Incidental!learning!of!vocabulary! through!subtitled!authentic!videos!

Transcription

1 March 2012 Incidentallearningofvocabulary throughsubtitledauthenticvideos PaulRaine# Thisresearchinvestigatestheeffectivenessofsubtitledauthenticvideosastoolsforincreasingdepthof vocabularyknowledge.lowcintermediateleveljapaneselearnersofenglishwereshownanauthenticvideo subtitledinfourdifferentmodes(intralingual,interlingual,dualandnosubtitles)toseeiftheywereableto incidentallylearnthemeaningsofsixtargetwordsappearinginthevideo.aquestionnairewasalso administeredtodeterminewhetherthestudentsfelttheywereabletoimprovetheirknowledgeofenglish vocabularyfromwatchingthevideo,whetherthecontentofthevideowasinteresting,andwhetherthe subtitleswereeasytoread.althoughthemajorityofstudentswerenotabletolearnthemeaningsofthe targetwordsfromwatchingthevideo,twoexceptionalcasesshowedthatdoingsowasnotimpossible. Additionally,membersoftheinterlingualgroupfeltmostabletolearnvocabularyfromwatchingthevideo, andalsofoundthesubtitleseasiertoreadthananyothergroup.theintralingualsubtitlegroupwastheonly groupnottofindthecontentofthevideointeresting.inthecurrentpaper,thisresearchisdiscussed,and implicationsforteachingpracticearesuggested. DissertationforUniversityofBirminghamMATEFL/TESL

2 Acknowledgements. Iwouldliketothankmymotherandfatherfortheirconsistentmoraland financialsupportthroughoutmyacademiccareer,withoutwhomnoneofit wouldhavebeenpossible. Iamalsoincrediblygratefultomygrandfather,andlategrandmother,whose generosityallowedmetocompletethecelta,cometojapan,andcontinuemy professionaldevelopmentbyembarkingonthebirminghamm.a. Iwouldliketothankmygirlfriend,Koyuki,forprovidingaconsistentsupplyof moralsupportandphysicalnourishment. ThankyoualsotoColinSkeatesandPhilBrownforalwaysgoingtheextramile tohelpmewithmym.a.studiesandmycareerdevelopment. I dliketothankmytutor,daxthomas,andmysupervisor,tillyharrison,for theircommentsandguidancerelatingtomym.a.assignmentsanddissertation. ThankyoualsotoWakakoItoforherhelpwithtranslatingtheresearch instruments,andthankstojeannettelittlemore,neilmillar,nickgroomand OliverMasonfortheinspirationandadvicetheyprovidedduringtheJapan summerseminars. I malsoincrediblygratefultogeovannisimonandechoevanofffortheir assistancewithadministeringtheresearch. Finally,I dliketothankthestaffoftokyojogakkancollegefortheirhelp,andthe studentsforparticipatingintheresearchforthisdissertation.

3 Chapter1: Introduction Background Why&vocabulary?&...& Why&subtitled&videos?&...&5 1.2 Aimsofthecurrentresearch Organizationofthepaper...6 Chapter2: LiteratureReview Defining'vocabulary' Whatitmeansto'know'aword Defining'authenticvideo' Defining'subtitles' Interlingual&subtitles&...& Intralingual&subtitles&...& Dual&subtitles&...& Theoreticalbasesforlearningvocabularythroughsubtitledvideos The&Comprehensible&Input&Hypothesis&...& CriticismoftheComprehensibleInputHypothesis The&Affective&Filter&Hypothesis&...& CriticismoftheAffectiveFilterHypothesis Dual&Coding&Theory&...& CriticismofDualCodingTheory Incidental&learning&...& Criticismofincidentallearning Reviewofexistingresearchintovocabularylearningthroughsubtitledvideos Interlingual&subtitle&videos&...& Intralingual&subtitle&videos&...& Dual&subtitle&videos&...& Summary&...&20 Chapter3: Methodology Participants Materials Jessi&Arrington's&"Wearing&Nothing&New"&TED&talk&...& The&Vocabulary&Knowledge&Scale&...& Thetargetvocabulary MultipleUchoice&opinion&survey&...& Datacollectionprocedure Codingschemes Vocabulary&Knowledge&Scale&...& Opinion&survey&...&28 Chapter4: Results TheVKStest Theopinionsurvey English&language&video&viewing&habits&...& Subtitling&preferences&...& Effect&of&the&treatment&video&on&vocabulary&learning&...& Interest&in&the&content&of&the&treatment&video&...&36 Chapter5: Discussion TheVKStest General&failure&to&increase&knowledge&of&target&vocabulary&...& Increasing&knowledge&of&target&vocabulary&not&impossible&...& Students'&confidence&in&level&of&word&knowledge&may&decrease&...& Students&may&fail&to&notice&target&words&...&40 2

4 5.1.5 Students&may&forget&they&have&seen&words&...& Theopinionsurvey The&participants&watch&videos&both&for&enjoyment&and&vocabulary&learning&...& Interlingual&subtitles&are&preferred&for&enjoyment&...& Dual&subtitles&are&preferred&for&vocabulary&learning&...& Interlingual&and&dual&subtitles&are&felt&to&be&effective&for&vocabulary&learning&..& Videos&with&intralingual&subtitles&may&be&less&interesting&...& Interlingual&subtitles&are&the&easiest&to&read&...& Issueswiththecurrentresearch Conservative&estimates&of&ability&...& NonUhomogeneity&of&groups&...& LongUterm&memory&versus&'learning'&...& Extraneous&exposures&to&target&words&...& Confusion&with&the&concept&of&'dual&subtitles'&...& Ability&of&students&to&guess&the&meanings&of&unknown&words&...& Small,&nonUrepresentative&sample&...&46 Chapter6: Conclusion Summaryoffindings Implicationsforteachingpractice Avenuesforfurtherresearch...49 Bibliog

5 Chapter1: Introduction 1.1 Background AsanEnglishteacherinJapan,Iamfortunatetohaveaccesstomultimedia technologyonadailybasis,bothathome,andinallofmyteachingcontexts.in recentyears,leapsandboundshavebeenmadeinthetechnologicalcomplexity ofthematerialsutilizedbyenglishteachers.ihaveendeavoredtostayabreastof thesedevelopments,andusetechnologytocreateandexploitlearning opportunitiesformystudents. Videomediaisaparticularinterestandpassionofmine,andIhavecreated'nonY authentic'andutilized'authentic'videos(see2.3,below)forenglishteaching purposes. Itisthelatterofthesetwotypesofvideomediathathascapturedmyinterest withthecurrentresearch.inparticular,ihaveexperimentedwithand endeavoredtounderstandtheeffectthataddingdifferentkindsofsubtitlesto authenticenglishlanguagevideoshasonanenglishlearner'sabilitytoincrease theirenglishvocabularyknowledgefromviewingsuchvideos Whyvocabulary? Learningvocabularyisamajorpartoflearningaforeignlanguage.Without knowledgeofwordsandtheirmeanings,itisimpossibletodoanythingina foreignlanguage.conversely,quitealotcanbeachievedinaforeignlanguage withsinglewordsalone.ascarter(1998,p.5)pointsout,wordssuchas'shoot', 'goal','yes','there','up',and'taxi'caneachstandontheirownandconvey meaningwithouttheneedforgrammaticalstructuringofanykind. Wordsarethe'minimummeaningfulunits'oflanguage(Carter,1998).Because theabilitytoconveymeaningisfarmoreimportantforcommunicative 4

