instruction. md. 93 20p. - eric · nrrc. national reading research center. captioned video &...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 361 652CS 011 387

AUTHOR Koskinen, Patricia S.; And OthersTITLE Captioned Video and Vocabulary Learning: An

Innovative Practice in Literacy Instruction.INSTITUTION National Reading Research Center, Athens, GA.;

National Reading Research Center, College Park,MD.

SPONS AGENCY Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED),Washington, DC.

REPORT NO NRRC-3PUB DATE 93NOTE 20p.PUB TYPE Reports Descriptive (141) Guides Classroom Use

Teaching Guides (For Teacher) (052) Viewpoints(Opinion/Position Papers, Essays, etc.) (120)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Class Activities; Grade 4; Intermediate Grades;

Reading Achievement; *Reading Comprehension; *ReadingImprovement; Reading Instruction; Video Equipment;*Vocabulary Development

IDENTIFIERS *Closed Captioned Television

ABSTRACT

The addition of captions to television is atechnological breakthrough that can be used to enhance the vocabularyand comprehension skills of young readers. Taken together, severalstudies suggest that captioned television is a motivating medium forbelow-average readers and bilingual students, and that simultaneousprocessing (audio/video/text) enhances learning. Of the many uses ofcaptioned video in the development of literacy.skills, vocabularylearning appears to be one of the most valuable. A fourth-gradeteacher, and other teachers at the same school, have capitalized onthe power of video, using it as a way to get children excited aboutideas in the world, particularly about science and social studiesconcepts. Suggestions teachers have found useful when using captionedvideo include: get to know the equipment; select a high-interestcaptioned video; preview the video; locate related texts; introducethe video; provide opportunities for rewatching the video; and createa video library. Captioned television captures students' attention,and its multisensory presentation of information decreases thedifficulty of learning new words. The combination of the video actionwith spoken dialogue and printed words is a powerful tool in learningto read. (Contains 19 references.) (RS)

************************************************************************Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made **

from the original document. *

***********************************************************************

.0

Patricia S. Koskinen Robert M. Wilson Linda B. Gambrel! Susan B. Neuman

NRRCeo

AMMIIIMM

Instructional Resource No. 3National Reading Research Center Summer 1993

U.S. DEPAWTMENT OF EDUCATIONOffice ot Educational Research and Improvement

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)

XThis document has been reproduced asreceived born the perSOn or OrganIzalKmorigrnating

f Minor changes have been made to irnOnWereproduction Quality

2 Points of view Of opinions stated in this doc ument do not necessarily representOERI position Or POSiCy BESJ COPY MIAMI

NRRCNational Reading Research Center

Captioned Video & Vocabulary LearningAn Innovative Practice in Literacy Instruction

Patricia S. KoskinenRobert M. WilsonLinda B. Gambrell

University of Maryland College Park

Susan B. NeumanTemple University

INSTRUCTIONAL RESOURCE NO. 3Summer 1993

Cover photo courtesy of Children's Television Workshop

The work reported herein was prepared with partial support from the National ReadingResearch Center of the University of Georgia and University of Maryland. It wassupported under the Educational Research and Development Centers Program(PR/AWARD NO. 117A20007) as administered by the Office of Educational Researchand Improvement, U.S. Department of Education. The findings and opinions expressedhere do not necessarily reflect the position or policies of the National ReadingResearch Center, the Office of Educational Research and Improvement, or the U.S.Department of Education.

