The EUROCALL Review, Volume 27, No.

1, March 2019

Research paper

How Do Different Keyword Captioning Strategies

Impact Students’ Performance in Oral and Written
Production Tasks?
A Pilot Study
Long He
Iowa State University, USA
______________________________________________________________
[email protected]

Abstract
As an increasingly popular format of input, the affordances of audio-visual materials have
been widely studied. Past research has provided evidence that audio-visual input
combined with different captioning strategies could benefit learners in terms of vocabulary
learning, listening comprehension, and the development of grammatical knowledge.
However, there is a lack of research on how manipulating captioning conditions could help
learners use their own linguistic resources to produce L2. Comparing the effects of three
captioning techniques, L1 glossed keyword captioning, keyword captioning, and no
captioning on English learners’ oral and written recall of a short video, this pilot study
aims to test the instruments and the data collection methods. The tentative results
suggest that L1 glossed keyword captioning might have worked better in facilitating
students’ oral and written production of the keywords than keyword captioning and no
captioning. The study also shows that L1 glossed keyword captioning might be more
useful than keyword captioning and no captioning in helping students comprehend and
reproduce the content of the video. Suggestions for further research on this topic are
presented in the final part of this paper.
Keywords: Audio-visual input, keyword captioning, gloss, recall, oral and written
production tasks.

1. Introduction
Though Krashen’s (1985) argument that second language (L2) learners just need
comprehensible input to activate their built-in syllabus and that L2 acquisition relies
entirely on input proved to be controversial, researchers have widely accepted the
essential role of exposure to L2 input in second language acquisition (SLA). L2 input is
especially crucial for implicit learning. As Ellis (2015) puts it, “Implicit learning is a slow
process that requires massive exposure to the second language” (p. 36). Previous studies
have investigated the effect of different types of input (e.g., audio, written, and visual)
on learners’ L2 acquisition. One type of input, audio-visual input, has attracted sustainable
interest from researchers in SLA.
A main strand of research on audio-visual input centers on the effect of using native
language (L1) or L2 subtitles or captions to enhance language learning. Markham (1999)
defines subtitles as “on-screen text in the native language combined with the second
language soundtrack” and captions as “on-screen text in the second language combined
with the second language soundtrack.” In this study, L1 caption refers to native language
captioning, and L2 caption refers to second language captioning.
Multiple studies have examined the effectiveness of L1 and L2 captions in facilitating
learners’ vocabulary acquisition and listening comprehension. Koolstra and Beentjes
(1999) compared the effects of watching L1 captioned television programs and watching

14
 The EUROCALL Review, Volume 27, No. 1, March 2019

English television programs without captions on Dutch children’s incidental acquisition of