6 competencethantheabilitytoproducegrammaticallyflawlessutterances,the studyofwordsandthelearningofvocabularyshouldbegivenpriority Whysubtitledvideos? Recenttechnologicaladvancementsaremakingtheprocessofsubtitlingvideos mucheasierforeducatorsandmaterialsproducersalike.websitessuchas dotsub( transcribingvideosonline,andyoutubenowhasfunctiontoautomatically synchronizetranscriptionstovideos. Websitesfeaturingsubtitledauthenticvideos,suchasEnglish&Central ( withjapaneselearnersofenglish.thereisalsoavastarrayofreadyysubtitled authenticvideosavailable,eitherindvdformat,orontheinternetatsitessuch asyoutube,ted( Thismultitudeofsourcesofsubtitledvideosmakesthemhighlyaccessiblefor bothlanguageteachers,andlearners.ultimately,however,itisthelearners themselveswhomusttakethestudyofenglishvocabularyintotheirownhands. Itistheteacher'sjobto"putstudentsinthepositionwheretheyarecapableof derivingandproducingmeaningsfromlexicalitemsbothforthemselvesandout oftheclassroom"(carter,1998,p.186) Byencouragingstudents'interestinsubtitledauthenticvideos,andbuilding theirconfidenceintheirabilitytousesuchvideosaslearningtools,weare puttingtheminapositionwheretheycancontinuetoincreasetheirknowledge ofenglishvocabularyindependentlyoftheteacher. Inordertodeterminewhethersubtitledauthenticvideoscouldbeeffective vocabularylearningtoolsforstudentsinmyparticularteachingcontexts,i decidedtoundertakethecurrentinvestigationinonesuchcontext. 1.2 Aimsofthecurrentresearch Theaimsofthecurrentresearchwereasfollows: 5

7 1. touncovertheparticipants generalenglishlanguagevideoviewing habits; 2. todeterminewhatkindofsubtitlestheparticipantsgenerallypreferred whenwatchingenglishlanguagevideosforenjoymentorvocabulary learningpurposes; 3. toobjectivelyassesswhethertheparticipantswereabletoincreasetheir depthofknowledgeofsixtargetwordsappearinginthetreatmentvideo; 4. todeterminewhethertheparticipantsfeltthatwatchingthetreatment videohelpedthemtoincreasetheirknowledgeofenglishvocabulary; 5. todeterminewhethertheparticipantsfeltthatthecontentofthe treatmentvideowasinteresting,and; 6. todeterminewhethertheparticipantsfeltthatthesubtitles accompanyingthetreatmentvideowereeasytoread. 1.3 Organizationofthepaper Chapter2ofthispapercontainstheliteraturereview,whichprovidesa definitionoftheconceptof'vocabulary'(2.1),andadiscussionofwhatitmeans to'know'aword(2.2),followedbyadefinitionoftheconceptof authenticvideo (2.3). Nextisadiscussionofthethreedifferentkindsofsubtitlesthatarethesubjectof investigationinthecurrentlineofinquiry,i.e.interlingualsubtitles(2.4.1), intralingualsubtitles(2.4.2)anddualsubtitles(2.4.3). Followingthisisanevaluationoffourtheoreticalbasesforvocabularylearning throughsubtitledvideos,namely:thecomprehensibleinputhypothesis(2.5.1); theaffectivefilterhypothesis(2.5.2);dualcodingtheory(2.5.3),and; incidentallearning(2.5.4). Afterthiscomesareviewofexistingevidencefortheeffectivenessofthe differentkindsofsubtitledvideosastoolsforincreasingviewers'english vocabularyknowledge(2.6). 6

8 Chapter3containsthemethodologyofthecurrentresearchproject,including detailsoftheparticipants(3.1),materials(3.2),datacollectionprocedure(3.3) andcodingschemes(3.4). TheresultsoftheresearcharepresentedinChapter4.Thisisfollowedin Chapter5byadiscussionofthefindings,andasummaryofsomeoftheissues encounteredinthecurrentresearch.finally,inchapter6,aconclusionisoffered, alongwithsomesuggestedroutesforfurtherresearch. 7

9 Chapter2: LiteratureReview 2.1 Defining'vocabulary' Simplyput,vocabularyisthewordsofalanguage.Butwhatisaword?Although itseemslikelythat"everyoneknowswhatawordis"(carter&mccarthy,1988, p.4),foracademicresearchpurposes,atleast,sometimesthemeaningisnotso clear. Wordsarerealizationsoflexemes(Carter,1998).Alexemeisthebasicformofa wordthatislistedinthedictionary,andistherootofallthevariationsofthat word.thelexemego,forexample,comprisesallofthegrammatical conjugationsofthatverbintermsofperson('goes','go')andtense('go','going', 'went','gone').lexemescanalsobe'prefabricatedchunks'oflanguage,i.e.multiy worditemsthatarestoredandrecalledinagrammaticallyunanalyzedform (Schmitt&McCarthy,1997). Inthecurrentpaper,whentalkingof'increasestoEnglishvocabulary knowledge',by'vocabulary'imean'words',andby'words',imeanthe realizationsoflexemes.thefocusofthecurrentresearchisonsinglewords(as opposedto'prefabricatedchunks')inthissense. 2.2 Whatitmeansto'know'aword Knowingawordrequiresmorethanjust familiaritywithitsmeaningandform (Schmitt&McCarthy,1997).Richard's(1976)specificationofwordknowledge includessevencriteriaaboutwhatitmeanstoknowaword,namely:knowing thedegreeofprobabilityofencounteringit;knowingitslimitationsofuse accordingtofunctionandsituation;knowingitssyntacticbehavior;knowingits underlyingformsandderivations;knowingitsplaceinanetworkof associations;knowingitssemanticvalue;andknowingitsdifferentmeanings (Carter&McCarthy,1988). 8

10 Notallofthesetypesofwordknowledgeareexaminedhere.Theresearch conductedforthispaperfocusesmainlyonrespondents'knowledgeofthe syntacticbehaviorofwords,i.e."thetypesofgrammaticalrelationswordsmay enterinto"(richards,1976,p.80),andrespondents'knowledgeofthemeanings ofwords,i.e."themostfrequentwaysinwhichawordrealizesaparticular concept"(richards,1976,p.83). Ellis(1997,p.133)suggeststhat"theacquisitionofL2wordsusuallyinvolvesa mappingofthenewwordformontopreyexistingconceptualmeaningsoronto L1translationequivalentsasapproximations andthatthisistrueevenfor advancedadultesllearners. Themainwaysinwhichthispaperassesseswordknowledge,then,arethrough respondents'knowledgeofthel1equivalentsofl2words,andtheirabilityto usel1wordsingrammaticallycorrectsentences. AVKStest(Wesche&Paribakht,1996)wasadministeredtotheparticipants bothimmediatelypriorto,andimmediateafter,viewingthevideo.anopinion surveywasalsoadministeredaftertheparticipantshadviewedthevideo.both methodsofassessingtherespondents'increasestovocabularyknowledgeare discussedinmoredetailinthemethodologysection(chapter3),below. Theresearchconductedforthecurrentpaperfocusesonincidentalvocabulary learning,and withexceptionofthepreyandpostytestsandtheopinionsurvey noadditionalmaterialsoractivitieswereadministeredtotheparticipantsofthe research. 2.3 Defining'authenticvideo' Authenticvideosinclude featurefilms,documentaries,commercials,game shows (Sherman,2003)andmanyotherkindsofvideosthathavenotbeen madespecificallyforlearnersofenglish.authenticvideosarethosethathave beenmadefortheenjoymentoreducationofnativespeakersofthelanguagein whichthevideoswereproduced.assuch,theytendtofeaturedenseand 9

