PowerPoint on Winke, Gass, & Syderenko (

1. The effects of captioning videos
used for foreign language listening activities
Paula Winke, Susan Gass, & Tetyana Sydorenko
@ Michigan State University
Language Learning & Technology 14, Feb 2010

2. Many of us intuit that captions are helpful:
1. The language data is presented multi-modally, which
may promote reader engagement.
• Beatty (2010, p. 55) and Felix (2008, p. 154) support this notion.
2. Integrates 3 of the 4 skills
• Garrett (2009, p. 720) implicitly supports this notion.

3. And indeed the research on captioning shows this:
Baltova (1999); Danan (1992); Garza (1991);
Markham (1993, 1999); Neuman & Koskinen
(1992)
Winke, Gass, & Syderenko (2010): “The general
consensus [is] that captioning leads to superior
performance on subsequent comprehension and
vocabulary tests,” (p. 66).

4. But that doesn’t mean that use of captions
is totally understood.
• Learner Level? Guillory (1998) found captions helpful
for early learners, whereas Taylor (2005) did not.
• Target Language? Very little research into the use of
captions for learners encountering new scripts
(specifically, learners from orthographically Latinate
languages studying non-Latinate scripts)
• Always Helpful? Taylor (2005) interviewed students
who suggested that captions are distracting, and
Pujola (2002) suggested that captions can be
overused (context unclear).

5. Research Questions:
“1. Do captioned videos result in better comprehension of video
content and learning of vocabulary than noncaptioned ones?
(Spanish)
2. When a video is viewed twice, is captioning more effective (as
measured by comprehension tests and vocabulary learning tests)
when the first viewing is with captions or when the second
viewing is with captions? (all languages)
3. Are there different benefits derived from captioning order
depending on the target language? (all languages)
4. Do proficiency differences affect the benefits of captioning
derived from captioning order? (Russian and Spanish)” (p. 68)

6. Method
• 154 language learners in American Midwestern
university. All except one were native English
speakers, though some had previously studied
other languages.
• Second-year learners of Arabic (N = 29)
• Second-year learners of Chinese (N=13)
• Second-year learners of Spanish (N = 47)
• Fourth-year learners of Spanish (N=20)
• Second-year learners of Russian (N= 24)
• Fourth-year learners of Russian (N = 11)

7. Method (cont.)
• 3 short nature videos dubbed into TLs by native speakers.
There were captioned (TL) and non-captioned versions for
each language and video. Topics = salmon, bears, dolphins
• Everyone watched 2 versions of each video
• One group of 2nd year Spanish learners saw everything
captioned; another saw all non-captioned
• All other learner groups were split into A and B; group A
saw captions on the first run of every video, but not the
second, and group B did the reverse

8. Method (cont. 2)
• Prior knowledge for all learners used test used as
control
• Vocab test half written, half auditory, A and B form
distributed randomly but 50-50 in all language
groups.
• Multiple-choice main-points comprehension test in
English also distributed.
• Volunteers (N=26) then asked some general
questions about their use of captions

9. Findings
R1) T-tests show that for Spanish group of all captioned vs. all non-
captioned videos, scores for all captions beat scores for no captions
on written test, aural test, and comprehension test.
R2) T-test shows that using the captions first created a statistically
significant improvement for performance on the aural post-test, but
not the written test or comprehension test.
R3) T-tests suggest that an ordering difference across languages is
not statistically significant, though insignificant trends did emerge.
R4) Proficiency showed no effect on benefits of caption ordering.

10. Note: Findings presented below are statistically insignificant.

11. Interview Findings
“1. Learners have a need for multiple input modalities.
2. Captions reinforce and confirm what is taken in aurally.
3. Captions affect learners’ attention to the input.
4. Captions aid with the decomposition and/or analysis of
language.
5. Captions are sometimes viewed as crutches” (p. 77-78).

12. Findings Compared to Previous Research
• Agree that captions help overall
• Findings that captioning first viewing helps aurally, but
not on written tests, appears to be new
• Findings that language has no significant effect on
captioning benefits appears to be new
• Finding that proficiency level does not have a
statistically significant effect on ordering is said to
agree with Guillory (1998) but not Taylor (2005). Our
authors suggest: “In light of our study, we suggest that
the lower-level learners in Taylor’s study who reported
that it was more difficult to attend to captions than
upper-level students were perhaps having a harder
time with the content of the video,” (p. 80-81).

13. Connection to Weekly Readings
• Chappelle and Jamieson (2008) do support the use of video
for listening activities generally, as “Visual information
helps to call up background information and schemata,” (p.
139).
• However, Chappelle and Jamieson (2008) recommend
basing listening activities on videos chosen at appropriate
difficulty level, showing authentic usage, on topics that are
relevant and interesting for students (p. 131-5). These
nature videos do not seem to satisfy the first two criteria.
• Also, for teachers intending to make use of Winke, Gass,
and Syderenko’s (2010) findings, it’s worth noting that
Chappelle and Jamieson (2008) also recommend checking
comprehension DURING the video and giving students the
ability to pause and rewind as they please.

14. My Evaluation
• All saw same videos, despite proficiency differences,
even though these authors implicitly criticize Taylor
(2005) for doing the same.
• What about curricular differences between
languages? The authors cite Markham (2001) as
showing that background knowledge affects
usefulness of captions.
• Does it make sense to do written tests for listening
exercises?
• Prior knowledge test AFTER the videos, “so as not to
cause the subjects to pay special attention to these
words,” which could logically affect reliability of prior
knowledge findings (priming effect).

15. My Evaluation (2)
• Next, process of norming findings by dividing raw score by
# of unfamiliar words to control for prior knowledge had a
reference (Smith, 2004) but no justification.
• Why wasn’t proficiency as a total effect on Y/N captions
investigated? Findings on ordering don’t relate directly to
prior research.
• Despite use of only one language without Latinate
orthography (Russian), and statistically insignificant
findings, the authors press forward that, “We suggest that
learners of a language whose orthography is closer to that
of the target language are better able to use the written
modality as an initial source of information,” (p. 80).

16. Questions? Comments?