The DOI matches its Crossref record; 31 of the 31 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 21 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
The effects of captions on L2 learners’ comprehension of vlogs
Open accessAbstract
This study investigated the effects of captions on the listening comprehension of vlogs. A total of 96 EFL learners watched three vlogs under one of three conditions: L2 captions, L1 captions, and no captions. Each group included low-, mid-, and high-level proficiency learners. The vlogs differed in the pictorial support of the audio, with Vlog 1 being highly supported, Vlog 2 being partially supported, and Vlog 3 being slightly supported by pictorial images. After each vlog, the participants took a multiple-choice test measuring their comprehension of details. Afterwards, participants completed a questionnaire about their perception of captions. The findings suggest that the availability of captions may not necessarily lead to better listening comprehension because students, particularly lower proficiency learners, were unable to simultaneously process the multiple modalities (images, audio, and captions) due to their limited capacities of working memory and cognitive load. High-proficiency learners achieved better comprehension than low- and mid-proficiency learners and achieved their best comprehension with L2 captions. A significant increase in comprehension of vlogs caused by high pictorial support was detected, with the inverse relationship also being true. Analysis of the questionnaire indicated that participants consider L2 captions useful. For both L2 and L1 captions, students think that their listening comprehension would decrease without captions. When considering vlogs for L2 listening, language proficiency and pictorial support are better indicators of levels of comprehension. Captions might be beneficial when learners’ proficiency level is high. When visual images are highly supportive for the audio, better comprehension of vlogs is likely.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This study found that L2 and L1 captions did not significantly improve Arab EFL learners’ listening comprehension of vlogs compared with no captions. Proficiency level and pictorial support were stronger predictors, with high-proficiency learners benefiting most from L2 captions and comprehension declining as pictorial support decreased.
Key findings
- Caption condition produced no significant differences in comprehension across the three vlogs: MANOVA Wilks’ Λ = 0.98, F(6, 182) = .32, p = .93, multivariate η² = .010.
- Proficiency level significantly affected comprehension: Wilks’ Λ = 0.27, F(6, 182) = 28.32, p < .001, η² = .48; high-proficiency learners scored higher than mid-proficiency learners, who scored higher than low-proficiency learners. For high-proficiency learners, L2 captions produced significantly higher scores than L1 captions or no captions (F(2, 18) = 18.036, p < .001), with no significant difference between L1 captions and no captions.
- Pictorial support significantly affected comprehension: F(1.86, 176.80) = 81.03, p < .001, R² = .46, η² = .46. Comprehension was highest for Vlog 1 (M = 7.82, SD = 2.02), lower for Vlog 2 (M = 5.77, SD = 2.33), and lowest for Vlog 3 (M = 5.16, SD = 1.88).
- Questionnaire results showed the L2 captions group rated L2 captions as relatively useful (average scores higher than 3.80 on a 5-point scale); both caption groups agreed their comprehension would be negatively affected without captions, and the no-captions group agreed comprehension would be better with L2 captions.
Methods
- Ninety-six Arabic-speaking male university EFL learners (Mage = 17.38 years, SD = .64) were assigned by classroom to L2 captions (n = 35), L1 captions (n = 32), or no captions (n = 29). Proficiency was measured with the Vocabulary Levels Test at the 2,000-, 3,000-, and 5,000-word levels and categorized as low, mid, or high.
- Participants watched three YouTube vlogs twice under their assigned caption condition; the vlogs differed in pictorial support (Vlog 1 high, Vlog 2 partial, Vlog 3 slight). After each vlog, they completed a 10-item multiple-choice test measuring comprehension of details, followed by a questionnaire on caption perceptions.
- Analyses included MANOVA for caption and proficiency effects, follow-up ANOVAs and Tukey HSD post hoc tests, and a repeated measures ANOVA with Greenhouse-Geisser correction for pictorial support.
Limitations
- The paper states that keyword captions were not explored; comprehension was measured only with multiple-choice detail tests rather than global comprehension or inferencing; only three vlogs were used; only male students participated; and the sample was Arabic-speaking EFL learners, so findings cannot be generalized to other L1 groups or non-English vlogs.
- Evident from the text: the study used a controlled laboratory procedure in which learners could not change speed or replay vlogs, which may limit ecological validity for typical vlog viewing.