11 ungradedlanguage,andmayrelatetotopicsthatdonotspecificallycatertothe interestsoflearnersofenglishasaforeignlanguage(stempleski,1992). Authenticvideosaresaidtopresent real language,notinthesensethatitis unscripted,butinthesensethatitismeantfornativespeakersofthelanguage (Stempleski,1992).Somegofurtherandsuggestthatauthenticvideosprovide slicesoflivinglanguage inthesensethattheamountofrealismencodedin videomediaisgreaterthanthattobefoundineitherwrittenoraudiomedia (Allan,1985). NonYauthenticvideos,ontheotherhand,suchasthewellYknownFamily&Album& USA(Kelty,Cooperman,&Lefferts,1991)tendtofeaturegradedlanguage,anda slowerthanaveragespeedofspeech.theyoftenfocusoneducatingtheviewer aboutaspectsofthetargetculture,suchaslifeinamerica. ThedistinctionbetweenauthenticandnonYauthenticvideoshasbeendisputed, however.hambrook(1992)arguesthateven authentic videosexertcontrol overrealityintermsofeditingsoundandvideofootage, settingup events artificiallyinordertorecordthem,orotherwiseintrudingon reallife eventsin ordertodocumentthem(hambrook,1992,p.164).additionally,bothauthentic andnonyauthenticvideostendtobe artificially supportedbyotherteaching materialsandactivitieswhenusedintheclassroom(hambrook,1992). 2.4 Defining'subtitles' Abasicdefinitionoftheterm'subtitles'is"captionsdisplayedatthebottomofa cinemaortelevisionscreenthattranslateortranscribethedialogueor narrative"(oed,2010).onamoretechnicallevel,theterm'subtitles'isusually associatedwiththetextualdisplayofthetranslatedaudiotrack,or,inthispaper, 'interlingualsubtitles'.theterm captions isusuallyassociatedwithatextual displayoftheoriginalaudio herereferredtoas'intralingualsubtitles'.these kindsofsubtitles,andonefurtherkind,dualsubtitles,aredefinedanddiscussed inmoredetailbelow. 10

12 2.4.1 Interlingualsubtitles Interlingualsubtitles,alsoknownas'standardsubtitles'(Zanon,2006)or'L1 subtitles',areaformofsubtitlesinwhichtheaudiotrackisintheoriginal languageofthevideo(e.g.english)andthetextconstitutesatranslationofthe audiotrackintotheviewer sl1(e.g.japanese). Theprocessofcreatinginterlingualsubtitleshasbeenviewedasmoreofanart thanascience,duetothe skill,imaginationandcreativetalent requiredto producethem(ivarsson&carroll,1998,p.v). AccordingtotheCode&of&Good&Subtitling&Practice(Titelbild),goodinterlingual subtitlesshould: begrammaticallyandlexicallyaccurate; havearegardfortheidiomaticandculturalnuancesofthesource; adoptanappropriateregisteroflanguage; bewrittenineasilydigestiblegrammaticalunits. Interlingualsubtitlesare,however,nearlyalwaysreductive,thatis,they condensethesourcematerial(l2audio)byremovinghedges,hesitations,and otherredundancies,andsimplifyinggrammarwheremeaningisapparentfrom onyscreenvisuals(millanyvarela,2010) Intralingualsubtitles Intralingualsubtitles,alsoknownas'bimodalsubtitles'(Zanon,2006),or'L2 subtitles',areatranscriptionoftheaudiotrackofavideointocaptionsofthe samelanguage.intralingualsubtitlesareknownas closedcaptions when providedforthebenefitofhearingyimpairedviewers. Intralingualsubtitlesarereductiveor'nonYverbatim'inthesensethathedges, hesitations,falsestarts,andrepetitionsarenotusuallytranscribed.conversely, nonyverbalaudiocues,suchasapplause,music,andsoundeffects,maybe denotedforthebenefitofhearingyimpairedviewers. 11

13 2.4.3 Dualsubtitles Dualsubtitlesarethecombinationofbothinterlingualandintralingualsubtitles displayedonthescreensimultaneously.chang(2003)purportstohavecoined theterm dualsubtitles inherstudyrelatingtotheinteractionbetweensubtitles and schemata (i.e. priorknowledge ). Mostconventionalmediadoesnotcomewiththefacilitytodisplaytwodifferent kindsofsubtitlessimultaneously.dvds,forexample,usuallyonlyprovidethe optionforonelanguageofsubtitlestobedisplayedatonetime.dualsubtitles arethereforeusuallyonlyavailableinnonyauthentic'madeforesl'videos,or speciallyeditedauthentic'madefornativespeaker'videos. 2.5 Theoreticalbasesforlearningvocabularythroughsubtitledvideos TheComprehensibleInputHypothesis The'ComprehensibleInputHypothesis'hasbeenpropoundedbyKrashen (1991)aspartofhiswidertheoryofforeignlanguageacquisition.Krashen (1991)arguesthatforeignlanguagesareacquiredwhenlearnersareexposedto comprehensibleinput.theinputcanbeintheformofeitheroralorwritten language. Inordertobeeffective,however,inputmustbeatalevelof i+1,where i isthe learner scurrentlevelofabilityinthetargetlanguage.inotherwords,theinput materialmustbeataslightlyhigherlevelthanthelearner scurrentlevel. Krashen(1991)arguesthatexposuretocomprehensibleinputofthetarget languageat i+1 isbothnecessaryandsufficienttocauseacquisitionofthe language. Addingsubtitles(eitherinterlingual,intralingual,ordual)toavideomeantfor nativeenglishspeakerswouldappeartoincreasethechancesthatnonynative Englishspeakerswillbeabletocomprehendthecontentofthevideo,thus makingthevideoasourceofcomprehensibleinput,andleadingtoforeign languageacquisition. 12

14 NeumanandKoskinen(1992)havesuggestedthatcaptioned(intralingually subtitled)televisionisavalidformofcomprehensibleinput,andincreasesthe secondlanguagevocabularyknowledgeofitsviewersmoreeffectivelythannony captionedtelevision Criticism,of,the,Comprehensible,Input,Hypothesis, Krashen'sComprehensibleInputHypothesishasbeencriticizedonthebasisthat itoverlooksotherimportantfactors,amongthemtherolesofuniversalgrammar, andoutput(scarcella&perkins,1987). Inrelationtouniversalgrammar,criticspointoutthatbecausethegrammarof languagelearnersgoesbeyondtheinputtheyhavereceived,theremustbeother factorsatworkbesidesinput(chaudron,1985). Inrelationtooutput,Swain&Lapkin(1995)suggestthatanimportantprocess oflanguagelearningoccurswhen,forexample,languagelearnerstesttheirown hypothesesaboutthegrammarofthetargetlanguage,andreceivefeedbackfrom interlocutorsinrelationtothosehypotheses(the'hypothesistestingfunction'). Thesecriticismsseemvalid,but,intheresearcher'sopinion,donotgofar enoughtounderminethecentralimportanceofcomprehensibleinput,especially inrelationtolearningnewvocabulary TheAffectiveFilterHypothesis The'AffectiveFilterHypothesis'wasdevelopedbyKrashen(1982)in conjunctionwith'comprehensibleinputhypothesis',alreadydiscussedabove (2.5.1).AccordingtoKrashen(1982),theaffectivefilteractsasabarrierbetween 'input',i.e.thelanguagealearnerisexposedto,and'acquisition',i.e.theabilityto processandpermanentlystorethelanguageforlaterreceptiveorproductiveuse. Thethreemainfactorsthatcontributetotheaffectivefilteraremotivation,selfY confidence,andanxiety.astudentwithhighmotivation,highselfyconfidenceand lowanxietywillhavealowaffectivefilter,andwillbeabletotakefulladvantage oftheinputtheyareexposedto,aswellasproactivelyseekingoutadditional 13

