediated form of affective
  belonging. Viewers did not co-create with ants, wind, or textures, but
  instead engaged through memory, projection, and affective resonance
  (i.e., feeling calm, discomfort, nostalgia, or care). This form of
  belonging was less embodied and reciprocal, yet still meaningful,
  emerging through sensory imagination rather than direct
  intra-action.</p>
      <p>The YouTube responses suggested that cellphilms can evoke
  empathetic engagement and a sense of connection, even within digital
  environments. Humans who cultivate empathy enhance both personal,
  familial, communal, social, and professional relationships by
  facilitating better collaboration, problem-solving, and emotional
  support.<xref id="fnref20" alt="20" rid="fn20"><sup>20</sup></xref></p>
      <p>The data also reveals that digital circulation transforms not only
  meaning but the quality of belonging itself. As the cellphilms moved
  from embodied practice to online viewing, comments demonstrated
  empathy, ecological concern, and sensory engagement, but often
  recentred human perception and emotion. Viewers expressed connection
  such as finding peace in landscapes or unease in environmental damage,
  yet this connection remained mediated by platform structures,
  language, and personal interpretation. Unlike the in-situ practice,
  where MTH agency co-shaped the encounter, YouTube engagement flattened
  these relations into text-based responses, producing a more distanced,
  discursive form of ecological belonging.</p>
      <p>Viewing the cellphilms after the performative act of cellphilming
  models a complementary but limited ecopedagogical pathway. While the
  accessibility of smartphones and short-form films allows viewers to
  engage emotionally and reflectively, the absence of embodied practice
  constrained the depth of relational understanding. Viewers
  demonstrated empathy, awareness, and even critical perspectives on
  issues like pollution or climate change, but often did so without
  fully engaging the multisensory, ethical, and reciprocal dimensions
  that characterized the filming process. The process of recording,
  editing, and sharing introduced layers of mediation that distanced
  viewers from the original experience, transforming it into a curated
  digital representation. As a result, YouTube interactions tended to
  center human emotions and interpretations, often overlooking the
  ecological complexity and MTH agency present in the cellphilms.
  Viewing alone fostered awareness and affect, but not the same level of
  kinship grounded in co-presence and sensory attunement. The platform’s
  text-based and metric-driven structure further reduced rich,
  multisensory relationships to simplified sentiments, reinforcing
  anthropocentric perspectives.</p>
      <p>While digital sharing increased accessibility and prompted
  reflection, it also risked flattening ecopedagogical depth and
  limiting critical engagement with issues such as eco-justice and power
  dynamics. Viewer comments that ranged from awe and empathy to critique
  and eco-anxiety, demonstrated that watching can still provoke
  meaningful ecological reflection, but this reflection operates at a
  cognitive level rather than through lived-affective, material
  engagement. This gap suggests that viewing can initiate belonging, but
  cellphilming praxis sustains and deepens it.</p>
      <p>Most importantly, affect remains central, even when transformed by
  mediation. Viewing the cellphilms activated emotional and sensory
  responses (i.e., wonder, discomfort, and care) that allowed viewers to
  “feel with” ecological situations, even at a distance. However, this
  affective belonging was shaped by the constraints of YouTube’s
  platform, which prioritized human expression and simplified complex
  MTH relations. As such, environmental learning through viewing occurs
  through watching-with and talking-with but lacks the full depth of
  feeling-with that emerges through embodied practice. Together, these
  findings show that while digital viewing can extend ecopedagogical
  impact, it produces a different, more attenuated form of belonging
  that benefits from being paired with <italic>in-situ</italic>,
  participatory engagement. Ultimately, the study’s situatedness
  strengthens rather than undermines these findings: they suggest that
  ecopedagogy can take hold through open-ended, reflexive encounters as
  much as through tightly controlled methodologies. Read this way, the
  study’s limitations become part of the evidence indicating that
  transformative learning emerges precisely where human control, digital
  platforms, and MTH agency collide.</p>
      <p>Future research should address key limitations while building on
  the demonstrated potential of ecopedagogic cellphilming. Despite
  ethical challenges in participant recruitment and platform privacy,
  studies can test the method’s transferability by implementing it with
  independent groups of young learners in classroom settings, measuring
  shifts in ecological literacy, empathy, and MTH kinship through
  pre/post sensory engagement scales and behavioral observation.</p>
      <p>Longitudinal research could track how embodied cellphilming
  (<italic>in situ</italic>) differs from mediated reception
  (YouTube-style viewing) over time, using controlled comparisons to
  quantify the making/reception gap while refining consent protocols for
  friends/colleagues. Comparative studies across demographics, regions,
  and age groups would reveal how affect translates across gender, race,
  class, and cultural contexts, addressing current study’s relational
  bias.</p>
      <p>Finally, despite digital tool contradictions (mineral extraction,
  platform mediation), research should integrate cellphilming with
  emerging AR/AI for augmented autoethnography – visualizing hidden MTH
  networks – while partnering with ethical tech initiatives. These
  directions leverage the research’s core insight: sensory media
  reliably fosters belonging, even if imperfectly, offering a scalable
  model for justice-oriented environmental education.</p>
      <p>
        <bold>Funding:</bold> No funding source is reported for this
  study.</p>
      <p>
        <bold>Acknowledgments:</bold> The author would like to thank family
  members, friends, and fellow students.</p>
      <p>
        <bold>Ethical statement:</bold> No ethics approval was required
  because all participants were anonymous and the data was retrieved
  from YouTube directly which is a public access platform.</p>
      <p>