- Evident from the text: some proficiency-by-treatment cells were small (e.g., high-proficiency learners totaled n = 21 across three groups), which may affect the stability of subgroup analyses.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
26 Own result · 14 Own method · 12 Own interpretation · 6 Sources not found · 5 No full text of the sources · 4 Not checked yet · 2 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In terms of low-and mid-proficiency learners, the tests showed that the three treatment conditions produced no significant differences in comprehension (F(2, 27) = 1.70, p = .203and F(2, 42) = 3.207, p = .051,respectively).”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Research Question 2
plainn = 30- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For both L2 and L1 captions, students think that their listening comprehension would decrease without captions.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In terms of low-and mid-proficiency learners, the tests showed that the three treatment conditions produced no significant differences in comprehension (F(2, 27) = 1.70, p = .203and F(2, 42) = 3.207, p = .051,respectively).”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Research Question 2
plainn = 45- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The MANOVA demonstrated that the different proficiency levels produced significantly different outcomes (Wilks' Λ = 0.27, F(6, 182) = 28.32,p < .001,η 2 = .48).”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Research Question 2
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Post-hoc testing indicates that the treatment with L2 captions produced significantly higher scores than L1 captions and no captions (p < 0.05) but shows no significant difference between L1 captions and no captions (p > 0.05).”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Research Question 2
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A significant increase in comprehension of vlogs caused by high pictorial support was detected, with the inverse relationship also being true.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As can be seen in Table 2, the three groups have similar means for each vlog.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Research Question 1
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“High-proficiency learners achieved better comprehension than lowand mid-proficiency learners and achieved their best comprehension with L2 captions.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“High-proficiency learners achieved better comprehension than lowand mid-proficiency learners and achieved their best comprehension with L2 captions.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, a significant difference was detected for high-proficiency learners (F(2, 18) = 18.036, p < .001).”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Research Question 2
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Post-hoc testing indicates that the treatment with L2 captions produced significantly higher scores than L1 captions and no captions (p < 0.05) but shows no significant difference between L1 captions and no captions (p > 0.05).”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Research Question 2
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A significant increase in comprehension of vlogs caused by high pictorial support was detected, with the inverse relationship also being true.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Follow-up univariate analyses indicated that students of each proficiency level significantly differed in their scores across the three vlogs (p < .001).”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Research Question 2
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The MANOVA demonstrated that captions did not produce significantly different outcomes, Wilks' Λ = 0.98, F(6, 182) = .32,p = .93,multivariate η2 = .010.”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“this study found no differences in listening comprehension among the treatments for the L2CG, L1CG, and NCG across the three vlogs viewed.”
- Also stated in: § Conclusion · hedged
“The results of the present study suggest that the presence of captions may not lead to better listening comprehension.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Research Question 1
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Analysis of the questionnaire indicated that participants consider L2 captions useful.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The findings suggest that the availability of captions may not necessarily lead to better listening comprehension because students, particularly lower proficiency learners, were unable to simultaneously process the multiple modalities (images, audio, and captions) due to their limited capacities of working memory and cognitive load.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Abstract
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Results of the usefulness of captions statements revealed that the L2CG considered captions to be more useful than the L1CG group did.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Questionnaire
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the NCG did not agree that their comprehension was negatively affected because of the absence of captions, they agreed that their comprehension would be better with the L2 captions.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Questionnaire
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Results indicated that there was a significant effect of pictorial support (F(1.86, 176.80) = 81.03,p < .001,R 2 = .46,eta 2 = .46).”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Research Question 3
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This result was consistent across both the L2CG, L1CG, and NCG and across low-, mid-, and high-proficiency learners, implying that when pictorial support is higher, comprehension gets significantly better, regardless of the captioning condition and proficiency level (see Table 2 and Table 3).”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Research Question 3
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As can be seen in Table 4, high-proficiency learners in the L2CG achieved the best comprehension.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Research Question 2
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As research shows that 90% lexical coverage (known words in a text) is likely to be enough for listening/viewing comprehension of informal texts (Durbahn et al., 2020;Noreillie et al., 2018;Van Zeeland & Schmitt, 2012), all vlogs reached 90% coverage at the 1,000 word-level, as measured by Cobb's Lextutor's VocabProfile.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Method Participants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“While vlogs”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Literature Review
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Wood, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
In the paper
“The level of audio/video correlation and how much the audio input is supported and contextualized by the visual images in the video (Garza, 1991), and its relationship with captions and language proficiency, have not been investigated in the above-reviewed studies.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Literature Review
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Garza, 1991 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“The second concern in captioning research is that it lacks investigation of the influence of pictorial support on listening comprehension, particularly some studies (e.g., Durbahn et al., 2020) found that the presence of imagery plays a role in comprehension of videos.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Literature Review
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Durbahn et al., 2020
