Expanded captions are designed to enhance the educational value by linking unfamiliar words to one of three types of information: vocabulary definitions, labeled illustrations, or concept maps. This study investigated the effects of expanded captions versus standard captions on the comprehension of educational video materials on DVD by secondary students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Participants were assigned randomly to two groups, with each group experiencing both conditions in counterbalanced order. Scores from pretests and posttests of vocabulary and informational content revealed no statistically significant differences between the two conditions. The findings are discussed in light of student preferences for expanded captions and screen-capture data that revealed low access levels for the expanded material.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson-InmanL. (2009). Supported eText: Literacy scaffolding for students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education Technology, 24(3), 1–7.
2.
Anderson-InmanL.HorneyM. A. (2007). Supported eText: Assistive technology through text transformations. Reading Research Quarterly, 42, 153–160.
3.
BoydJ.VaderE. A. (1972). Captioned television for the deaf. American Annals of the Deaf, 117 (5), 34–37.
4.
CaldwellD. C. (1973). Use of graded captions with instructional television for deaf learners. American Annals of the Deaf, 118, 500–507.
5.
FelsD. I.SilvermanC. (2002). Issues of closed captioning and interactive television. In MeisenbergeC. K.ClausJ.ZaglerW. (Eds.), Computers helping people with special needs. Proceedings of the eighth annual International Conference on Computers for Handicapped Persons (ICCHP) (pp. 292–294) New York: Springer.
6.
FitzmauriceG. M.LairdN. M.WareJ. H. (2004). Applied longitudinal analysis. New Jersey: Wiley.
7.
GregoryS.Sancho-AldridgeJ. (1996). Dial 888: Subtitling for deaf children. London: Independent Television Commission.
8.
HorneyM. A.Anderson-InmanL. (1995). Hypermedia for readers with hearing impairments: Promoting literacy with electronic text enhancements. In HinchmanK.LeuD. J.KinzerC. K. (Eds.), Perspectives on literacy research and practice (pp. 448–458). Chicago: National Reading Conference.
9.
JensemaC. (1998). Viewer reaction to different television captioning speeds. American Annals of the Deaf, 143, 318–324.
10.
JensemaC. J.BurchR. (1999). Caption speed and viewer comprehension of television programs. Silver Spring, MD: Institute for Disabilities Research and Training.
11.
KirklandC. E. (1999). Evaluation of captioning features to inform development of digital television captioning capabilities. American Annals of the Deaf, 144(3) 250–260.
12.
KoskinenP. S.WilsonR. M.JensemaC. J. (1986). Using closed-captioned television in the teaching of reading to deaf students. American Annals of the Deaf, 131(1), 43–46.
13.
KoskinenP. S.WilsonR. M.GambrellL. B.NeumanS. B. (1993). Captioned video and vocabulary learning: An innovative practice in literacy instruction. The Reading Teacher, 47, 36–43.
14.
LinebargerD. (2001). Learning to read from television. The effects of using caption and narration. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 288–298.
15.
National Captioning Institute. (1983). Hearing-impaired children's comprehension of closed-captioned television programs. Research Report 84–5. Falls Church, VA: Author.
16.
National Captioning Institute. (1984). Closed-captioned television teaches children to read. Research Bulletin 1(6). Falls Church, VA: Author.
17.
National Center for Accessible Media. (2007). Effective practices for description of science content within digital talking books. Retrieved August 16 2009, from http://ncam.wgbh.org/dtb/.
18.
National Center for Accessible Media. (2008). WGBH receives $600,000 grant to develop solutions for captioning handheld media for deaf and hard-of-hearing citizens. Retrieved August 16 2009, from http://ncam.wgbh.org/news/mobilemedia.html.
19.
PetersE. (2007). Manipulating L2 learners' online dictionary use and its effect on word reading retention. Language Learning & Technology, 11(2), 36–58.
20.
PetersE.HulstijnJ. H.SercuL.LutjeharmsM. (2009). Learning L2 German vocabulary through reading: The effect of three enhancement techniques compared. Language Learning, 59, 113–151.
21.
RosenthalR.RosnowR. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
22.
Royal National Institute for the Deaf. (1999). Subtitling for deaf and hard of hearing people. London: Author.
23.
SchmittN. (2008). Instructed second language vocabulary learning. Language Teaching Research, 12, 329–363.
24.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. New York: Houghton Mifflin.
25.
SilvermanC.FelsD. (2002). Emotive captioning in a digital world. In MeisenbergeC.K.ClausJ.ZaglerW. (Eds.), Computers helping people with special needs. Proceedings of the eighth annual International Conference on Computers for Handicapped Persons (ICCHP). New York: Springer.
26.
TreviranusJ. (2000). Click the captions, select the descriptions: Making captioning and video description essential for any learner in broadband education. Toronto: Adaptive Technology Resource Centre, University of Toronto.
27.
YoshiiM. (2006). L1 and L2 glosses: Their effects on incidental vocabulary learning. Language Learning and Technology, 10(3), 85–101.