        <bold>AI statement:</bold> No AI was used in the writing of this
  article.</p>
      <p>
        <bold>Declaration of interest:</bold> No conflict of interest is
  declared by the author.</p>
      <p>
        <bold>Data sharing statement:</bold> Data supporting the findings
  and conclusions are available upon request from the corresponding
  author.</p>
      <list list-type="order">
        <list-item>
          <p specific-use="wrapper">
            <boxed-text id="fn1">
              <p>I refer to all environmental education under the umbrella
          term EoE as described by Misiaszek (2018), “to signify
          pedagogies about the environment either with or without the
          goal of environmentalism, as opposed to environmental
          pedagogies which have the expressed goal of environmentalism …
          EoE is an umbrella term that includes environmental
          pedagogies” (p. 25).<xref alt="↩︎" rid="fnref1">↩︎</xref></p>
            </boxed-text>
          </p>
        </list-item>
        <list-item>
          <p specific-use="wrapper">
            <boxed-text id="fn2">
              <p>Dockney and Tomaselli (2009) coined the term cellphilm by
          combining two words—cellphone and film—to describe the
          combination of multiple communication technologies in one
          device (MacEntee et al., 2016, p. 1). Cellphilms are short
          videos created entirely using mobile devices such as
          cellphones or tablets. Typically lasting between 1 to 4
          minutes, these videos are designed to convey a specific
          message or respond to a prompt, often without extensive
          editing.<xref alt="↩︎" rid="fnref2">↩︎</xref></p>
            </boxed-text>
          </p>
        </list-item>
        <list-item>
          <p specific-use="wrapper">
            <boxed-text id="fn3">
              <p>The overarching term ‘MTH’ includes all entities that are
          not human, including living and non-living entities such as
          animals, plants, fungi, microorganisms, machines, digital
          interfaces, atoms, geological structures, water, air, silence,
          planets, chaos, keyboards, dreams, weather patterns, urban
          infrastructures and even thoughts. I will be using MTH
          entities or MTHs in my inquiry as the distinctions between
          different usages in academic papers are not yet clear. Ducros
          (2021) explains, “Non-human, MTH, other-than-human, posthuman,
          transhuman, anti-human, multispecies, transspecies—all are
          terms that have been circulating in the humanities and social
          sciences, but have lacked clarity in their definitions,
          interpretations, purposes, uses, and range of application” (p.
          1).<xref alt="↩︎" rid="fnref3">↩︎</xref></p>
            </boxed-text>
          </p>
        </list-item>
        <list-item>
          <p specific-use="wrapper">
            <boxed-text id="fn4">
              <p>The responses on the posted cellphilms were executed in a
          YouTube channel called
          ‘<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.ecopedagogy.ca/">www.ecopedagogy.ca</ext-link>‘.
          I also backed up the videos on
          Vimeo.com.<xref alt="↩︎" rid="fnref4">↩︎</xref></p>
            </boxed-text>
          </p>
        </list-item>
        <list-item>
          <p specific-use="wrapper">
            <boxed-text id="fn5">
              <p>Discussing YouTube Lange (2014) states: “The company was
          founded in February 2005 by Chad Hurley, Steve Chen, and Jared
          Karim, who met when working at PayPal, an online payment
          service (Hopkins, 2006). The site’s first test video had the
          look and feel of a grassroots effort. Entitled Me at the zoo,
          the 20-second video depicted Karim in front of an elephant
          exhibit simply commenting on the animals’ trunks (Pham, 2010)”
          (p. 8).<xref alt="↩︎" rid="fnref5">↩︎</xref></p>
            </boxed-text>
          </p>
        </list-item>
        <list-item>
          <p specific-use="wrapper">
            <boxed-text id="fn6">
              <p>YouTube supports various educational activities, including
          distance learning and lecture preparation, and has been shown
          to positively impact student engagement and learning outcomes
          (Bardaki, 2019; Brame, 2016; Hung et al., 2024; Wright &amp;
          Nagy, 2022). Studies highlight the importance of understanding
          user preferences and platform affordances to effectively
          integrate YouTube into educational
          settings.<xref alt="↩︎" rid="fnref6">↩︎</xref></p>
            </boxed-text>
          </p>
        </list-item>
        <list-item>
          <p specific-use="wrapper">
            <boxed-text id="fn7">
              <p>Bollmer (2019) explains that “Media perform through their
          ability to inscribe, to document, and to write. They permit
          something to be written down and stored over time. This shapes
          memory and sociality and locates particular bodies through
          what can be seen, said, and recorded about them” (p. 174).
          Yengin and Bayrak (2023) state that YouTube: “… virtually
          serves as an archive with the sharing of content such as
          personal creativity, sharing of experiences, and local
          culture. Individuals isolated by the postmodern era have
          flocked to the YouTube platform with a sense of belonging. As
          a result, individuals isolated by the postmodern world have
          found themselves in such programs and have made an important
          contribution to the development of this culture” (p.
          109).<xref alt="↩︎" rid="fnref7">↩︎</xref></p>
            </boxed-text>
          </p>
        </list-item>
        <list-item>
          <p specific-use="wrapper">
            <boxed-text id="fn8">
              <p>I re-opened this channel in 2026. I aim to include many
          more of the cellphilms for ecopedagogic purposes and open the
          channel to public ecopedagogy related cellphilm postings in
          the future.<xref alt="↩︎" rid="fnref8">↩︎</xref></p>
            </boxed-text>
          </p>
        </list-item>
        <list-item>
          <p specific-use="wrapper">
            <boxed-text id="fn9">
              <p>A click-through occurs when a user selects a particular
          link, advertisement, or call-to-action after seeing it-whether
          on a website, in an email, or within an online advertisement.