3

NRRC NattonalReading ResearchCenter

Executive CommitteeDonna E. Alvermann, Co-DirectorUniversity of Georgia

John T. Guthrie, Co-DirectorUniversity of Maryland College Park

James F. Baumann, Associate DirectorUniversity of Georgk2

Patricia S. Koskinen, Associate DirectorUniversity of Maryland College Park

Jo Beth AllenUniversity of Georgia

John F. O'FlahavanUniversity of Maryland College Park

James V. HoffmanUniversity of Texas at Austin

Cynthia R. HyndUniversity of Georgia

Robert SerpellUniversity of Maryland Baltimore County

Publications Editors

Research Reports and PerspectivesDavid Reinking, Receiving EditorUniversity of Georgia

Linda Baker, Tracking EditorUniversity of Maryland Baltimore County

Linda C. De Groff, Tracking EditorUniversity of Georgia

instructional ResourcesLee Galda, University of Georgia

Research HighlightsWilliam G. HollidayUniversity of Maryland College Park

Policy BriefsJames V. HoffmanUniversity of Texas at AustinVieeosShawn M. Glynn, University of Georgia

NRRC StaffBarbara F. Howard, Office ManagerMelissa M. Erwin, Senior SecretaryUniversity of Georgia

Barbara A. Neitzey, Administrative AssistantValerie Tyra, AccountantUniversity of Maryland College Park

National Advisory BoardPhyllis W. AldrichSaratoga Warren Board of Cooperative EducationalServices, Saratoga Springs, New York

Arthur N. ApplebeeState University of New York, Albany

Ronald S. BrandtAssociation for Supervision and CurriculumDevelopment

Marsha T. De LainDelaware Department of Public Instruction

Carl A. GrantUniversity of Wisconsin-Madison

Walter KintschUniversity of Colorado at Boulder

Robert L. LinnUniversity of Colorado at Boulder

Luis C. MollUniversity of Arizona

Carol M. SantaSchool District No. 5Kalispell, Montana

Anne P. SweetOffice of Educational ResParch and finprovement,U.S. Department of Education

Louise Cherry WilkinsonRutgers University

Technical Writer and Production EditorSusan L. YarboroughUniversity of Georgia

NRRC - University of Georgia318 AderholdUniversity of GeorgiaAthens, Georgia 30602-7125(706) 542-3674 Fax: (706) 542-3678INTERNET: toRRCOuga.cc.uga.edu

NRRC - University of Maryland College Park2102 J. M. Patterson BuildingUniversity of MarylandCollege Part, Maryland 20742(301) 405-8035 Fax: (301) 314-9625INTERNET: NRRCOumailumd.edu

About the National Reading Research Center

The National Reading Research Center (NRRC)is funded by the Office of Educational Researchand Improvement of the U.S. Department of Educa-tion to conduct research on reading and readinginstruction. The NRRC is operated by a consortiumof the University of Georgia and the University ofMaryland College Park in collaboration with re-searchers at several institutions nationwide.

The NRRC's mission is to discover and docu-ment those conditions in homes, schools, andcommunities that encourage children to becomeskilled, enthusiastic, lifelong readers. NRRC re-searchers are committed to advancing the develop-ment of instructional programs sensitive to thecognitive, sociocultural, and motivational factorsthat affect children's success in reading. NRRCresearchers from a variety of disciplines conductstudies with teachers and students from widelydiverse cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds inprekindergarten through grade 12 classrooms.Research projects deal with the influence of familyand family-school interactions on the developmentof literacy; the interaction of sociocultural factorsand motivation to read; the impact of literature-based reading programs on reading achievement;the effects of reading strategies instruction oncomprehension and critical thinking in literature,science, and history; the influence of innovativegroup 1.-larticipation structures on motivation andlearning; the potential of computer technology toenhance literacy; and the development of methodsand standards for alternative literacy assessments.

The NRRC is further committed to the partici-pation of teachers as full partners in its research. Abetter understanding of how teachers view thedevelopment of literacy, how they use knowledgefrom research, and how they approach change inthe classroom is crucial to improving instruction. Tofurther this understanding, the NRRC conductsschool-based research in which teachers explore

their own philosophical and pedagogical orienta-tions and trace their professional growth.