L2 English vocabulary. The results showed that the children scored higher in the
vocabulary test and word recognition test in the L1 caption condition. The fact that the
audio-visual input combined with L1 captions enables learners to hear the English words,
read the Dutch translation, and infer meanings from the visual images facilitates Dutch
children’s vocabulary acquisition. Rodgers and Webb (2017) conducted a similar study
but used 10 episodes of a TV series. Their results revealed that L2 captions were especially
useful in aiding comprehension when the content was difficult. Focusing on L2 Spanish,
Markham, Peter, and McCarthy (2001) investigated how three different caption
conditions, i.e. L1 English captions, L2 Spanish captions, and no captions, influenced
learners’ performance on a written summary task and a multiple-choice task. The results
again showed that learners under the L1 captions condition performed considerably better
than the other two pairs. Winke, Gass, and Sydorenko (2010) explored the use of
captioned videos in listening activities and concluded that L2 captioned videos were more
effective in facilitating novel vocabulary recognition and overall comprehension.
The previously mentioned studies have documented positive effects of captioning on L2
learning, but they did not include procedures to draw learners’ attention to target words
or phrases. In his Noticing Hypothesis, Schmidt (2001) claims that “people learn about
the things they attend to and do not learn much from the things they do not attend to”
(p. 30). In other words, it might be easier for learners to acquire more salient language
features in the input. Hypothesizing that keyword captioning presents less information
and thus could keep students’ attention on the linguistic message, Guillory (1998)
investigated how different types of captions, L2 full captioning, L2 keyword captioning,
and no captioning, impact learners’ comprehension. The results showed that both full
captioning and keyword captioning had a positive effect on comprehension. Montero Pérez
et al. (2014) studied the effects of two types of captioning, namely L2 full captioning and
L2 keyword captioning. They found that the full captioning pair scored higher on the global
comprehension questions than the no captioning and the keyword captioning pair. They
also reported the participants’ preference for full captioning. In a later study, Montero
Pérez et al. (2018) compared the effects of three captioning techniques, full captioning,
keyword captioning, and L1 glossed keyword captioning, on vocabulary learning. They
found that the students in the L1 glossed keyword captioning pair performed the best in
both the form recognition test and the meaning recall test. The findings suggested that
the access to meaning through L1 glossed keyword captioning could help students to
make form-meaning connections. In their eye-tracking study, Lee & Révész (2018)
enhanced the captions by boldfacing the target grammatical structure and observed the
advantage of textual enhancement in directing learners’ attention to the grammatical
feature. The results suggested that the enhanced captions could facilitate learners’
development of grammatical knowledge.
Past research has provided evidence that different captioning strategies could benefit
learners differently in terms of vocabulary learning, listening comprehension, and the
development of grammatical knowledge. However, there is a lack of research on how
manipulating captioning conditions could help learners use their own linguistic resources
to produce L2. Swain’s (1985) Output Hypothesis proposes that language acquisition
requires not only comprehensible input but also output production. When discussing the
importance of output, Nava & Pedrazzini (2018) provided further explanation:
While exposure to input that is made comprehensible for a learner is a needed starting
point for SLA, it is in itself insufficient to satisfy all the demands of acquisition. Engaging
in second language production, through both speaking and writing, is thus held to be
crucial for acquisition, particularly if a learner wishes to increase their proficiency towards
more native-like accuracy (p. 156).
Considering the benefits of audio-visual input combined with captions in assisting
language learning and the importance of output in improving language proficiency, it is
worthwhile to explore how different caption strategies, combined with audio-visual input,
could aid students’ oral and written production. The current study aims to investigate how
utilizing different captioning options could influence learners’ output task performance. In
other words, this study compares the effects of L1 glossed keyword captioning, keyword
captioning, and no captioning on English learners’ oral and written recall of a short video.