          The CTR quantifies this engagement by calculating the
          percentage of users who click on a link out of the total
          number of users who viewed it (impressions). Commonly, CTRs
          assess how engaged users are and to evaluate how effective
          marketing materials are at prompting
          interaction.<xref alt="↩︎" rid="fnref9">↩︎</xref></p>
            </boxed-text>
          </p>
        </list-item>
        <list-item>
          <p specific-use="wrapper">
            <boxed-text id="fn10">
              <p>In YouTube analytics, impressions represent the number of
          times my cellphilm’s thumbnail is displayed to users on
          YouTube, including appearances in search results, the
          homepage, recommended sections, playlists, and other parts of
          the platform.<xref alt="↩︎" rid="fnref10">↩︎</xref></p>
            </boxed-text>
          </p>
        </list-item>
        <list-item>
          <p specific-use="wrapper">
            <boxed-text id="fn11">
              <p>Comment data were collected via a third-party scraping
          service (Apify); I acknowledge that automated collection of
          this kind sits in tension with YouTube’s Terms of Service, and
          I therefore limited collection to publicly visible comments,
          stored no personally identifying account information beyond
          what is required for analysis, and reported results only in
          aggregate.<xref alt="↩︎" rid="fnref11">↩︎</xref></p>
            </boxed-text>
          </p>
        </list-item>
        <list-item>
          <p specific-use="wrapper">
            <boxed-text id="fn12">
              <p>Such as methodological proposals using critical analysis
          and critical video analysis (Braden, 1999; Fairclough, 2003;
          Gauntlett, 2015; van Dijk, 1993; Wodak &amp; Meyer,
          2003).<xref alt="↩︎" rid="fnref12">↩︎</xref></p>
            </boxed-text>
          </p>
        </list-item>
        <list-item>
          <p specific-use="wrapper">
            <boxed-text id="fn13">
              <p>Pink’s (2015) approach is reflexive and experiential,
          focusing on how people perceive, experience, and make meaning
          in the World through embodied, multisensory engagement. She
          advocates for openness to multiple ways of knowing, including
          participant observation, sensory interviews, walking with
          participants, and using digital technologies like video to
          capture lived experiences. The aim is not to produce an
          objective account of reality, but to offer rich, contextually
          loyal versions of experience that attend to the
          interconnections of smell, taste, touch, vision, and hearing
          within specific environments and
          practices.<xref alt="↩︎" rid="fnref13">↩︎</xref></p>
            </boxed-text>
          </p>
        </list-item>
        <list-item>
          <p specific-use="wrapper">
            <boxed-text id="fn14">
              <p>I translated all comments that were posted in French and
          Portuguese language to English with online translators
          <italic>perplexity.ai</italic> and
          <italic>deepl.com</italic>.<xref alt="↩︎" rid="fnref14">↩︎</xref></p>
            </boxed-text>
          </p>
        </list-item>
        <list-item>
          <p specific-use="wrapper">
            <boxed-text id="fn15">
              <p>Can be viewed at:
          <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUKlqmuLSyw">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUKlqmuLSyw</ext-link>.<xref alt="↩︎" rid="fnref15">↩︎</xref></p>
            </boxed-text>
          </p>
        </list-item>
        <list-item>
          <p specific-use="wrapper">
            <boxed-text id="fn16">
              <p>Aşilioğlu (2024) performed a thematic analysis of Turkish
          short films, revealing that social and psychological issues,
          including environmental topics, were prominent recurring
          themes. This study demonstrated the potential for short films
          to address environmental concerns. Furthermore, several
          researchers used topic modeling and sentiment analysis on
          animated film reviews for example using machine learning
          techniques, showing how these methods can be applied to
          understand viewer reactions (Mizan-Rahman, 2024; Stibbe,
          2008). A study by Mizan-Rahman (2024) used environmental
          humanities discourse analysis to examine how animated films
          instruct viewers about key environmental
          messages.<xref alt="↩︎" rid="fnref16">↩︎</xref></p>
            </boxed-text>
          </p>
        </list-item>
        <list-item>
          <p specific-use="wrapper">
            <boxed-text id="fn17">
              <p>The predominance of positive, affect-laden comments in this
          sample resonates qualitatively with Hiltunen and Rainio’s
          (2023) reception study of three Finnish environmental films,
          in which respondents’ emotional and affective reactions were
          “emphasized more than issues related to information and
          knowledge.” Their study used qualitative thematic analysis of
          open-ended questionnaires (62 responses from 28 participants)
          and reports no comparable sentiment distribution, so no direct
          numerical benchmark is possible; the parallel is one of
          emphasis, not proportion. Notably, they also found hope and
          anxiety intertwined, with positive and negative emotions
          frequently mixed within single responses - a nuance my
          three-category coding cannot capture, as noted in the
          limitations below.<xref alt="↩︎" rid="fnref17">↩︎</xref></p>
            </boxed-text>
          </p>
        </list-item>
        <list-item>
          <p specific-use="wrapper">
            <boxed-text id="fn18">
              <p>The fifty cellphilms can be viewed at:
          <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.youtube.com/@Ecopedagogy-ca/videos">https://www.youtube.com/@Ecopedagogy-ca/videos</ext-link><xref alt="↩︎" rid="fnref18">↩︎</xref></p>
            </boxed-text>
          </p>
        </list-item>
        <list-item>
          <p specific-use="wrapper">
            <boxed-text id="fn19">
              <p>Comments posted in French and Portuguese were translated
          into English using online translation tools (perplexity.ai and
          DeepL.com) prior to analysis. While useful for inclusion,
          machine translation can flatten or shift affective and
          idiomatic nuance – sarcasm, regional expressions, and
          emotionally loaded phrasing are especially prone to distortion
          in automated translation. Because this study’s entire analytic
          lens depends on close reading of affective and sensory
          language, this is a non-trivial limitation: some portion of
          the sentiment and thematic coding for non-English comments may
          reflect translation artifacts rather than the commenter’s
          original expression.<xref alt="↩︎" rid="fnref19">↩︎</xref></p>
            </boxed-text>
          </p>
        </list-item>
        <list-item>
          <p specific-use="wrapper">
            <boxed-text id="fn20">
              <p>In recent research, YouTube comments appeared to lack
          empathy. YouTube comments can be seen as snapshots of people’s
          immediate reactions, often lacking the nuance and empathy
          present in face – to – face conversations. The lack of empathy
          in comments may be partly due to YouTube’s algorithm, which
          promotes engagement through controversial or emotionally
          charged content. This can lead to more negative interactions
          and less empathetic discourse (Guan et al., 2019; Habibi,
          2025; S. Yang et al., 2022). This emphasizes the need for
          users to practice more empathetic communication online by
          fostering more constructive
          interactions.<xref alt="↩︎" rid="fnref20">↩︎</xref></p>
            </boxed-text>
          </p>
        </list-item>
      </list>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <title>References</title>
      <ref id="B-625095">
        <title>1</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Adams, W. M., Sandbrook, C., &amp; Tait, E. (2024). Running wild:
Encountering digital animals through exercise apps. In J. Turnbull, A.