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The findings suggest that the availability of captions may not necessarily lead to better listening comprehension because students, particularly lower proficiency learners, were unable to simultaneously process the multiple modalities (images, audio, and captions) due to their limited capacities of working memory and cognitive load.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Abstract
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Captions might be beneficial when learners' proficiency level is high.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Abstract
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Given the importance of vocabulary size for video understanding (Webb & Rodgers, 2009), we included a vocabulary size test rather than a general proficiency test (Montero Perez et al., 2014b).”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Method Participants
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Webb & Rodgers, 2009 source
- Not matchedcites Montero Perez et al., 2014b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The third concern is that, to the best of our knowledge, only two studies have investigated the differential effects of captions across languages, namely Winke et al. (2010Winke et al. ( , 2013)).”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Literature Review
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Winke et al., 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Winke et al., 2013 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This assured that the input would not be difficult for the participants of all levels of proficiency to understand.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Method Participants
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“As research shows that 90% lexical coverage (known words in a text) is likely to be enough for listening/viewing comprehension of informal texts (Durbahn et al., 2020;Noreillie et al., 2018;Van Zeeland & Schmitt, 2012)”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Method Participants
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Durbahn et al., 2020
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Noreillie et al., 2018 source
- Not matchedcites Van Zeeland & Schmitt, 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When visual images are highly supportive for the audio, better comprehension of vlogs is likely.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Abstract
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“High-proficiency learners are more capable of simultaneously processing the multiple modalities (visual images, audio, and captions) in the vlogs.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Pedagogical Implications
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Language proficiency was found to be more of a key factor than the presence of captions in the comprehension of vlogs.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“These results do not support Markham and Peter's (2003) claim that the influence of pictorial support for listening comprehension could be ruled out.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Markham and Peter's (2003) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The difficulty factors (accent, pronunciation, speaker speed) did not differ between Vlog 2 and Vlog 1.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This result was consistent across both the L2CG, L1CG, and NCG and across low-, mid-, and high-proficiency learners, implying that when pictorial support is higher, comprehension gets significantly better, regardless of the captioning condition and proficiency level (see Table 2 and Table 3).”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · boosted
“our results demonstrated the benefit of pictorial support; namely, better listening comprehension was observed when pictorial support was high, as in Vlog 1, regardless of the presence of captions and proficiency level.”
- Also stated in: § Pedagogical Implications · hedged
“Namely, when visual images are highly supportive of the audio, better comprehension of vlogs is likely.The more supportive the visual images are, the better the comprehension of the vlogs.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Research Question 3
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The difficulty factors (accent, pronunciation, speaker speed) did not differ between Vlog 2 and Vlog 1.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · boosted
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, the sample population was Arabic-speaking EFL learners.Therefore, we cannot generalize the findings to EFL learners of other L1s.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Moreover, higher proficiency learners of any treatment condition outperformed lower proficiency learners of any treatment condition.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 15
- Probably not a substantial claim. 20
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
In the paper
“The effect size as measured by d was 0.69, which is considered a medium effect size, according to Plonsky and Oswald (2014).”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Research Question 2
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Plonsky and Oswald (2014) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As shown in Table 3, highproficiency students (n = 21) had significantly higher scores than mid-proficiency students (n = 45), followed by low-proficiency students (n = 30).”
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
“high-proficiency learners gained higher listening comprehension scores than low-proficiency learners, regardless of the captioning condition.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Research Question 2
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Post hoc tests using the Bonferroni correction revealed that comprehension in Vlog 3 significantly declined (M = 5.16, SD = 1.88) compared to that of Vlog 2 (M = 5.77, SD = 2.33), which also significantly declined compared to that of Vlog 1 (M = 7.82, SD = 2.02).”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Research Question 3
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, both the L2CG and the L1CG agreed that their comprehension would be negatively affected without captions.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Questionnaire
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The L2CG found the L2 captions relatively useful for vlog comprehension, with average scores higher than 3.80 on the 5-point scale.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Questionnaire
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the NCG did not agree that their comprehension was negatively affected because of the absence of captions, they agreed that their comprehension would be better with the L2 captions.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Questionnaire
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The learners also selected the correct multiple-choice answer at least 70% of the time at the lower end of the test performance range after viewing the vlog.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Listening Comprehension Tests and Scoring
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They also reached a consensus on the difficulty level and appropriateness of the vlogs that were chosen for the study.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Method Participants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An item analysis was performed for each of the pilot-tested multiple-choice items, and problematic items were rewritten, altered, or deleted.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Listening Comprehension Tests and Scoring