15
 The EUROCALL Review, Volume 27, No. 1, March 2019

The pilot study also aims to test the instruments and data collection methods. The purpose
of using keyword captioning was to draw learners’ attention to those words that would
pose a challenge to learners’ comprehension. The purpose of using L1 glossed keyword
captioning was to help learners make form-meaning connections (Lee & Révész, 2018).
The following two research questions guided this study.
Research Question 1: How do the three captioning conditions influence the
students’ use of the keywords in their oral and written production?
Research Question 2: How do the three captioning conditions impact the
overall quality (based on correctly produced idea units) of the students’
oral and written production?
2. Method
2.1. Participants
The participants included a female high school English teacher and six 11th grade high
school students with an average age of 15.5. The teacher, a native Chinese, had been
teaching English at the same school for about 12 years. The students were native
speakers of Mandarin Chinese and were enrolled in the same English class. All the
participants had received four years of classroom English instruction. The English teacher
selected the six participants because they had similar scores from the achievement test
taken at the beginning of the semester. Prior to the study, the students took the bilingual
mandarin version Vocabulary Size Test developed by Nation and Beglar (2007). The
results suggested that the students’ vocabulary size was comparable, averaging 1,500
word families. Based on the students’ performance on the achievement test and the
vocabulary size test, the English proficiency level of the students was close to B2 level in
the Common European Framework for Reference (CEFR). The teacher randomly assigned
the students into pairs to complete the production task under three captioning conditions,
L1 glossed keyword captioning, keyword captioning, and no captioning.
2.2. Video selection
The audio-visual input used in this study was a two-minute video on the cultural
differences between China and the UK. To select a video that could spark the students’
interest, the researcher provided the students four topics to choose from. The four topics
included how to improve memory, global warming, the best way to practice English, and
cultural differences between China and the UK. The students needed to select two topics
of their interest. The last topic was selected for this study because all the students chose
that one.
The video was recorded by a native speaker of British English, and it contained 394 word
tokens. The Vocabulary Profiler, which was developed by the University of Hong Kong and
based on Paul Nation's Word Frequency Lists, was used to determine the difficulty level
of the vocabulary. After running the video transcription in the web-based software, it was
found that about 88 percent of the words were from the first 2,000 word families.
Therefore, it was anticipated that the video should be mostly comprehensible to the
students. However, given the speech rate, 197 words per minute, the video should still
be challenging to the participants.
2.3. The two types of captions
Two types of captioning strategies were used in this study; keyword captioning and L1
glossed keyword captioning. Figure 1 and 2 are screenshots of the two types of captions.
Montero Pérez et al. (2018) defined keyword as one word or a string of no more than four
words that are essential for the meaning making of a sentence. In this study, the
researcher worked with the teacher to select 31 keyword types. iMovie was used to
combine the audio-visual input and the captioning. In the keyword-captioned video, the
keyword appeared at the lower right corner of the video. In the L1 glossed keyword
captioning condition, the keyword and its L1 translation appeared at the lower right corner
of the video. In both conditions, the keyword was synchronized with the speech, meaning
each keyword appeared when spoken. The presentation duration of the keyword ranged
from one to two seconds depending on its length.

16
 The EUROCALL Review, Volume 27, No. 1, March 2019

Figure 1. Keyword captioning. Figure 2. L1 glossed keyword captioning.

2.4. The task

The task in this study required the learners to watch a 2-minute video clip twice and then
discuss with a partner to produce a written recall of the content of the video in English.
Ellis (2018) reemphasized that “...learners must notice new features in the input and also
notice the gap between what they attend to in the input and their current interlanguage
systems in order to learn” (p. 202). This provided the rationale for watching the video
twice. For the first watching, the students were expected to focus on the general meaning
of the video clip and notice what might be new (the keywords) to them. During the second
watching, the students had the opportunity to pay more attention to the gap between the
new information and their own interlanguage systems so that they could deepen their
understanding of the video.
In the discussion phase, the students needed to mobilize their own linguistic resources to
communicate with each other regarding what information they each had gleaned from
the video. During this phase, the student could interact with the partner to negotiate
meaning. In his Interaction Hypothesis, Long (1983) claims that meaning negotiation
facilitates L2 acquisition because learners obtain comprehensible input when they
negotiate meaning. Meaning negotiation also allows learners more time to process the
input (Ellis, 2018). While producing the written recall, the students needed to co-construct
meaning and achieve a communicative outcome. Since the teacher needed to record the
discussion, the three pairs of students completed the task separately in the teacher’s
office. The total time for the task was 25 minutes.
2.5. Procedure
Two days before the teacher invited the students to her office to do the task, the
researcher sent the teacher the following table and discussed the questions she had about
the steps via a Zoom meeting. After the Zoom meeting, she completely understood how
to direct the students to complete the task.
Table 1. Step by step instructions for the teacher.

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5

Tell the students that Play the video Play the video Ask students to work Collect
they need to watch a for the for the together to reproduce the notes and written
video, discuss in students for students for the content on paper. work from the
pairs, and the first time the second Encourage them to use students
reconstruct the (no notes; 2 time; ask their own linguistic
content of the video mins.) students to resources and provide as
on paper as a pair (1 take notes. (2 much detail as possible.
min.) mins.) (record the discussion;
15 mins.)