Dissemination is an important feature of NRRCactivities. Information on NRRC research appearsin several formats. Research Reports communicatethe results of original research or synthesize thefindings of several lines of inquiry. They are writtenprimarily for researchers studying various areas ofreading and reading instruction. The PerspectiveSeries presents a wide range of publications, fromcalls for research and commentary on research andpractice to first-person accounts of experiences inschools. instructional Resources include curriculummaterials, instructional guides, and materials forprofessional growth, designed primarily for teach-ers.

For more information about the NRRC's re-search projects and other activities, or to have yourname added to the mailing list, please contact:

Donna E. Alvermann, Co-DirectorNational Reading Research Center318 Aderhold HallUniversity of GeorgiaAthens, GA 30602-7125(706) 542-3674

John T. Guthrie, Co-DirectorNational Reading Research Center2102 J. M. Patterson BuildingUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, MD 20742(301) 405-8035

NRRC Editorial Review Board

Pat:P.41a AdkinsUniversity of Georgia

Peter AftlerbachUniversity of Maryland College Park

Jo Beth AlienUniversity of Georgia

Patty AndersUniversity of Adzona

Tom AndersonUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Irene BlumPine Springs Elementary SchoolFalls Church, Virginia

John BorkowskiNotre Dame University

Cynthia BowenBaltimore County Public SchoolsTowson, Maryland

Martha CarrUniversity of Georgia

Suzanne Clew*Montgomery County Public SchoolsRockville, Maryland

Joan ColeyWestern Maryland College

Michelle CommeyrasUniversity of Georgia

Linda CooperShaker Heights City School DistrictShaker Heights, Ohio

Karen CostelloConnecticut Department of EducationHartford, Connecticut

Karin DahlOhio State University

Lynn* Diaz-RicoCalifornia State University-SanBernardino

N. Jean DreherUniversity of Maryland College Park

Pamela DunstonUniversity of Georgia

Jim FloodSan Diego State University

Dana FoxUniversity of Arizona

Unda Gambrel!University of Maryland BaltimoreCounty

Valerie GarfieldChattahoochee Elementary SchoolCumming, Georgia

Shenie Gibney-ShermanAthens-Clarke County School DistrictAthens, Georgia

Rachel GrantUniversity of Maryland College Pa,:r

Barbara GuzzettiArizona State University

Jane HaughCenter for Developing LearningPotentialsSilver Spring, Maryland

Beth Ann HerrmannUniversity of South Carolina

Kathleen HeubachUniversity a Georgia

Susan HillUniversity of Maryland College Park

Sally Hudson-RossUniversity of Goorgia

Cynthia HyndUniversity of Georgia

Robert JimenezUniversity of Oregon

Karen JohnsonPennsylvania State University

James KingUniversity of South Florida

Sandra KimbrellWest Hall Middle SchoolOakvrood, Georgia

Kate KirbyGwinnett County Public SchoolsLawrenceville, Georgia

Sophie KowzunPrince George's County School DistrictLandover, Maryland

Rosary Lai ikVirginia Polytechnic Institute

Michael LawUniversity of Georgia

Sarah McCartheyUniversity of Texas at Austin

Lisa Mc FailsUniversity of Georgia

Mike McKennaGeorgia Southern University

Donna MarleyLouisiana State University

Barbara MichaloveFowler Drive Elementary SchoolAthens, Georgia

AkIntunde MorakinyoUniversity of Maryland College Park

Lesley MorrowRutgers University

Bruce MuwayUniversity of Georgia

Susan NeumanTemple University

Awanna NortonM. E. Lewis Sr. Elementary SchoolSpada, Georgia

Caroline NoyesUniversity of Georgia

John.O'FlahavanUniversity of Maryland College Park

Penny OldfatherUniversity of Georgia

Joan PagnuccoUniversity of Georgia

Barbara PalmerUniversity of Maryland College Park

Mike PickleUniversity of Georgia

Jessie PollackMaryland Depadment of EducationBaltimore, Mary land

Sally PorterBlair High SchoolSilver Spring, Maryland

Michael PressleyUniversity of Maryland College Park