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Cross-referencing between the tests' materials and the Arabic captions of all three vlogs was performed to assure that the tests would not be prejudicial in favor of the L1CG.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Listening Comprehension Tests and Scoring
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The questions were carefully developed so they could not be answered directly without a participant understanding the aural content of the vlogs.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Listening Comprehension Tests and Scoring
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The multiple-choice test format seemed to be particularly appropriate in this study, as the low-and mid-level students clearly lacked highly developed English language writing ability at this point in their study of the target language (Markham & Peter, 2003).”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Listening Comprehension Tests and Scoring
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Markham & Peter, 2003 source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All the raters decided that both the L2 and L1 captions matched 95% or more of the vlogs' dialogue.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Method Participants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, the question of whether the influence of captions can be transferred to vlogs, as a recognized online video genre, remains unanswered, although vlogs are the most popular video genre on YouTube (Werner, 2012).”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Literature Review
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Werner, 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Pilot participants expressed that the text and item difficulty levels were appropriate.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Listening Comprehension Tests and Scoring
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Utilizing authentic videos, such as episodes of well-known TV programs, in L2 classes is helpful because the visual images in videos provide authenticity to real-life listening that is lacking in aurally-based texts (Yeldham, 2018).”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Yeldham, 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Bearing in mind the differences between Arabic and English orthographies, the extent to which Arabic-speaking learners of English can read L2 captions remains unanswered.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Literature Review
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“When considering vlogs for L2 listening, language proficiency and pictorial support are better indicators of levels of comprehension.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Due to these differences in research design, the benefit of captions for facilitating listening comprehension of videos was not always supported, and the studies have also presented contradicting results, sometimes for no obvious reasons.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Literature Review
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A meeting was held with the three teachers and the author in which all agreed that 10 items could adequately reflect the vlogs' content.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Listening Comprehension Tests and Scoring
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Also, pilot students were asked to rate the vlogs in terms of pictorial support, and their ratings were similar to the teachers'.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Listening Comprehension Tests and Scoring
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Following the item-analysis procedure, the comprehension tests were distilled to 10 items.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Listening Comprehension Tests and Scoring
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In addition to the traditionally utilized video genres in L2 classes, such as television programs, news clips, movies, and the like, vlogs intended for an English-speaking audience may also be a potential source of L2 aural input (Watkins & Wilkins, 2011).”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Watkins & Wilkins, 2011 source
Checked before — its earlier verdict is held back until a new check runs.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not checked yet
In the paper
“the study's tests were translated into the participants' L1 (Arabic), taking into consideration Buck's (2001) suggestion that”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Listening Comprehension Tests and Scoring
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Buck, 2001
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Not matched
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They regarded the pictorial images as highly supportive of Vlog 1, partially supportive of Vlog 2, and slightly supportive of Vlog 3.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Method Participants
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although less proficient learners may have needed to watch a vlog several times or slow down the speech rate to enhance comprehension, they were not allowed to change the speed or replay the vlog, which ensured that the researcher could examine learners' proficiency levels and their relationship with the treatment effects.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Procedures
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The author and two teachers monitored the participants to ensure that they followed the procedure.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Procedures
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Considering their distinguished contextual and interactional parameters, vlogs have been identified as a recognizable”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Frobenius, 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Werner, 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Wood, 2019
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“In fact, L2 captions produced significantly higher scores for high-proficiency learners rather than L1 captions because, as Hayati and Mohmedi (2011) point out, L1 captions involve translation, requiring learners to switch from one language to another, which takes time, so learners may lag behind and lose track.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hayati and Mohmedi (2011) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unlike Vlog 2 and Vlog 3, Vlog 1 was filmed and edited more professionally, and the visual images corresponded very closely to the content of the audio, which likely led to the participants' highest comprehension scores.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The difficulty factors (accent, pronunciation, speaker speed) did not differ between Vlog 2 and Vlog 1.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Specifically, our results suggest that comprehension scores decrease as pictorial support decreases.Inversely, as pictorial support increases, so does comprehension.”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Research Question 3
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
The questionnaire responses accurately reflect participants' perceptions of captions.
“Participants completed a mini questionnaire consisting of a five-point Likert scale, including statements on the usefulness of L2 and L1 captions (e.g., ''My comprehension improved because of the English/Arabic captions'') and questions about their caption needs (e.g., ''My comprehension would be better with the Arabic/English captions'').”
The paper relies on this without support.
The difficulty factors (accent, pronunciation, speaker speed) did not differ between Vlog 2 and Vlog 1.
“Yet, while this might be true for Vlog 3, what needs to be emphasized is that the difficulty of those factors were not different between Vlog 2 and Vlog 1.”