In the first step, the teacher briefly introduced the task and informed the students that
they would need to discuss the content and produce a written recall. The rationale behind

17
 The EUROCALL Review, Volume 27, No. 1, March 2019

informing the students about the oral and written production task beforehand was that
they could be more focused on the audio-visual input. The teacher invited the first pair of
students to the office where they watched the video under the L1 glossed keyword
captioning (L1GKC) condition. The teacher asked the students to pay attention to the
global meaning of the video during the first watching, and instructed them to take notes
during the second watching. After spending five minutes watching the video, the teacher
asked the students to spend another five minutes to discuss what had been going on in
the video. At the same time, the teacher encouraged the students to use their own
linguistic resources and started to record the discussion. Lastly, the students spent ten
minutes to complete a written recall together. After the first pair of students completed
the task, the teacher invited the keyword captioning (KC) pair to her office to do the task
and then the no captioning (NC) pair. The teacher followed the same steps for all three
pairs of students.
2.6. Data collection and data analysis
There were three sets of data in this study, namely the notes after the second watching,
the recording of the discussion, and the written recall. The teacher recorded the discussion
using her phone and collected the notes and written recall after the students completed
the task. Then she put the data from each pair into a separate zip file and sent me the
data. After receiving the data, the researcher transcribed the recordings.
To answer the first research question, the researcher read through the transcription and
the written recall and counted the places where the students correctly used a keyword or
paraphrased a keyword. The notes were to check the students’ uptake of keywords they
noticed and help interpret the data. To evaluate the overall quality of the students’ oral
and written production, Riley and Lee’s (1988) idea unit analysis method was adopted.
According to Riley and Lee, an idea unit refers either to a simple sentence, a basic
semantic proposition, or a phrase. Based on Riley and Lee’s criteria, the researcher
divided the transcription into 35 idea units. Then the same criteria were used to count the
correct idea units in the students’ oral and written production. If the students paraphrased
the idea units, those idea units were also counted as correct. If the idea units produced
were correct but not mentioned in the video, those idea units were not counted.
3. Results and discussions
This section presents the results of this pilot study. After analyzing the notes, transcription
of the students’ discussion, and the written recall, it was found that the L1GKC pair was
able to produce and paraphrase more keywords than the other two pairs in both oral and
written production. Though the KC pair noticed more keywords than the NC pair, the two
pairs’ keyword use in the discussion and written recall was similar. The overall quality of
the oral and written production follows the same trend with the L1GKC pair producing
more correct and accurate idea units than the other two pairs.
3.1. Use of keywords in oral and written production
The first research question concerns how different captioning strategies impact students’
use and paraphrasing of keywords in the discussion and written recall. Table 2 presents
students’ notes after the second watching. The researcher transferred the notes directly
to the table without correcting the misspelling or translating the words written in Chinese.
Table 3 is a summary of keywords used or paraphrased in oral and written production by
the three pairs, and keywords in the video. The notes were used to help interpret the
data in Table 3.
Table 2 shows that the L1GKC pair wrote down 19 of the 31 keywords appeared in the
video. The KC pair registered 15 keywords, while the NC had only 6 keywords. This
indicates that keyword captioning, with or without L1 gloss, might have facilitated
students’ noticing of the keywords. It is also worth mentioning that both the L1GKC and
KC pair noted down only 5 words that are not keywords in the video, but the NC pair
wrote down 7. To put it into perspective, non-keywords account for 20 percent and 25
percent of the notes by the L1GKC and KC pair respectively, while they constitute 54
percent of the notes by the NC pair. This suggests that keyword captioning could
effectively draw students’ attention to the target feature. Another interesting finding is
that one of the students in the L1GKC pair wrote down some of the keywords in L1 instead
of L2. This signals that the student was paying attention to the meaning of the keywords.

18
 The EUROCALL Review, Volume 27, No. 1, March 2019

Table 2. Summary of students’ notes.