Searle, H. Anderson-Elliott, &amp; E. H. Giraud (Eds.), <italic>Digital
ecologies</italic>. Manchester University Press.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526170354.00009">https://doi.org/10.7765/9781526170354.00009</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625096">
        <title>2</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Archambault, S. (2023). Expanding on the frames: Making a case for
algorithmic literacy. <italic>Communications in Information Literacy,
17</italic>(2), 530-553.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2023.17.2.11">https://doi.org/10.15760/comminfolit.2023.17.2.11</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625097">
        <title>3</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Aşilioğlu, E. (2024). Thematic analysis of Turkish short films
released on Mubi. <italic>The Turkish Online Journal of Design, Art and
Communication, 14</italic>(4), 1060-1075.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.7456/tojdac.1521435">https://doi.org/10.7456/tojdac.1521435</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625098">
        <title>4</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Balakrishnan, J., &amp; Griffiths, M. D. (2017). Social media
addiction: What is the role of content in <italic>YouTube</italic>?
<italic>Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 6</italic>(3), 364-377.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.6.2017.058">https://doi.org/10.1556/2006.6.2017.058</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625099">
        <title>5</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Balleys, C., Millerand, F., Thoër, C., &amp; Duque, N. (2020).
Searching for oneself on YouTube: Teenage peer socialization and social
recognition processes. <italic>Social Media + Society, 6</italic>(2).
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120909474">https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120909474</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625100">
        <title>6</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Barad, K. (2007). <italic>Meeting the universe halfway: Quantum
physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning</italic>. Duke
University Press.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822388128">https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822388128</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625101">
        <title>7</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Barad, K. (2014). Diffracting diffraction: Cutting together-apart.
<italic>Parallax, 20</italic>(3), 168-187.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/13534645.2014.927623">https://doi.org/10.1080/13534645.2014.927623</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625102">
        <title>8</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Bardaki, S. (2019). Exploring high school students’ educational use
of YouTube. <italic>The International Review of Research in Open and
Distributed Learning, 20</italic>(2).
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i2.4074">https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i2.4074</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625103">
        <title>9</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Beltz, A. M., Wright, A. G. C., Sprague, B. N., &amp; Molenaar, P. C.
M. (2016). Bridging the nomothetic and idiographic approaches to the
analysis of clinical data. <italic>Assessment, 23</italic>(4), 447-458.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116648209">https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116648209</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625104">
        <title>10</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Boler, M. (1999). <italic>Feeling power: Emotions and
education</italic>. Routledge.</p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625105">
        <title>11</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Bollmer, G. (2019). <italic>Materialist media theory: An
introduction</italic> (1st ed.). Zed Books.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5040/9781501337086">https://doi.org/10.5040/9781501337086</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625106">
        <title>12</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Braden, S. (1999). Using video for research and representation: Basic
human needs and critical pedagogy. <italic>Journal of Educational Media,
24</italic>(2), 117-129.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/1358165990240204">https://doi.org/10.1080/1358165990240204</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625107">
        <title>13</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Braidotti, R. (2012). Nomadic ethics. In D. W. Smith, &amp; H.
Somers-Hall (Eds.), <italic>The Cambridge Companion to Deleuze</italic>
(1st ed., pp. 170-197). Cambridge University Press.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1017/CCO9780511753657.009">https://doi.org/10.1017/CCO9780511753657.009</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625108">
        <title>14</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Brame, C. J. (2016). Effective educational videos: Principles and
guidelines for maximizing student learning from video content.
<italic>CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15</italic>(4), Article es6.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-03-0125">https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-03-0125</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625109">
        <title>15</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Braun, V., &amp; Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in
psychology. <italic>Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3</italic>(2),
77-101.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa">https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625110">
        <title>16</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Brečka, P., Valentová, M., &amp; Tureková, I. (2022). Digital
technologies in environmental education. <italic>TEM Journal,
11</italic>(2), 726-730.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM112-28">https://doi.org/10.18421/TEM112-28</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625111">
        <title>17</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Buch, A., Lindberg, Y., &amp; Cerratto Pargman, T. (Eds.). (2024).
<italic>Framing futures in postdigital education: Critical concepts for
data-driven practices</italic>. Springer.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-58622-4">https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-58622-4</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625112">
        <title>18</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Burgess, J., Green, J., 1972-, Jenkins, H., &amp; Hartley, J. (2018).
<italic>YouTube: Online video and participatory culture</italic> (2nd
ed.). Polity.</p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625113">
        <title>19</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Burkholder, C. (2018). <italic>Looking back and looking around:
Revisiting and exploring civic engagement through cellphilms with ethnic
minority youth in Hong Kong</italic> [PhD thesis, McGill University].