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- ConsistentF(2, 93) = 0.248reported p = .78 · recomputed p = .781
“F(2, 93) = .248,p = .78”
- ConsistentF(6, 182) = 0.32reported p = .93 · recomputed p = .926
“F(6, 182) = .32,p = .93”
- ConsistentF(6, 182) = 28.32reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(6, 182) = 28.32,p < .001”
- ConsistentF(2, 27) = 1.7reported p = .203 · recomputed p = .202
“F(2, 27) = 1.70, p = .203”
- ConsistentF(2, 42) = 3.207reported p = .051 · recomputed p = .051
“F(2, 42) = 3.207, p = .051”
- ConsistentF(2, 18) = 18.036reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(2, 18) = 18.036, p < .001”
- ConsistentF(1.86, 176.8) = 81.03reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(1.86, 176.80) = 81.03,p < .001”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Pedagogical Implications
“Vlog 1 | 7.91 (2.07) 7.68 (1.20) 7.86 (2.06) | | |”
§ The effects of captions on L2 learners' comprehension of vlogs > Research Question 3
“Vlog 1 (M = 7.82, SD = 2.02).”
Citations
Cites
Cognitive Load Theory and the Format of Instruction
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991) · Cognition and Instruction · doi:10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2 · Cited by 2,894
Foundations in Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach
Hymes, D. (1974) · doi:10.4324/9781315888835 · Cited by 2,698
Working Memory, Thought, and Action
Baddeley, A. (2007) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198528012.001.0001 · Cited by 2,432
How Big Is “Big”? Interpreting Effect Sizes in L2 Research
Plonsky, L., & Oswald, F. L. (2014) · Language Learning · doi:10.1111/lang.12079 · Cited by 1,960
Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-0663.90.2.312 · Cited by 1,315
Developing and exploring the behaviour of two new versions of the Vocabulary Levels Test
Schmitt, N., Schmitt, D., & Clapham, C. (2001) · Language Testing · doi:10.1177/026553220101800103 · Cited by 1,211
Buck, G. (2001) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511732959 · Cited by 878
Listening in the Language Classroom
Field, J. E. (2009) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511575945 · Cited by 570
van Zeeland, H., & Schmitt, N. (2013) · Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1093/applin/ams074 · Cited by 457
The effects of captioning videos used for foreign language listening activities
Winke, P., Gass, S., & Sydorenko, T. (2010) · Language Learning & Technology · doi:10.64152/10125/44203 · Cited by 394
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Werner, E. A. (2012). Rants, reactions, and other rhetorics: Genres of the YouTube vlog [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Improving Computer-Assisted Language Learning Through the Lens of Cognitive Load
Bahari, A., Wu, S., & Ayres, P. (2023) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-023-09764-y · Cited by 60
Effectiveness of Subtitles in L2 Classrooms: A Meta-Analysis Study
Alotaibi, H. M., Mahdi, H. S., & Alwathnani, D. (2023) · Education Sciences · doi:10.3390/educsci13030274 · Cited by 20
The impact of input format on written performance in a listening-into-writing assessment
Westbrook, C. (2022) · Journal of English for Academic Purposes · doi:10.1016/j.jeap.2022.101190 · Cited by 18
Language learning and technology: A conceptual analysis of the role assigned to technology
ZHELTUKHINA, M. R., Kislitsyna, N. N., Panov, E. G., Atabekova, A., Shoustikova, T. V., & Kryukova, N. I. (2023) · Online Journal of Communication and Media Technologies · doi:10.30935/ojcmt/12785 · Cited by 17
Development of Arabic Language Learning in Indonesia at 19th – 21st Century
Azizah, N. L., Naifah, N., Afrianingsih, B. I., Hamidah, M. A. H., & Ramadlan, M. A. A. (2024) · Jurnal Al Bayan Jurnal Jurusan Pendidikan Bahasa Arab · doi:10.24042/albayan.v16i1.22767 · Cited by 15
Metadata
- Authors
- Aldukhayel, D.
- Affiliations
- Qassim University (SA)
- Corresponding author
- Aldukhayel, Dukhayel
- ORCID
- Aldukhayel, Dukhayel
- Venue
- Language Learning & Technology
- Published
- 2021-06-01
- Volume
- 25
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 178-191
- ISSN
- 1094-3501 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3192002680
- Cited by
- 17
- References
- 19
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2
- FWCI
- 9.43
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Language learning & technology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- ScholarSpace (University of Hawaii at Manoa) (submittedVersion)
- Language learning & technology (cc-by-nc-nd)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Subtitles and Audiovisual Media
- Social Sciences › Education › English Language Learning and Teaching
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
- Keywords
- captions, vlogs, listening comprehension, second language learners, EFL learners, pictorial support, working memory, cognitive load, language proficiency, multimodal processing, video-based language learning
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