15 inputopportunities.astudentwithlowmotivation,lowselfyconfidenceandhigh anxietywillhaveahighaffectivefilter,andwillnotbeabletoeffectivelyprocess theinputtheyareexposedto,evenifitis'comprehensible'.krashen(1982) thereforearguesthatlanguageteachersshouldaimtofosterlearningsituations thatencouragealowyaffectivefilter. Authenticvideoshavebeensuggestedtobestronglymotivationalforlearnersof English(Sherman,2003;Stempleski,1992),andtolowertheaffectivefilterof foreignlanguagelearners(neuman&koskinen,1992) Criticism,of,the,Affective,Filter,Hypothesis, TheAffectiveFilterHypothesishasalsobeenthesubjectofcriticism,most noticeably,perhaps,atthehandsofgregg(1984).whileheacknowledgesthe importanceofaffectivevariables,hetakesissuewiththepositingofanaffective Filterper&se.Hisobjectionsincludethefactthat:a)childrendonotseemtobe affectedbytheaffectivefilterintheacquisitionoftheirfirstlanguages,and;b) certainhighlymotivatedadultlearnersstillhavedifficultyacquiringcertain linguisticstructures,despitethefilterbeingpresumablyverylowforsuch individuals. Gregg(1984,p.94)doeshoweveraccepttheclaimthat "anunmotivatedlearnerwillacquirelessthanamotivatedone,anervous learnerlessthanarelaxedone,aselfyhatinglearnerlessthanaselfy respectingone" Theseclaimsarealsoacceptedinthecurrentpaper,and,notwithstanding Gregg's(1984)specificcriticisms,theAffectiveFilterHypothesisisdeemedtobe relevantandofvaluewithrespecttothecurrentresearch DualCodingTheory Dualcodingtheory(hereafterDCT),aspropoundedbyPavio(1971b),suggests thatverbalandnonyverbalinformationisprocessedandstoredseparatelybythe 14

16 brain.inrecenttimes,functionalmagneticresonanceimaging(fmri)has confirmedtheveracityofthetheory(metirigroup,2008). Verbalinformationincludesspokenandwrittenwords,whilenonYverbal informationincludesimages,actionsandsensations.(clark&paivio,1991).the verbalandnonyverbalsystemsareconnectedby referentialconnections which linkthetwosystemsintoa complexassociativenetwork (Clark&Paivio,1991, p.153). AccordingtoDCT,learningaforeignlanguageentails successiveverbaland nonverbalrepresentations[being]activatedduringinitialstudyof[l1andl2] wordpairsandduringlatereffortstoretrievethetranslations (Clark&Paivio, 1991). DCTsuggeststhatthecombinationofbothverbalandnonYverbalcodesis superiortoverbalcodesalone,especiallywhenitcomestomemorizationand recall(paivio,1975).thiswasconfirmedinastudybylevinandberry(1980), inwhichschoolchildrenwholistenedtonewsstorieswhileviewingrelevant pictureswereabletorecallmoreinformationthanthosewhoonlylistenedtothe stories. Subtitledauthenticvideosprovidetwochannelsofverbalinformation(theaudio trackandthesubtitles)inadditiontoonechannelofnonyverbalinformation (movingpictures).therefore,theyseemtobeaverysuitableformofmediafor activatingdualycodingsystemswithinviewers'brains Criticism,of,Dual,Coding,Theory, DualCodingTheoryhasbeencriticizedbythelikesofKieras(1978),whostates: "UnlikethedualYcodeposition,thereisnofundamentaldifferenceinhow perceptuallybasedandverballybasedinformationisrepresentedin memory"(kieras,1978) However,inPaivo's(1991)rebuttalofsuchcriticisms,henoteshowsuch'singleY code'approacheseventuallylosttractionbecausetheavailabledataaboutthe brainwascompatiblewitheithersinglecodeordualcodemodels. 15

17 Asnotedabove(2.5.3),morerecentresearchutilizingfMRItoobservebrain functionaddsweighttopaivio's(1971b)ideas,anddualcodingtheory,farfrom beingdisproved,hasbecomestrongerinthelightofsuchfindings.itis consideredinthecurrentpapertobeapertinentandvalidtheory Incidentallearning Incidentallearningistheprocessbywhichsomething inthiscase,foreign languagevocabulary islearntwithouttheindividualconcerneddirectingtheir attentionspecificallytowardtheactoflearningit.incidentallearningis synonymouswith'implicit'learning,andtheantithesisof'explicit'or 'intentional'learning. Brown(2007)suggeststhattherealquestionisnotwhichoftheseprocessesis betterthantheother,but"underwhatconditions,andforwhichlearners,and forwhatlinguisticelementsisoneapproach,asopposedtotheother, advantageousfor[secondlanguageacquisition]?"(brown,2007,p.292) The'linguisticelement'underinvestigationinthecurrentresearchisvocabulary, andthe'condition'isviewingasubtitledauthenticenglishlanguagevideo. Existingresearchsupportsthepropositionthatthelearningofvocabularycan occurincidentallythroughexposuretosubtitledl2videos. InNeumanandKoskinen's(1992)studyforexample,itwasfoundthatyoung learnersofenglishwereabletoincidentallylearnvocabularyfromwatching captionedenglishlanguagevideos.similarly,ind'ydewalle&vandepoel's (1999)study,younglearnersofFrenchandDanishwereabletolearnvocabulary fromsubtitledvideoswherenoattentionwasdrawntothelanguagebeforeor duringthevideoviewing.inastudyconductedbykoolstra&beentjes(1999), childrentoldto justwatch authenticvideoswerestillabletoacquirenew foreignlanguagevocabulary,evenwhenthevideosdidnothavesubtitles Criticism,of,incidental,learning, Notallexpertsagreethatvideomediaiscompatiblewithincidentallearning, 16

18 however.froehlich(1988)arguesthatstudentswillnot magicallyorbyosmosis learnaforeignlanguagebyjustwatchingauthenticvideos. LadauYHarjulin(1992)similarlystatesthatthe multidimensionalinformation thatvideosconvey isreceivedpassivelyasvagueimpressionsorpure entertainmentunlessitiscapturedinsomeway.inordertobecomeauseful meansoflanguageacquisition,ithasbeensuggestedthatvideoviewingmustbe active asopposedto passive (Allan,1985;Stempleski,1992). Despitetheseobjections,theexperimentalresearchcitedabove(2.5.4)suggests thatvocabularycanindeedbelearntincidentallyfromwatchingsubtitledvideos. Thecurrentresearchthereforeadoptsanincidentallearningapproachinthe treatmentphaseasameansoftestingwhetherincidentallearningissuitablefor thestudentsoftheresearcher'steachingcontext. 2.6 Reviewofexistingresearchintovocabularylearningthroughsubtitled videos Inexistingresearchwhichhasexaminedtheeffectofsubtitledvideoson vocabularylearning,gainsinvocabularyhavegenerallybeenassessedbyselfy report(e.g.katchen,1997;tsai,2009),orbyrequiringparticipantstoselector produceanl1equivalentfortargetwords(e.g.koolstra&beentjes,1999; Yuksel&Tanriverdi,2009).Bothofthesemethodshavebeenutilizedinthe currentresearch.thesestudies,andnumerousotherspertinenttothecurrent research,arediscussedbelow.thestudiesarearrangedaccordingtothekindof subtitledvideostheyfocusedon,namely,interlingual,intralingualanddual subtitlevideos Interlingualsubtitlevideos InKatchen s(1997)studyofadvancedchineselearnersofenglish,the respondentsreportedthattheywereabletolearnalotofnewvocabulary throughtheinterlingualsubtitlesprojectedonepisodesof TheXYFiles.The authorofthestudysurmisedthatit wouldhavebeenimpossiblefor[the 17