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://escholarship.mcgill.ca/concern/theses/fb494b69g">https://escholarship.mcgill.ca/concern/theses/fb494b69g</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625114">
        <title>20</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Caiman, C., &amp; Kjällander, S. (2024). Elementary students’
‘outdoor-digital’ explorations in ecology—Learning through chains of
transduction. <italic>Environmental Education Research, 30</italic>(1),
83-100.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2023.2229541">https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2023.2229541</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625115">
        <title>21</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Chaudhuri, A. (2019). <italic>Visual and text sentiment analysis
through hierarchical deep learning networks</italic>. Springer.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7474-6">https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7474-6</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625116">
        <title>22</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Chbib, B. (2023). <italic>Anthropocene critical radical ecopedagogy
(CREP) using cellphilms</italic> [Master’s thesis, Bishops University].
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://ubishops.scholaris.ca/bitstreams/6eec1121-17b4-4f2b-9099-a58624bbd999/download">https://ubishops.scholaris.ca/bitstreams/6eec1121-17b4-4f2b-9099-a58624bbd999/download</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625117">
        <title>23</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Chbib, B. (2026). <italic>Autoethnographic cellfilming for inclusive
affective ecopedagogies</italic> [PhD thesis, Université du Québec à
Montréal].
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://archipel.uqam.ca/19841/">https://archipel.uqam.ca/19841/</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625118">
        <title>24</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Chbib, B., &amp; Misiaszek, G. W. (2025). Democratic ecopedagogy:
Inclusive of more-than-humans within our postdigital world. In P. R.
Carr, E. Rivas-Sánchez, &amp; G. Thésée (Eds.), <italic>Pygmalion
democracy</italic> (pp. 563-594). ESBC.</p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625119">
        <title>25</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Chozas, S., Nunes, A., Serrano, H. C., Ascensão, F., Tapia, S.,
Máguas, C., &amp; Branquinho, C. (2023). Rescuing botany: Using
citizen-science and mobile apps in the classroom and beyond. <italic>npj
Biodiversity, 2</italic>, Article 6.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s44185-023-00011-9">https://doi.org/10.1038/s44185-023-00011-9</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625120">
        <title>26</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Cicchino, A. S., Weinberg, A. E., McMeeking, L. B. S., &amp;
Balgopal, M. M. (2023). Critical pedagogy of place to enhance ecological
engagement activities. <italic>Conservation Biology, 37</italic>(2),
Article e14023.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14023">https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.14023</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625121">
        <title>27</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Davis, S. (2026). <italic>Ericsson mobility report</italic>.
Ericsson.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.ericsson.com/en/reports-and-papers/mobility-report">https://www.ericsson.com/en/reports-and-papers/mobility-report</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625122">
        <title>28</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Dewi, P. E. K., Minheere, P. W., Dewi, P. C., &amp; Susanto, P. C.
(2022). Thematic and visual analysis of the short film “Manipulator” as
a form of commentary on social dynamics. <italic>Prosiding SINTESA,
5</italic>, 341-352.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.36002/snts.v5i0.2259">https://doi.org/10.36002/snts.v5i0.2259</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625123">
        <title>29</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Ducros, H. B. (2021). Rethinking the human in a multispecies world.
<italic>www.europenowjournal.org</italic>.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.europenowjournal.org/2021/11/07/rethinking-the-human-in-a-multispecies-world/">https://www.europenowjournal.org/2021/11/07/rethinking-the-human-in-a-multispecies-world/</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625124">
        <title>30</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Ellingson, L. L., &amp; Sotirin, P. J. (2020). <italic>Making data in
qualitative research: Engagements, ethics, and entanglements</italic>.
Routledge.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429058240">https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429058240</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625125">
        <title>31</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Ellis, C., &amp; Bochner, A. P. (2000). Autoethnography, personal
narrative, reflexivity. In N. K. Denzin, &amp; Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.),
<italic>Handbook of qualitative research</italic> (2nd ed., pp.
733-768). SAGE.</p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625126">
        <title>32</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Epstein-HaLevi, D. Y. (2021). Ecopedagogy: Critical environmental
teaching for planetary justice and global sustainable development.
<italic>International Studies in Sociology of Education,
30</italic>(1-2), 233-235.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/09620214.2021.1880334">https://doi.org/10.1080/09620214.2021.1880334</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625127">
        <title>33</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Fairclough, N. (2003). Critical discourse analysis as a method in
social scientific research. In R. Wodak, &amp; M. Meyer (Eds.),
<italic>Methods of critical discourse analysis</italic> (pp. 121-138).
SAGE.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857028020.n6">https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857028020.n6</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625128">
        <title>34</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Fawns, T., Ross, J., Carbonel, H., Noteboom, J., Finnegan-Dehn, S.,
&amp; Raver, M. (2023). Mapping and tracing the postdigital: Approaches
and parameters of postdigital research. <italic>Postdigital Science and
Education, 5</italic>(3), 623-642.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-023-00391-y">https://doi.org/10.1007/s42438-023-00391-y</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625129">
        <title>35</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Freeman, L. A., Nienass, B., &amp; Daniell, R. (2014).
<italic>Silence, screen, and spectacle: Rethinking social memory in the
age of information</italic>. Berghahn.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3167/9781782382805">https://doi.org/10.3167/9781782382805</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625130">
        <title>36</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Gauntlett, D. (2015). <italic>Making media studies: The creativity
turn in media and communications studies</italic>. Peter Lang.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3726/978-1-4539-1471-7">https://doi.org/10.3726/978-1-4539-1471-7</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625131">
        <title>37</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Gericke, N., &amp; Torbjörnsson, T. (2022). Supporting local school
reform toward education for sustainable development: The need for
creating and continuously negotiating a shared vision and building
trust. <italic>The Journal of Environmental Education, 53</italic>(4),
231-249.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2022.2102565">https://doi.org/10.1080/00958964.2022.2102565</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625132">
        <title>38</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Greeves, S., &amp; Oz, M. (2024). YouTube in higher education:
Comparing student and instructor perceptions and practices.