Pair 1 SA: China, build dense, food, massive, quaint, bowls, manners, chopstick, n=19
(L1GKC) complete, food waste, ju…, spit, queuing, finish, host, adible, instinct

SB: Billion, China, massive 巨大 , food, different, doesn’t sit will with, increct
with, 小 册 子 (pamphlet), queuing, 懊 恼 (frustrate), 发 脾 气 (lash out)

Pair 2 (KC) SA: Check out, quaint, complete, lead to, host, edible, sit well with me, n=15
improve, manner, government, spit, don’t mind

SB: Billion, check out, UK, China, way to eating, chopstick, food waste, host,
manners, government, spitting, queuing

Pair 3 (NC) SA: 80,000, food, chopstick, finish, hostess, manners, don’t mind, queuing n=6

SB: People, village, 80,000, food, chopstick, round, table, manners, queuing,
skeap

Table 3. Keywords used or paraphrased in oral and written production by three pairs,
and keywords in the video.

Pair Keywords Keywords Keywords in the video

used/paraphrased in oral used/paraphrased in
production written production

L1GKC SA: manners, many people, Crowded, big bowl, host, dense, flats, billion, check out,
big bowls, wasted food, don’t know how much food quaint, massive, communal
communicate with others, the people will have, wasted, bowl, interact with, complete,
government, spread the thin manners, government, lead to, food waste, judge,
book spread the thin book, finish, host, edible, doesn't sit
spitting, queuing, angry well with, improve, manners,
common, government, release
SB: queuing(wrongly a pamphlet, inform, spit,
pronounced), can’t stand throw litter, don’t mind,
frustrate, queuing, skip to the
front, control my british
KC SA: check out, don’t mind, Manners, food waste, instinct, lash out, queue
improve spitting, government jumper

SB: manners

NC SA: don’t mind, manners, host(er), manners, skeap the

finish, host(er) queuing, throw rubbish

SB: manners, queuing, skip

the queuing

According to Table 3, the L1GKC pair used or paraphrased 9 keywords in their oral
production and 11 keywords in their written production. In contrast, the KC pair used only
4 keywords in both the oral and written production. For the NC pair, 6 keywords were
used in oral production and 4 in written production. Even though the KC pair noticed more
keywords based on their notes, the students under that condition either were not able to
or at least did not use or paraphrase most of the keywords in their production. The
tentative results of this pilot study show that L1 glossed keyword captioning might have
worked better in facilitating students’ oral and written production of the keywords than
keyword captioning and no captioning. A more detailed analysis of the transcription and

19
 The EUROCALL Review, Volume 27, No. 1, March 2019

written recall revealed that the access to meaning provided by L1 gloss enabled the
students to paraphrase some of the keywords. For example, the L1GKC pair paraphrased
“dense” as “crowded” in their written production and used “spread the thin book” in the
place of “release a pamphlet”, for which one student used Chinese in the notes, in both
oral and written production. The pair also used “angry” for “lash out”. In comparison, in
the KC and NC pair, no students paraphrased any of the keywords.
3.2. Overall quality of oral and written production
The second research question examines whether the overall quality of the oral and written
production by the three pairs differs. The overall quality of the discussion and written
recall was assessed based on how many correct idea units (35 in total) the students
produced. Figure 3 shows that the L1GKC pair produced about twice as many idea units
as the other two pairs. The KC pair and the NC pair, however, did not differ in terms of
idea units in both oral and written production.

Figure 3. Idea units in oral and written production.

