The relationship between vocabulary and viewing comprehension

Abstract

This is a PDF file of an article that has undergone enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record. This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Examining Adolescent Efl Learners’ Tv Viewing Comprehension Through Captions and Subtitles

“…Baltova (1994) also reported positive effects of visual clues from videos, and found that learners who had access to audio and video almost doubled the comprehension scores of the audio-only group. A recent study by Durbahn et al (2019) assessed comprehension of a documentary distinguishing between imagery-based, audio-based, and imagery plus audio-based questions. Results showed that, when imagery could be used, learners relied less on the spoken text, whereas for audio-based questions vocabulary knowledge was the factor that played a more important role.…”

“…Although still in need of more research, studies including different question types indicate that item type has an effect on comprehension scores and that the presence of on-screen text-or the absence of it-interacts with item type (e.g., Rodgers, 2018b;Shohamy & Inbar, 1991). Another aspect to consider is whether questions are audio based or imagery based because differences have also been found between these two types (Durbahn et al, 2019). Item format-that is, how questions are presented-also deserves attention.…”

“…Research on extensive reading suggests that learners need up to 95% coverage for minimal comprehension and 98% coverage for optimal comprehension (e.g., Laufer & Ravenhorst-Kalovski, 2010), while research on informal listening proposes a less conservative figure, suggesting that a coverage of 90-95% might be enough to understand everyday conversations (e.g., Van Zeeland & Schmitt, 2013). For viewing comprehension, it has also been suggested that 95% might be enough because of the additional support provided by images (Rodgers & Webb, 2011), and that less coverage might be needed for adequate comprehension compared to unassisted reading (Durbahn et al, 2019). In a pioneer study assessing comprehension of several consecutive TV episodes, Rodgers (2013) found that comprehension improved with increased lexical coverage in most but not all episodes, which indicates the need to take into account differences on episodes' lexical coverage when assessing comprehension across different videos.…”

Introduction to the Special Issue

“…Captions assist comprehension by helping to break down speech into words and thus facilitating listening and reading comprehension. Crucially, a unique support offered to learners' comprehension by multimodal input is imagery, as noted in the preceding text (e.g., Durbahn et al, 2020;Jones & Plass, 2002). Research into audiovisual input has shown that it can work as a compensatory mechanism especially for low-proficiency learners (e.g., Rodgers, 2016).…”

“…Webb andRodgers (2009a, 2009b) have put forward knowledge of the 3,000 most frequent word families and proper nouns to reach 95% coverage of the input. However, the lexical coverage figures for TV viewing have recently been found to be lower (Durbahn et al, 2020), so the lexical demands are not as high as for reading (knowledge of the 4,000 most frequent word families for adequate comprehension and 8,000 word families for detailed comprehension; Laufer & Ravenhorst-Kalovski, 2010;Nation, 2006). Rodgers and Webb (2011) also established that words are repeated more often in TV programs than in reading, especially in related TV programs, which is beneficial for vocabulary learning.…”