<italic>Frontiers in Education, 8</italic>.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1330405">https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1330405</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625133">
        <title>39</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Guan, S.-S. A., Hain, S., Cabrera, J., &amp; Rodarte, A. (2019).
Social media use and empathy: A mini meta-analysis. <italic>Social
Networking, 8</italic>(4), 147-157.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.4236/sn.2019.84010">https://doi.org/10.4236/sn.2019.84010</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625134">
        <title>40</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Habibi, A. D. (2025). The dual impact of prejudice and empathy among
adolescent social media use. <italic>NHSJS</italic>.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://nhsjs.com/2025/the-dual-impact-of-prejudice-and-empathy-among-adolescent-social-media-use/">https://nhsjs.com/2025/the-dual-impact-of-prejudice-and-empathy-among-adolescent-social-media-use/</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625135">
        <title>41</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Hadjichambis, A. Ch., &amp; Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, D. (2020).
Education for environmental citizenship: The pedagogical approach. In A.
C. Hadjichambis, P. Reis, D. Paraskeva-Hadjichambi, J. Činčera, J.
Boeve-de Pauw, N. Gericke, &amp; M.-C. Knippels (Eds.),
<italic>Conceptualizing environmental citizenship for 21<sup>st</sup>
century education</italic> (vol. 4, pp. 237-261). Springer.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20249-1_15">https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20249-1_15</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625136">
        <title>42</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Hadzigeorgiou, Y. (2018). Teaching the nature of science through
storytelling: Some empirical evidence from a grade 9 classroom.
<italic>SFU Educational Review, 10</italic>(2).
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.21810/sfuer.v10i2.318">https://doi.org/10.21810/sfuer.v10i2.318</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625137">
        <title>43</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Hair, J. F. (2010). <italic>Multivariate data analysis</italic> (7th
ed.). Prentice Hall.</p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625138">
        <title>44</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Hall, S., &amp; Walsh, C. (2015). Using digital technology to
activate and evaluate emotions to creatively communicate ideas. In
<italic>Proceedings of the AARE 2015 Conference</italic>.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.12968/fund.2015.169.14">https://doi.org/10.12968/fund.2015.169.14</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625139">
        <title>45</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Hillman, T., Weilenmann, A., Jungselius, B., &amp; Lindell, T. L.
(2016). Traces of engagement: Narrative-making practices with
smartphones on a museum field trip. <italic>Learning, Media and
Technology, 41</italic>(2), 351-370.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2015.1064443">https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2015.1064443</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625140">
        <title>46</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Hiltunen, K., &amp; Rainio, M. (2023). Reflections of hope and
anxiety in audience responses to three environmental films.
<italic>Journal of Audience &amp; Reception Studies, 19</italic>(2),
45-75.</p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625141">
        <title>47</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Hjetland, G. J., Finserås, T. R., Sivertsen, B., Colman, I., Hella,
R. T., &amp; Skogen, J. C. (2022). Focus on self-presentation on social
media across sociodemographic variables, lifestyles, and personalities:
A cross-sectional study. <italic>International Journal of Environmental
Research and Public Health, 19</italic>(17), Article 11133.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191711133">https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191711133</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625142">
        <title>48</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Hjorth, L., &amp; Richardson, I. (2018). Stories from the field:
Playing with mobile media. In M. Schleser, &amp; M. Berry (Eds.),
<italic>Mobile story making in an age of smartphones</italic> (pp.
75-85). Springer.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76795-6_8">https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76795-6_8</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625143">
        <title>49</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Hung, C.-T., Wu, S.-E., Chen, Y.-H., Soong, C.-Y., Chiang, C., &amp;
Wang, W. (2024). The evaluation of synchronous and asynchronous online
learning: Student experience, learning outcomes, and cognitive load.
<italic>BMC Medical Education, 24</italic>, Article 326.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05311-7">https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-024-05311-7</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625144">
        <title>50</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Hutto, C., &amp; Gilbert, E. (2014). VADER: A parsimonious rule-based
model for sentiment analysis of social media text. <italic>Proceedings
of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media,
8</italic>(1), 216-225.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v8i1.14550">https://doi.org/10.1609/icwsm.v8i1.14550</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625145">
        <title>51</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Iglesias, C. A., &amp; Moreno, A. (2019). Sentiment analysis for
social media. <italic>Applied Sciences, 9</italic>(23), Article 5037.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/app9235037">https://doi.org/10.3390/app9235037</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625146">
        <title>52</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Jackson, A. Y., &amp; Mazzei, L. (2018). Thinking with theory in
qualitative research: Viewing data across multiple perspectives. In N.
K. Denzin, &amp; Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), <italic>The Sage handbook of
qualitative research</italic> (5th ed.). Routledge.</p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625147">
        <title>53</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Jandrić, P., &amp; Ford, D. R. (2022). Postdigital ecopedagogies:
Genealogies, contradictions, and possible futures. <italic>Postdigital
Science and Education, Postdigital Science and Education, 4</italic>,
3-24.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-97262-2_1">https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-97262-2_1</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625148">
        <title>54</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Jandrić, P., &amp; Knox, J. (2022). The postdigital turn: Philosophy,
education, research. <italic>Policy Futures in Education,
20</italic>(7), 780-795.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103211062713">https://doi.org/10.1177/14782103211062713</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625149">
        <title>55</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Koc, M., &amp; Yucel, H. H. (2022). University students’ perceptions
about the educational videos on YouTube. In <italic>Proceedings of the
International Conference on Social and Education Sciences</italic>.</p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625150">
        <title>56</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Lamont, A., Bannister, S., &amp; Coutinho, E. (2023). ‘Talking’ about
music: The emotional content of comments on YouTube videos. In H.