19 students]tolearnthesewords withouttheaidofchinesesubtitles (Katchen, 1997,p.3),althoughsheofferednoobjectiveevidencetosupportthisassertion. Similarly,inaninvestigationintoTaiwaneseuniversitystudents'perspectiveson watchingmovieswithinterlingualorintralingualsubtitles,therespondents reportedthattheycould learnmorewordsfromwhat[they]hear[d]inenglish andwhat[they]readinchinese (Tsai,2009,p.8). Koolstraetal(2002)suggestthatinterlingualsubtitlesallowviewerstopickup someforeignwordswhentheyreadthel1translationatthesametimeas listeningtothel2audio.researchconductedbydebock(1977),andvinje (1994)addssomeweighttothisclaim,althoughthefindingsarederivedfrom selfyreports,andareassuchnotverifiable. IntheirstudyoftheEnglishlanguageacquisitionofDutchchildrenexposedto subtitledvideosinanonyeducationalenvironment,koolstra&beentjes(1999) offeredpersuasiveevidencetosuggestthatexposuretointerlingualsubtitled videoshelpedtheparticipantsbothtoacquirenewenglishvocabularyand improvetheirwordrecognition.participantsexposedtononysubtitledversions ofthesamevideosalsomadegainstotheirvocabulary,butthegainswereless significantthanthosemadebythegroupexposedtothesubtitledvideos (Koolstra&Beentjes,1999) Intralingualsubtitlevideos AstudyconductedbyZarei(2009),involvingcollegeYlevelIranianstudents, aimedtomeasuretheeffectonvocabularyrecognitionandvocabularyrecallof authenticvideosubtitledinthreedifferentmodes:interlingual,intralingualand reversedsubtitling,i.e.thesubtitlingofavideointheviewersl2(english)with theaudiointheviewer sl1(persian). Hefoundthatthedifferencesinvocabularyrecognitionbetweentheintralingual andinterlingualsubtitlegroupswerestatisticallyinsignificant,butthe participantsofbothgroupsperformedbetterthantheparticipantsofthe reversedsubtitle group.additionally,participantsofthe intralingualsubtitle 18

20 groupperformedsignificantlybetteratvocabularyrecalltasksthanparticipants ofthe interlingualsubtitle group,whichinturnperformedbetterthanthe reversedsubtitle group.(zarei,2009) Furtherresearchbythesameauthor(Zarei,2011)suggeststhesuperiorityof intralingualsubtitlestointerlingualsubtitlesingainstovocabularyproduction, butfailstoshowastatisticallysignificantdifferenceingainstovocabulary comprehensionbetweenthesamegroups. Inanotherstudy,respondentsclaimedtobeabletolearnnewvocabularyfrom watchingintralingualsubtitledvideosastheywere abletobothhearthewords andseethemwritten (Stewart&Pertusa,2004),althoughinthisstudyactual gainsinthevocabularyrecognitionofparticipantswhowatchedintralingual subtitledvideoscomparedtothosewhowatchedinterlingualsubtitledvideos werestatisticallyinsignificant. GainstovocabularywerealsoshowntobegreaterforIraniancollegestudents whowereexposedtoanintralingualsubtitledvideothanthosewhowere exposedtoanonysubtitledversionofthesamevideo(harji,woods,&alavi, 2010) Dualsubtitlevideos Noexistingstudiesthatprovideevidencefortheeffectivenessofdualsubtitlesas adirectaidtovocabularyacquisitionwereabletobelocated.chang's(2003) researchwastheonlyresearchfoundthatdealswiththeeffectofdualsubtitles onforeignlanguagelearning,andherresearchfocusedmainlyontheeffectof dualsubtitlesongeneralcomprehension. TheresultsofChang s(2003)study,whichexposedchinesecollegestudentsto bothfamiliarandunfamiliarvideosinthreeconditions(eitherinterlingual subtitles,intralingualsubtitlesordualsubtitles),suggestedthattheparticipants inthe dualsubtitles conditionwerebetterabletounderstandthecontentofthe videosthanparticipantsintheothertwoconditions.theparticipantswere foundnottohavebeen"overwhelmedbythetriymodalinput"(vanderplank, 19

21 2010),despitepreviouslyhypothesized"limitsofhumanattention"(Neuman& Koskinen,1992). DespitetheinnovativenatureofChang s(2003)research,andthesomewhat groundbreakingnatureofherresults,nostudiesthateitherreplicateorfollow onfromherresearchhavebeenlocated.thisisprobablyduetothelackof generalavailabilityofvideoswithdualsubtitles.untilthepresentstudy, therefore,thequestionofwhetherdualsubtitlesmightbeamoreeffectiveaidto vocabularylearningthaneitherinterlingualorintralingualsubtitleshasnotbeen addressedorinvestigated Summary Gainstovocabularyhavebeenprocuredbybothintralingual(e.g.Harji,Woods, &Alavi,2010)andinterlingual(e.g.Koolstra&Beentjes,1999)subtitles. Gainstovocabularyprocuredbyintralingualsubtitlesmightbeexplainedbythe factthatthemeaningofvocabularycanoftenbededucedfromonyscreenvisuals providedatthesametimeasthevocabulary(koolstra&beentjes,1999).the simultaneouspresentationofthewrittenformofthewordsbeingspokenwillbe ofassistanceindeterminingexactlywhichwordsarebeingspoken(mitterer& McQueen,2009). Gainstovocabularyprocuredbyinterlingualsubtitlesmightbeexplainedbythe factthatthemeaningofvocabularycanbeobtainedfromthewrittenl1gloss presentedatthesametimeasthel2audio(e.g.tsai,2009).thevideofootage beingpresentedsimultaneouslywillbeanadditionalaidtounderstanding. 20

22 Chapter3: Methodology 3.1 Participants ThirtyYninefemaleJapanesecollegestudentsparticipatedinthisstudy.The participantswerefirstandsecondyearuniversitystudents,withaprey intermediatelevelofenglish.thestudentswereallenrolledinavarietyofnony Englishmajors,andweretakingEnglishlessonsinthefourmainskillsof speaking,listening,readingandwriting,inadditiontotheirmainsubjects. BeforebeginningtheirEnglishstudies,allstudentswerestreamedintooneofsix abilitygroups(h,a,b,c,dore),basedontheresultsofatoeicbridgetest (EducationalTestingService,2012),whichmeasuresEnglishlisteningand readingcomprehensionskills.theparticipantsinthecurrentresearchwere drawnfromthefollowingfourclasses: C1(9firstyear,level'C'students) C2(10secondyear,level'C'students) D1(9firstyear,level'D'students) D2(11secondyear,level'D'students) Eachclassofstudentswasassignedtooneoffourgroups:nosubtitles(C1), Englishsubtitles(D2),Japanesesubtitles(D1)anddualsubtitles(C2). Foreaseofreferencethroughoutthispaper,andintablesandcharts,thefour groupsarereferredtoasfollows:c1ns(c1nosubtitles);c2ds(c2dual subtitles);d1js(d1japanesesubtitles);andd2es(d2englishsubtitles). AnANOVAofthefourgroups'TOEICbridgescoressuggestedthatthestudents' listeningandreadingabilitiesdifferedsignificantlybetweenclasses(p<.05).it wouldhavebeendesirable,therefore,torandomizetheassignmentofstudents toeachgroup,toensureanevenspreadofabilityandexperience,andallowa moreusefulcomparison.however,studentswererequiredtoremaininthe sameclassesforthedurationoftheterm,withnoexceptionsforthiskindof experimentalresearch,sothiswasnotpossible. 21