A closer look at the oral and written production data revealed that the L1GKC pair had a
better comprehension of the video compared with the other two pairs. In the oral
discussion, the students in the L1GKC pair had the following conversation:
B: He says it can be more…talk with…
A: During the eating, they will communicate with others, right?
Even though student B misspelt “interact with” as “increct with” under L1GKC, the student
understood the meaning and used “talk with” in the discussion. That seemed to help
student A to produce “During the eating, they will communicate with others...” which
corresponded to “Everyone has to interact with each other in order to complete the
meal...” in the video. However, the students in the KC pair did not mention this at all in
their discussion. The NC pair produced the following utterance “In the UK, the people
more outgoing than Chinese. When they meeting, they could say hello each other” which
might have resulted from either pure guessing or misunderstanding of the content.
The L1GKC pair not only had more idea units but also had more accurate production in
the written recall. In correspondence to “I really like this way of eating...but on the flip
side it does lead to more food waste because it's much harder to judge just how much
food you should actually cook,” the L1GKC pair wrote “I like the way to eat, but it will
waste food. Because the host don’t know how much food the people will have.” Though
the students did not use the word “judge” and only wrote down “ju” in their notes, they
were still able to reproduce the meaning. In comparison, the KC pair put down “And

20
 The EUROCALL Review, Volume 27, No. 1, March 2019

Chinese can’t allow food waste,” and the NC pair wrote “when you go to others’ house,
the hoster would make you eat the food.”
The results suggest that L1 glossed keyword captioning might be more useful than
keyword captioning and no captioning in helping students comprehend and reproduce the
content of the video. Though having successfully drawn student’s attention to the
keywords, keyword captioning did not increase students’ understanding of the video. The
only difference between the L1GKC pair and the KC pair was that students in the first pair
had access to the meaning of the keywords through L1 gloss. This might have provided
the much-needed information for the learners in the L1GKC pair to decode the speech
and construct meaning, leading to a better grasp of the global meaning of the content.
4. Limitations and future research
Considering the purpose of the study was to test the instruments and data collection
methods and there were only one pair of students in each captioning condition, the power
of any statistical test will be very limited, so no statistical analyses were conducted in this
pilot study. As a result, the findings of this pilot study should be interpreted with caution.
The future study (In progress) will involve more participants and add the statistical tests
to compare the data. Another limitation of the pilot study is that some students might
have prior knowledge about the topic chosen, making it possible that these students might
have performed better because of their familiarity with the topic rather than the different
viewing condition. In the future study, a survey on students’ prior knowledge of the video
topic will be carried out to eliminate this effect. Another factor to consider is the difficulty
level of the input itself. Even though the L1GKC pair did the best among the three pairs,
the learners in that pair only produced a little over one third of the total idea units in the
input. The L1GKC pair did capture the main ideas of the video, but their oral and written
production lacked details. The fast speech rate (around 198 words per minute) of the
video might have caused some trouble for the students. When selecting the video for the
future study, both vocabulary and speech rate will be considered.
The current study did not solicit the students’ and the teacher’s opinions about the task.
The learners’ and teacher’s feedback could provide insights into how they interact with
the task and how the task should be modified to suit their needs. For example, after
analyzing the survey questions, Montero Pérez et al. (2014) found that learners perceived
the keyword as too distracting because they focused too much on the keywords and
missed what was being said. Given the scope of the study, the researcher only
investigated three captioning conditions. It will be beneficial to explore how other types
of captioning, e.g., full captioning and L1 glossed full captioning, influence students’
understanding of the content and their performance in the oral and written recall task.
Another research direction could be to rearrange the timing for the second watching of
the video. This study adopted an input-input-output sequence, meaning the students
watched the video the second time immediately after the first watching and then
completed the production task. However, Nguyen and Boers (2018) argue that using an
input-output-input sequence, where the learners work on the production task immediately
after watching the video and then watch the video the second time, could help students
notice the gaps between their production and the input content. As a result, they could
focus on the information they need during the second watching. Thus, it is worthwhile to
test whether using the input-output-input sequence could generate results that are
different from using the input-input-output sequence.
5. Conclusion
In this study, learners under the L1 glossed keyword captioning condition better used and
paraphrased the keywords in their discussion and written recall than learners under the
other two captioning conditions. Learners under L1 glossed keyword captioning condition
also produced more correct and accurate idea units than learners under the other two
conditions. The results of this study indicate that L1 glossed keyword captioning has the
potential to better promote learners’ performance in the oral and written production task
after watching a video clip. One implication of the study is that by integrating L1 glossed
keyword captioning into the audio-visual input, the teacher might be able to facilitate
students’ understanding of the keywords and comprehension of the video content and
promote learners’ oral and written production. Considering the growing popularity of