Rogers, J. Freitas, &amp; J. F. Porfírio (Eds.), <italic>YouTube and
music: Online culture and everyday life</italic>. Bloomsbury Academic.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5040/9781501387302.0023">https://doi.org/10.5040/9781501387302.0023</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625151">
        <title>57</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Lange, P. G. (2014). <italic>Kids on YouTube: Technical identities
and digital literacies</italic>. Left Coast Press.</p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625152">
        <title>58</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Lee, C. S. (2012). Exploring emotional expressions on YouTube through
the lens of media system dependency theory. <italic>New Media &amp;
Society, 14</italic>(3), 457-475.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444811419829">https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444811419829</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625153">
        <title>59</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Lee, C. S., Osop, H., Goh, D. H.-L., &amp; Kelni, G. (2017). Making
sense of comments on YouTube educational videos: A self-directed
learning perspective. <italic>Online Information Review, 41</italic>(5),
611-625.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-09-2016-0274">https://doi.org/10.1108/OIR-09-2016-0274</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625154">
        <title>60</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Lei, L., &amp; Liu, D. (2021). <italic>Conducting sentiment
analysis</italic> (1st ed.). Cambridge University Press.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108909679">https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108909679</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625155">
        <title>61</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Li, Y., Zhao, Y., Huang, Q., Deng, J., Deng, X., &amp; Li, J. (2024).
Empathy with nature promotes pro-environmental attitudes in preschool
children. <italic>PsyCh Journal, 13</italic>(4), 598-607.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/pchj.735">https://doi.org/10.1002/pchj.735</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625156">
        <title>62</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Liu, B. (2020). <italic>Sentiment analysis: Mining opinions,
sentiments, and emotions</italic> (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108639286">https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108639286</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625157">
        <title>63</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>MacEntee, K., Burkholder, C., &amp; Schwab-Cartas, J. (2016). What’s
a cellphilm? An introduction. In K. MacEntee, C. Burkholder, &amp; J.
Schwab-Cartas (Eds.), <italic>What’s a cellphilm?</italic> (pp. 1-15).
Sense Publishers.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-573-9_1">https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6300-573-9_1</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625158">
        <title>64</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Milne, E.-J., Mitchell, C., &amp; de Lange, N. (Eds.). (2012).
<italic>Handbook of participatory video</italic>. Rowman &amp;
Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5771/9780759121157">https://doi.org/10.5771/9780759121157</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625159">
        <title>65</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Misiaszek, G. W. (2018). <italic>Educating the global environmental
citizen: Understanding ecopedagogy in local and global
contexts</italic>. Routledge.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315204345">https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315204345</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625160">
        <title>66</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Misiaszek, G. W. (2021). Editorial: De-distancing ‘us’ from the rest
of earth: Ecopedagogical analysis and approaches. <italic>International
Studies in Sociology of Education, 30</italic>(1-2), 1-12.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/09620214.2021.1880333">https://doi.org/10.1080/09620214.2021.1880333</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625161">
        <title>67</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Misiaszek, G. W. (2022). Ecopedagogy: Freirean teaching to disrupt
socio-environmental injustices, anthropocentric dominance, and
unsustainability of the anthropocene. <italic>Educational Philosophy and
Theory, 55</italic>(11), 1253-1267.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2022.2130044">https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2022.2130044</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625162">
        <title>68</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Mitchell, C., &amp; de Lange, N. (2013). What can a teacher do with a
cellphone? Using participatory visual research to speak back in
addressing HIV&amp;AIDS. <italic>South African Journal of Education,
33</italic>(4), Article #833.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.15700/201412171336">https://doi.org/10.15700/201412171336</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625163">
        <title>69</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Mizan-Rahman, M. (2024). “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful
lot, nothing is going to get better”: An environmental discourse
analysis of animated films <italic>The Lorax</italic> (2012) and
<italic>Tomorrow</italic> (2019). <italic>Geoscience Communication,
7</italic>(1), 63-79.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-7-63-2024">https://doi.org/10.5194/gc-7-63-2024</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625164">
        <title>70</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Noetel, M., Griffith, S., Delaney, O., Sanders, T., Parker, P., Del
Pozo Cruz, B., &amp; Lonsdale, C. (2021). Video improves learning in
higher education: A systematic review. <italic>Review of Educational
Research, 91</italic>(2), 204-236.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654321990713">https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654321990713</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625165">
        <title>71</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Oladosu, A. T. (2020). Enhancing the learning of basic concepts in
biology with the utilization of mobile bio-apps among biology students
in college of education. <italic>PEOPLE: International Journal of Social
Sciences, 6</italic>(1), 656-665.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2020.61.656665">https://doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2020.61.656665</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625166">
        <title>72</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Piccirillo, M. L., &amp; Rodebaugh, T. L. (2019). Foundations of
idiographic methods in psychology and applications for psychotherapy.
<italic>Clinical Psychology Review, 71</italic>, 90-100.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2019.01.002">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2019.01.002</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625167">
        <title>73</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Pink, S. (2015). <italic>Doing sensory ethnography</italic> (2nd
ed.). SAGE.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473917057">https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473917057</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625168">
        <title>74</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Pokharel, O. M. (2014). <italic>Impact of user-generated contents on
end-users: Self-directed learning using YouTube</italic> [Master’s
thesis, University of Alberta].
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://ualberta.scholaris.ca/items/8bc92b30-8f9d-4f8d-ba3e-3e00f55b1e5e">https://ualberta.scholaris.ca/items/8bc92b30-8f9d-4f8d-ba3e-3e00f55b1e5e</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625169">
        <title>75</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Qi, C. (2019). A double-edged sword? Exploring the impact of
students’ academic usage of mobile devices on technostress and academic
performance. <italic>Behaviour &amp; Information Technology,
38</italic>(12), 1337-1354.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2019.1585476">https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2019.1585476</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625170">
        <title>76</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Quigley, C. F., Herro, D., Shekell, C., Cian, H., &amp; Jacques, L.