23 Consequently,whenthedifferencesinstudents'attitudestothetreatmentvideo andrespectivegainsinvocabularyarecompared,wehavetobearinmindthat differencesinthestudents'listeningandreadingabilities,andnumberofyears experiencestudyingenglish,mayhavehadaneffectontheresults.thispointis discussedinmoredetaillaterinthepaper(5.3.2). 3.2 Materials Thefollowingmaterialswereusedforthisstudy: advdofjessiarrington'swearing&nothing&newtedtalk(arrington, 2011),subtitledin4differentmodes amodifiedversionofthevocabularyknowledgescale(wesche& Paribakht,1996) amultiplechoiceopinionsurvey Eachofthesematerialsisdiscussedinfurtherdetailbelow JessiArrington's"WearingNothingNew"TEDtalk 'TEDTalks'arefreelyavailableEnglishYlanguagevideopresentations,manyof whichhavebeensubtitledinavarietyoflanguages,includingjapaneseand English.ThecontentofTEDtalksusedtorelateprimarilytothetopicsof technology,educationanddesign(hence'ted')butmorerecenttedtalksrelate toadiversevarietyoftopics. TEDtalksareprovidedunderthecreativecommonslicense,whichallows anyoneto"reproduce,distribute,displayorperformpubliclythetedtalks" (TEDConferencesLLC,2012b),makingthemsuitableforuseininstitutional settings. Theforeignlanguage(interlingual)subtitlesformostTEDtalksarecreatedby volunteers.thetedwebsitedescribestheprocessbywhichinterlingual subtitlesarecreated: 22

24 "Tohelpensurequality,wegenerateanapproved,professionalEnglish transcriptforeachtalk...oncethetalkistranslated,wethenrequireevery translationtobereviewedbyasecondfluentspeakerbeforepublishingit onted"(tedconferencesllc,2012a) ThesubtitlesprovidedwithTEDtalksthereforetendtobeveryhighqualityin relationtothecharacteristicsof'good'interlingualsubtitles,discussedabove (2.4.1). TheTEDtalkchosenforthisresearchwasgivenbyJessiArrington,anAmerican fashiondesignerandblogger,whosesixyminutepresentation"wearingnothing New"(Arrington,2011)extolledthevirtuesofbuyingsecondhandclothes. ThevideowaschosenforitspredictedappealtothefashionYconsciousteenage girlswhocomprisedtheparticipantsoftheresearch,andits'moderatelyslow' (Pimsleur,Hancock,&Furey,1977)rateofspeechat140wordsperminute.The EnglishlanguagetranscriptofthepresentationisprovidedinAppendix&A,and thejapanesetranslationinappendix&b TheVocabularyKnowledgeScale WescheandParibakht's(1996)VocabularyKnowledgeScale(VKS)was developedbyitsauthorsinordertohelpassessthedepthofanindividual's foreignlanguagevocabularyknowledge.ithassincebecomeacommonlyused scaleinresearchrelatingtoforeignlanguagevocabularylearning(yuksel& Tanriverdi,2009)andisparticularlysuitedto"track[ing]theearlydevelopment ofknowledgeofspecificwordsinaninstructionalorexperimentalsituation[s]" (Wesche&Paribakht,1996,p.33) TheVKScombinesassessmentofbothperceivedknowledgeanddemonstrated knowledge.theversionofthevksutilizedinthisresearchrequiredparticipants toselfyreporttheirleveloffamiliaritywithaparticularwordonascaleoffive levels.additionally,theupperthreelevels(iii,iv,v)requiredtheparticipantsto provideevidenceofthereportedknowledgebyeitherwritingeitherthel1 23

25 translationoftheword(iii,iv,v),oranl2sentenceusingthewordincontext (V). ThefivelevelsofselfYreportedvocabularyknowledgeusedinthisstudywereas follows: I. Ihaveneverseenthiswordbefore. II. Ihaveseenthiswordbefore,butIdon tknowwhatitmeans. III. Ihaveseenthiswordbefore,andIthinkIknowwhatitmeans. IV. Ihaveseenthiswordbefore,andIknowwhatitmeans. V. Ihaveseenthiswordbefore,Iknowwhatitmeans,andIcanuseitina sentence. TheversionoftheVKSusedinthispaperwastranslatedintoJapanese,inan attempttoensurethatapotentiallackofcomprehensionofthedescriptionof thefivevocabularyknowledgelevelswouldnotinterferewiththeabilityofthe participantstorespondtoeachquestion.theenglishversionofthevksutilized hereisprovidedinappendix&c,andthejapanesetranslationisprovidedin Appendix&D The,target,vocabulary, InordertoselectwhichwordsweretobecomethetargetwordsfortheVKS,the transcriptofthevideowasprocessedusingtheonlineversionoflauferand Nation'sfourYwaywordsorter(Cobb,2012).Thisprogramsortsthewordsof anytextfileintofourcategories:'k1words','k2words','academicwords'and 'offylistwords'. The'K1words'categoryconsistsofallthewordsinthetranscriptwhichappear inalistofthefirst1000mostcommonwordsoftheenglishlanguage;the'k2 words'categoryfeatureswordsappearinginalistofthenext1000most commonwords;the'academicwords'category(awl)includeswordsappearing inalistofthemostcommonacademicwords,andthe'offylist'wordscategoryis comprisedofanywordsnotappearinginanyofthethreeprecedinglists(such wordsareoftenpropernouns). 24

26 Ananalysisofthe'WearingNothingNew'transcriptisprovidedinTable&1,below. Asthedatashows,thevastmajorityofthetranscript(88.96%)consistedof wordsfromthek1list,withonlyasmallminorityofwords(4.52%)fromthek2 list,andfewerstill(1.25%)academicwords.thenumberofoffylistwords (4.52%)wasgreaterthanthenumberofK2words. Table1: VocabProfileanalysisof WearingNothingNew transcript Afullbreakdownofwordtypesappearingineachcategoryisprovidedin Appendix&E.OfthewordschosentobecometargetwordsfortheVKS,fourwere takenfromthe'offylist'category;onewastakenfromthe'academicwords' category,andonewastakenfromthe'2kwords'category.eachofthewords appearedonlyonceinthetranscript. WordswereselectedbyvirtueofthefactthatadirectL1translationcouldbe locatedinthejapaneseversionofthetranscript,andthemeaningsofthewords werelikelytobeunknowntotheparticipants.table&2,below,showseachword, thecategoryfromwhichitwastaken,itsjapaneseequivalentprovidedinthe Japanesetranscript,andthewordincontextanditslinenumberintheEnglish transcript. 25

