| Type | JournalArticle |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-06-01 |
| Volume | 25 |
| Number | 2 |
| Tags | nonfiction, language learning |
| Journal | Language Learning & Technology |
| Pages | 178--191 |
Peculiarly, this study shows little impact of captions (either L2 or L1) on low-proficiency learners' comprehension, and that L2 captions are more useful than L1. Why? The authors opine that "The answer is that watching an L2 movie with L1 captions does not necessarily guarantee the viewer will comprehend the movie as L1 speakers do, because L1 captions could split learners’ attention and prevent them from concentrating on the audio input due to, as stated earlier, limited working memory and cognitive load. That was pointed out by Hayati and Mohmedi (2011), whose participants commented that the Persian (L1) captions diverted their attention and prevented them from concentrating on the audio input."
This just makes very little sense, on the face of it. L1 captions on movies allow people with zero proficiency to achieve good comprehension of the movie, by the millions. It's certainly possible that having a little knowledge causes interference, as stated, but I think there must be an extra variable: the test subjects were students, who knew they were watching the video as part of a foreign language class, expecting to be tested on it. This may have caused them to attempt to focus on the L2 audio much more than they would have in natural conditions, to the exclusion of the captions, which might otherwise have proven more helpful.
I would like to see some discussion about the differences in how learners attempt to watch videos in their L2 vs. L1, or when attempting it as study instead of for leisure. Does focusing more on the L2 audio improve learning? Probably yes, but how much, and at what cost?
This study investigated the effects of captions on the listening comprehension of vlogs. A total of 96 EFL learners watched three vlogs under one of three conditions: L2 captions, L1 captions, and no captions. Each group included low-, mid-, and high-level proficiency learners. The vlogs differed in the pictorial support of the audio, with Vlog 1 being highly supported, Vlog 2 being partially supported, and Vlog 3 being slightly supported by pictorial images. After each vlog, the participants took a multiple-choice test measuring their comprehension of details. Afterwards, participants completed a questionnaire about their perception of captions. The findings suggest that the availability of captions may not necessarily lead to better listening comprehension because students, particularly lower proficiency learners, were unable to simultaneously process the multiple modalities (images, audio, and captions) due to their limited capacities of working memory and cognitive load. High-proficiency learners achieved better comprehension than low-and mid-proficiency learners and achieved their best comprehension with L2 captions. A significant increase in comprehension of vlogs caused by high pictorial support was detected, with the inverse relationship also being true. Analysis of the questionnaire indicated that participants consider L2 captions useful. For both L2 and L1 captions, students think that their listening comprehension would decrease without captions. When considering vlogs for L2 listening, language proficiency and pictorial support are better indicators of levels of comprehension. Captions might be beneficial when learners’ proficiency level is high. When visual images are highly supportive for the audio, better comprehension of vlogs is likely.
| Name | Role |
|---|---|
| Dukhayel Aldukhayel | Author |