(2020). Connected learning in STEAM classrooms: Opportunities for
engaging youth in science and math classrooms. <italic>International
Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 18</italic>(8), 1441-1463.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10034-z">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10763-019-10034-z</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625171">
        <title>77</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Rodriguez, M., &amp; Kross, E. (2023). Sensory emotion regulation.
<italic>Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 27</italic>(4), 379-390.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2023.01.008">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2023.01.008</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625172">
        <title>78</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Rogers, H., Freitas, J., &amp; Porfírio, J. F. (Eds.). (2023).
<italic>YouTube and music: Online culture and everyday life</italic>
(1st ed.). Bloomsbury Publishing.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5040/9781501387302">https://doi.org/10.5040/9781501387302</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625173">
        <title>79</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Royet, J.-P., Zald, D., Versace, R., Costes, N., Lavenne, F., Koenig,
O., &amp; Gervais, R. (2000). Emotional responses to pleasant and
unpleasant olfactory, visual, and auditory stimuli: A positron emission
tomography study. <italic>The Journal of Neuroscience, 20</italic>(20),
7752-7759.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.20-20-07752.2000">https://doi.org/10.1523/jneurosci.20-20-07752.2000</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625174">
        <title>80</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Schacter, J., &amp; Jo, B. (2016). Improving low-income preschoolers
mathematics achievement with Math Shelf, a preschool tablet computer
curriculum. <italic>Computers in Human Behavior, 55</italic>, 223-229.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.013">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.09.013</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625175">
        <title>81</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Schelly, C., &amp; Banerjee, A. (Eds.). (2018). <italic>Environmental
policy and the pursuit of sustainability</italic> (1st ed.). Taylor and
Francis.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315099996">https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315099996</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625176">
        <title>82</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Shoufan, A., &amp; Mohamed, F. (2022). YouTube and education: A
scoping review. <italic>IEEE Access, 10</italic>, 125576-125599.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3225419">https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3225419</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625177">
        <title>83</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Snelson, C. (2018). Video production in content-area pedagogy: A
scoping study of the research literature. <italic>Learning, Media and
Technology, 43</italic>(3), 294-306.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2018.1504788">https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2018.1504788</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625178">
        <title>84</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>St. Pierre, E. A. (1997). Methodology in the fold and the irruption
of transgressive data. <italic>International Journal of Qualitative
Studies in Education, 10</italic>(2), 175-189.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/095183997237278">https://doi.org/10.1080/095183997237278</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625179">
        <title>85</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>St. Pierre, E. A. (2012). Another postmodern report on knowledge:
Positivism and its others. <italic>International Journal of Leadership
in Education, 15</italic>(4), Article 4.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2012.696710">https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2012.696710</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625180">
        <title>86</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>St. Pierre, E. A., &amp; Jackson, A. Y. (2014). Qualitative data
analysis after coding. <italic>Qualitative Inquiry, 20</italic>(6),
715-719.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800414532435">https://doi.org/10.1177/1077800414532435</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625181">
        <title>87</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Stibbe, A. (2008). Zen and the art of environmental education in the
Japanese animated film Tonari No Totoro. <italic>Journal for the Study
of Religion, Nature and Culture, 1</italic>(4), Article 4.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1558/jsrnc.v1i4.468">https://doi.org/10.1558/jsrnc.v1i4.468</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625182">
        <title>88</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Turan-Özpolat, E. (2020). A phenomenographic study on views about
entertaining and boring situations in learning process.
<italic>International Education Studies, 13</italic>(10), Article 8.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v13n10p8">https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v13n10p8</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625183">
        <title>89</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>van Dijk, T. A. (1993). Principles of critical discourse analysis.
<italic>Discourse &amp; Society, 4</italic>(2), Article 2.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002006">https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002006</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625184">
        <title>90</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Wodak, R., &amp; Meyer, M. (2003). <italic>Methods of critical
discourse analysis</italic>. SAGE.</p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625185">
        <title>91</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Wright, D. E., &amp; Nagy, L. (2022). An open chat with… Laszlo Nagy.
<italic>FEBS Open Bio, 12</italic>(3), 554-559.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2211-5463.13374">https://doi.org/10.1002/2211-5463.13374</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625186">
        <title>92</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Xia, X. (2024). Enhancing environmental education through digital
tools. <italic>International Journal of New Developments in Education,
6</italic>(9).
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.25236/IJNDE.2024.060932">https://doi.org/10.25236/IJNDE.2024.060932</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625187">
        <title>93</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Yang, K.-H. (2015). Voice, authenticity and ethical challenges: The
participatory dissemination of youth-generated visual data over social
media. <italic>Visual Studies, 30</italic>(3), 309-318.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1080/1472586X.2015.1017364">https://doi.org/10.1080/1472586X.2015.1017364</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625188">
        <title>94</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Yang, S., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., &amp; Xenos, M. A. (2022).
The science of YouTube: What factors influence user engagement with
online science videos? <italic>PLoS ONE, 17</italic>(5), Article
e0267697.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267697">https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0267697</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625189">
        <title>95</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Yengin, D., &amp; Bayrak, T. (2023). <italic>New media
theories</italic>. Peter Lang.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3726/b21286">https://doi.org/10.3726/b21286</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625190">
        <title>96</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Zhang, S., Lv, X., Tang, Y., &amp; Dong, Z. (2018). Movie short-text
reviews sentiment analysis based on multi-feature fusion. In
<italic>Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Algorithms,
Computing and Artificial Intelligence</italic>.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1145/3302425.3302469">https://doi.org/10.1145/3302425.3302469</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="B-625191">
        <title>97</title>
        <mixed-citation>
          <p>Zhao, F. (2021). Interviewer presence can affect learning with
interview videos. <italic>E-Learning and Digital Media, 18</italic>(4),
403-421.
<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753021995312">https://doi.org/10.1177/2042753021995312</ext-link></p>
</mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>