27 Table2: Multiple^choiceopinionsurvey AmultipleYchoiceopinionsurveywasdevelopedinordertoelicitthe participants'viewsonthetreatmentvideo,aswellastheirattitudestowards, andhabitsinrelationto,watchingenglishlanguagevideosforenjoymentor vocabularylearningpurposesingeneral.theopinionsurveywasdividedinto threeparts.thefirstpartaimedtouncovertherespondents'englishlanguage videoviewinghabits,andconsistedofthefollowingtwoquestions: 1. HowoftendoyouwatchEnglishlanguagevideosforenjoyment? 2. HowoftendoyouwatchEnglishlanguagevideostoimproveyour knowledgeofenglishlanguagevocabulary? Therespondentsweregivenfivepossibleoptionsforeachquestion:'Never', 'Hardlyever','Sometimes','Often'and'Don'tknow'. Thesecondpartofthequestionnaireaimedtoidentifytherespondents'views towarddifferentmodesofsubtitlingwhenwatchingenglishlanguagevideosfor eitherenjoymentorenglishvocabularylearningpurposes.itconsistedofthe followingtwoquestions: 1. WhenyouwatchEnglishlanguagevideosforenjoyment,whichtype(s)of subtitlesdoyouusuallyprefer? 26

28 2. WhenyouwatchEnglishlanguagevideostoimproveyourknowledgeof Englishlanguagevocabulary,whichtype(s)ofsubtitlesdoyouusually prefer? Therespondentsweregivenfivepossibleanswers:'Japanese','English', 'SimultaneousJapaneseandEnglish','Nosubtitles'and'Don'tknow'. Respondentswereallowedtoselectmorethanoneresponseforeachquestion. Thefinalpartofthequestionnairerelatedspecificallytothevideothe participantshadbeenexposedtoduringthetreatmentphaseoftheresearch. Participantswereaskedtorankthestrengthoftheiragreementwiththe followingthreestatements: 1. IwasabletoimprovemyknowledgeofEnglishlanguagevocabularyfrom watchingthevideo 2. Thecontentofthevideowasinteresting 3. Thesubtitleswereeasytoread EachresponsewaschosenfromaLikertscaleoffivepossibleoptions:'Strongly agree','agree','neitheragreenordisagree','disagree'and'stronglydisagree'. ThewholequestionnairewastranslatedintoJapaneseinanattempttoaid comprehension.theenglishversionisprovidedinappendix&fandthejapanese translationinappendix&g. 3.3 Datacollectionprocedure Thestudentsparticipatedintheresearchduringtheirusuallessontime.Twoof thegroups,d1jsandc2ds,weretaughtbymyself.assistancewasobtainedfrom twootherteachersinorderthatthestudentsingroupsd2esandc1nswere abletoparticipateintheresearch. Priortoadministeringthetreatment(theviewingofthevideo)themembersof eachgroupwereaskedtocompletethevocabularypreytest(appendixc/d). Theyweregivenamaximumof10minutestocompletethisstage.Theywere thenshownadvdofthe'wearingnothingnew'tedtalk,subtitledaccordingto 27

29 thegrouptheparticipantswerein.thevideoisapproximately6minuteslong, andwasplayedtwiceinsuccession.toensureaconditionofincidentallearning, andfollowingkoolstraandbeentjes(1999),thestudentsweretoldto'just watch'thevideo,andnottomakenotes. ThevocabularypostYtestwasthenadministered(AppendixC/D),followedby theopinionsurvey(appendixf/g).thewholeprocesscanbesummarizedas follows: 1. VKSpreYtest (10mins) 2. Videoviewing (12mins) 3. VKSpostYtest (10mins) 4. Opinionsurvey (10mins) 3.4 Codingschemes VocabularyKnowledgeScale FollowingYuksel&Taniriverdi(2009),participantsresponsesfortheVKStest wereassignedascorebasedonthelevelofthevksselectedforeachword,i.e. LevelIresponses("Ihaveneverseenthiswordbefore")wereassignedonepoint, LevelIIresponses("Ihaveseenthiswordbefore,butIdon'tknowwhatit means")wereassignedtwopoints,etc. WhereparticipantsselectedaLevelIII,IVorVresponse,buttheirtranslationor examplesentencewasincorrect,theirresponsewasdowngradedbyonelevel, e.g.aparticipantwhoselectedleveliii("ihaveseenthiswordbeforeandithink Iknowwhatitmeans")butprovidedanincorrecttranslationofthewordwas awardedaleveliiresponseforthatword Opinionsurvey EachresponseintheLikertscaleopinionsurveywasassignedanumericalvalue, rangingfromplustwo,forstronglyagree,tonegativetwo,forstronglydisagree. Responsesindicating neitheragreenordisagree'wereassignedaneutralscore 28

30 ofzero.thescoreswerethenaddedtogetherandconvertedintoapositiveor negativepercentagetoarriveatthefinal agreementrating value. Thehighestpossibleagreementratingwasplusonehundred,whichwould indicatethatallrespondentsstronglyagreedwithaparticularstatement.the lowestpossibleagreementratingwasnegativeonehundred,whichwould indicateallrespondentsstronglydisagreedwithaparticularstatement. 29

31 Chapter4: Results 4.1 TheVKStest & Table&3,below,showsthescoresthatthestudentsobtainedontheVKSasbotha preytestandapostytesttothevideoviewing,aswellasanygainbetweenthetwo tests.ameangroupscoreandgroupgainforeachgroupisalsoprovided. Table3: VocabularygainsaccordingtoVLSscoreineachofthefourgroups (D2ES,D1JS,C2DS,andC1NS) 30

32 AswecanseefromTable&3,therewasasimilar,minimalgainineachofthefour classes.themeangainwas1.2forthed2esgroup,1.4forthed1jsgroup,1.7for thec2dsgroupand1.0forthec1nsgroup. Thehighestindividualgainof4wasmadebyStudent#5intheC1NSgroup. Therewereatleasttwostudentsineachgroupwhomadenomeasurablegains atall.inaddition,somestudentswereawardedalowerscoreonthepostytest thanonthepreytest,andthustheir'gains'areinnegativefigures.this phenomenonisdiscussedfurtherbelow(see5.1.3,5.1.4,and5.1.5). 4.2 Theopinionsurvey Englishlanguagevideoviewinghabits The39respondentsfromthe4groupswereallasked: "How&often&do&you&watch&English&language&videos&for&enjoyment?"&& Table&4,below,summarizestheresponsestothisquestion. Table4: Students responsestothequestion HowoftendoyouwatchEnglishlanguagevideosforenjoyment? 31

33 AswecanseefromTable&4,almosthalfthestudentssurveyed'often'watch Englishlanguagevideosforenjoyment.Morethanaquarterdoso'sometimes', andjustunderaquarter'hardlyever'doso.onestudentreportedthatthey 'never'watchenglishlanguagevideosforthispurpose,andonestudentdidn't knowhowoftentheywatchedenglishlanguagevideosforenjoyment. The39respondentsfromthe4groupswerealsoasked: "How&often&do&you&watch&English&language&videos&to&improve&your& & knowledge&of&english&language&vocabulary?"&& Table&5,below,summarizestheresponsestothisquestion. Table5: Students responsestothequestion HowoftendoyouwatchEnglishlanguagevideostoimprove yourknowledgeofenglishlanguagevocabulary? AswecanseefromTable&5,aroundafifthofthestudentssurveyed'often'watch EnglishlanguagevideosforthepurposesofimprovingtheirEnglishlanguage 32