21
 The EUROCALL Review, Volume 27, No. 1, March 2019

audio-visual materials in L2 teaching and learning, further research concerning how to

effectively integrate audio-visual input into L2 classrooms is needed. To achieve more
accurate and generalizable results, the future study will recruit more pairs of participants,
select a video whose topic is not familiar to the participants, and consider the vocabulary
level and speech rate of the video.

References
Anthony, L. (2014). AntWordProfiler (Version 1.4.1) [Computer Software]. Tokyo, Japan:
Waseda University. Available from http://www.laurenceanthony.net/software.
Ellis, R. (2015). Understanding Second Language Acquisition (2nd Ed.). Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Ellis, R. (2018). Reflections on task-based language teaching. Bristol: Multilingual
Matters.
Guillory, H. G. (1998). The Effects of Keyword Captions to Authentic French Video on
Learner Comprehension. CALICO Journal, 15(1-3), 89-108.
Koolstra, C. M. & Beentjes, J. W. J. (1999) Children’s vocabulary acquisition in a foreign
language through watching subtitled television programs at home. Educational
Technology, Research and Development, 47(1): 51-60.
Krashen, S. D. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. New York:
Longman.
Lee, M. & Révész, A. J. (2018). Promoting Grammatical Development through Textually
Enhanced Captions: An Eye-Tracking Study. Modern Language Journal.
https://doi.org/10.1111/modl.12503.
Long, M. H. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotiation
of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126-141.
Markham, P. L. (1999). Captioned videotapes and second-language listening word
recognition. Foreign Language Annals, 32(3), 321-328.
Markham, P. L., Peter, L. A. & McCarthy, T. J. (2001). The effects of native language vs.
target language captions on foreign language students’ DVD video
comprehension. Foreign Language Annals, 34(5): 439-445.
Montero Pérez, M., Peters, E. & Desmet, P. (2018). Vocabulary learning through viewing
video: The effect of two enhancement techniques. Computer Assisted Language Learning,
31(1-2), 1-26.
Montero Pérez, M., Peters, E. & Desmet, P. (2014). Is less more? Effectiveness and
perceived usefulness of keyword and full captioned video for L2 listening
comprehension. ReCALL, 26(1): 21-43.
Nation, P., & Beglar, D. (2007). A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher, 31(7), 9-
13.
Nava, A., & Pedrazzini, L. (2018). Second language acquisition in action: Principles from
practice. London; New York, NY: Bloomsbury Academic.
Nguyen, C. D. & Boers, F. (2018). The Effect of Content Retelling on Vocabulary Uptake
from a TED Talk. TESOL Quarterly, 52 (1), 1-25. doi: 10.1002/tesq.441.
Riley, G. L., & Lee, J. E. (1996). A comparison of recall and summary protocols as
measures of second language comprehension. Language Testing, 13(2), 173-98.
Rodgers, M.P.H. & Webb, S. (2017). The Effects of Captions on EFL Learners'
Comprehension of English-Language Television Programs. CALICO Journal, 34(1), 20-38.
Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In Robinson, P. (ed.): Cognition and Second Language
Instruction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 3-32.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass &C. Madden (Eds.), Input in second
language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Massachusetts: Newbury House.

22
 The EUROCALL Review, Volume 27, No. 1, March 2019

Winke, P., Gass, S., & Sydorenko, T. (2010). The effects of captioning videos used for
foreign language listening activities. Language Learning & Technology, 14(1). 65-86.

23