34 vocabulary.overathirddoso'sometimes',andjustunderaquarter'hardlyever' doso.sevenstudentsreportedthatthey'never'watchenglishlanguagevideos forthispurpose Subtitlingpreferences The39respondentsfromthe4groupswereasked: "When&you&watch&English&language&videos&for&enjoyment,&which&type(s)&&of& & subtitles&do&you&usually&prefer?"& Table&6,below,summarizestheresponsestothisquestion. Table6: Students responsestothequestion WhenyouwatchEnglishlanguagevideosforenjoyment,which types(s)ofsubtitlesdoyouusuallyprefer? AswecanseefromTable&6,themajorityofstudentssurveyedpreferJapanese subtitleswhenwatchingenglishlanguagevideosforenjoyment,althoughdual subtitlesandenglishsubtitlesarealsofavoredbysignificantpercentages.only 33

35 twostudentsindicatedthattheywatchenglishlanguagevideoswithoutsubtitles whenviewingforpleasure. The39respondentsfromthe4groupswerealsoasked: "When&you&watch&English&language&videos&to&improve&your&knowledge&of& & English&language&vocabulary,&which&type(s)&of&subtitles&do&you&usually& & prefer?"& Table&7,below,summarizestheresponsestothisquestion. Table7: Students responsestothequestion WhenyouwatchEnglishlanguagevideostoimproveyour knowledgeofenglishlanguagevocabulary,whichtype(s)of subtitlesdoyouusuallyprefer? AswecanseefromTable&7,overathirdofstudentssurveyedpreferdual subtitleswhenwatchingenglishlanguagevideosforlearningenglishvocabulary. Englishsubtitlesarefavoredforthispurposebyjustunderathirdofthe students,andjapanesesubtitlesarefavoredbysome.afewstudentsindicated thattheypreferrednottohavesubtitleswhenwatchingenglishlanguagevideos forvocabularylearningpurposes,andtwostudentsdidn'tknowwhichkindof subtitlestheypreferredforthispurpose. 34

36 4.2.3 Effectofthetreatmentvideoonvocabularylearning Eachofthefourgroupswereaskedtoratetheiragreementwiththefollowing statementinrelationtothetreatmentvideotheyviewedforthisresearch: "I&was&able&to&improve&my&knowledge&of&English&language&vocabulary& & from&watching&the&video."& Table&8,below,summarizesthestudents'responsestothisstatement. Table8: Respondents'extentofagreementwiththestatement: "IwasabletoimprovemyknowledgeofEnglishlanguage vocabularyfromwatchingthevideo" AsTable&8shows,thevastmajorityofthestudentsintheD2ESgroupdisagreed withthestatement,withasmallminorityagreeingandasignificantnumber abstainingfromeitheragreeingordisagreeing.theoverallagreementratingwas stronglynegative(y32). IntheD1JSgroup,asignificantnumberofstudentsabstained,andjustunderhalf eitheragreedorstronglyagreed,withasmallminoritydisagreeing,resultingina mildlypositiveagreementratingof22. IntheC2DSgroup,therewasamoreorlessevensplitbetweenthosewhoeither disagreedorstronglydisagreedandthosewhoagreed,withthreestudents abstaining.theoverallagreementratingwasweaklypositive(5). 35

37 Finally,intheC1NSgroup,themajorityofstudentsdisagreedwiththestatement, withtwostudentsagreeingandanequalnumberabstaining,resultinginamildly negativeoverallagreementratingofminus Interestinthecontentofthetreatmentvideo Eachofthefourgroupswereaskedtoratetheiragreementwiththefollowing statementinrelationtothetreatmentvideotheyviewedforthisresearch: "The&content&of&the&video&was&interesting."& Table&9,below,summarizesthestudents'responsestothisstatement. Table9: Respondents'extentofagreementwiththestatement: Thecontentofthevideowasinteresting AsTable&9shows,themajorityofthestudentsintheD2ESgroupdisagreedwith thestatement,withaminorityeitheragreeingorstronglyagreeing.theoverall agreementratingwasamildlynegativeminus10. IntheD1JSgroup,themajorityofstudentseitheragreedorstronglyagreed,with theremainderabstaining,resultinginapositiveoverallagreementratingof44. IntheC2DSgroup,thevastmajorityeitheragreedorstronglyagreed,withthe remainderabstaining,resultinginastronglypositiveoverallagreementratingof

38 AsimilarsituationwasobservedintheC1NSgroup,withthemajorityeither agreeingorstronglyagreeing,andtheremainingminorityabstaining,resulting inapositiveagreementratingof38. Readabilityofsubtitlesinthetreatmentvideo Threeofthegroups(C1NSexcluded)wereaskedtoratetheiragreementwith thefollowingstatementinrelationtothetreatmentvideotheyviewedforthis research: "The&subtitles&were&easy&to&read."& Table&10,below,summarizesthestudents'responsestothisstatement. Table10: Respondents'extentofagreementwiththestatement: Thesubtitleswereeasytoread AsTable&10shows,almosthalfthestudentsintheD2ESgroupeitherdisagreed orstronglydisagreedwiththisstatement,withasmallminorityagreeing,anda significantnumberofabstainers.theoverallagreementratingwasminus19.in thed1jsgroup,theresultswerequitedecisive,withallofthestudentseither agreeingorstronglyagreeing.theoverallagreementratingwasaverystrongly positive77.inthec2dsgroup,theproportionofstudentswhostronglyagreed wasalmostequaltotheproportionthatdisagreedorstronglydisagreed.three studentsalsoabstained.theoverallagreementratingwas25. 37

39 Chapter5: Discussion 5.1 TheVKStest Generalfailuretoincreaseknowledgeoftargetvocabulary TheresultsoftheVKStestseemedtoindicatethatnosignificantgainsin knowledgeofthetargetvocabularywerecausedbyviewingthetreatmentvideo, regardlessofthekindofsubtitling.thereareseveralpossibleexplanationsfor this. Firstly,itispossiblethat,evenwiththeadditionofsubtitles,thevideowasnotat alevelwhereitconstitutedcomprehensibleinputforthestudents.itisvery difficult,ifnotimpossible,todetermineexactlywhatkrashen's(1991)'i+1' meanswithregardtotheenglishleveloflearningmaterials. Secondly,itispossiblethatthelimitedexposuretothetargetvocabularyinthe treatmentvideo(andpreyandpostytests)wasnotsufficienttocausethetarget vocabularytobecommittedtomemoryorevennoticedatall.itispossiblethata greaternumberofexposurestonewwordswouldbenecessaryforthewordsto benoticedorremembered. Thirdly,lackofimprovementinknowledgeofthetargetvocabularycouldhave beencausedbythe'incidental'asopposedto'active'natureofthelearning activity.hadthestudentsbeeninstructedtopayattentiontoparticularwords,or permittedtomakenotesduringthevideoviewing,wemayhaveseenmuchmore impressiveresultsbothontheopinionsurveyandthevkstest. Fourthly,itispossiblethatstudentspickedupwordsfromthevideootherthan thetargetvocabulary.furtherinvestigationwouldberequiredtodetermine whetherornotthiswasthecase. Fifthly,itispossiblethatthelanguageleveloftheparticipantswasnothigh enoughtoallowthemtobenefitfromtheeffectsofincidentallearningthrough videoviewing.neumanandkoskinen(1992)noteda'richgetricher'tendencyin theresultsoftheirresearch,wherebystudentswhohadhigherenglishlanguage 38