John ReadonceUniversity of Nevada-Las Vegas

Torn ReevesUniversity of Georgia

Lenore Ringlet.New York University

Mary RooUniversity of Delaware

Rebecca SammonsUniversity of Maryland College Park

Paula SchwanenflugelUniversity of Georgia

Robert SerpiUniversity of Maryland BaltimoreCounty

Betty ShockleyFowler Drive Elementary SchoolAthens, Georgia

Susan SonnenscheinUniversity of Maryland BaltimoreCounty

Steve StahlUniversity of Georgia

Anne SweetOffice of Educational Researchand Improvement

Lig Ing TaoUniversity of Georgia

Ruby ThompsonClark Atlanta University

Louise TomlinsonUniversity of Georgia

Sandy TumarklnStrawberry Knolls Elementary SchoolGaithersburg, Maryland

Shelia ValenciaUniversity of Washington

Bruce Van &alrightUniversity of Maryland College Park

7

Louise WaynantPrince George's County School DistrictUpper Marlboro, Maryland

Priscilla WaynantRolling Terrace Elementary SchoolTakoma Park, Maryland

Jan. WestUniversity of Georgia

Steve WhiteUniversity of Georgia

Allen WigileldUniversity of Maryland College Park

Dortha WilsonFort Valley State College

Shelley WongUniversity of Maryland College Park

About the Authors

Patricia S. Koskinen is Associate Director forProfessional Relations at the National ReadingResearch Center and a member of the GraduateFaculty at the University of Maryland. Herresearch focus is instructional strategies thatinfluence vocabulary learning and text compre-hension, including retellings, repeated reading,and captioned television. She may be contactedat the National Reading Research Center, 2102J.M. Patterson Building, University of Maryland,College Park, MD 20742.

Robert M. Wilson is Professor Emeritus at theUniversity of Maryland and, until recently, wasDirector of the University of Maryland ReadingClinic. His research focuses on comprehensionstrategy instruction and the use of signing andcaptioned television to enhance vocabularyknowledge. He may be contacted at 14506Perrywood Drive, Burtonsville, MD 20866.

Linda B. Gambrell is a professor in the Depart-mcrit of Curriculum and Instruction at theUniversity of Maryland and a principal investiga-tor at the National Reading Research Center.Her research interests include motivation toread, comprehension strategy instruction, andearly literacy development. She may be contact-ed at the National Reading Research Center,2102 J.M. Patterson Building, University ofMaryland, College Park, MD 20742.

Susan B. Neuman is an associate professor inthe Curriculum and Instruction and Technologyin Education Department at Temple University,where she is Coordinator of the Reading andLanguage Arts Graduate Program. Her researchcovers media and literacy, leisure reading, andplay as a context for literacy development. Shemay be contacted at Temple University, 437Ritter Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19122.

CaptionedVideo

&Vocabulary

LearningAn Innovative Practicein Literacy Instruction

Patricia S. KoskinenRobert M. Wilson

Linda B. GambrellUniversity of Maryland College Park

Susan B. NeumanTemple University

National Reading Research CenterUniversities of Georgia and Maryland

Instructional Resource No. 3Summer 1993

1

Dwayne and Annette carefully pulled thetelevision cart out of the closet andRicardo picked up the copies of the termitestory. These below-average readers in Mrs.Howe's fourth grade class had been ea-gerly anticipating reading time becausetheir reading group was going to see thescience video with ugly baby termites intheir giant mound. The day before thesestudents had watched a captioned videoon African termites. The termite moundthey saw didn't look like the ant hill theyknew. It was 13:gger than a zebra andalmost as tall as an elephant.

After the previous day's video reading,Annette found a picture of a termitemound in Insects Do the Strangest Things(Hornblow & Hornblow, 1968) and didn'tthink it looked so big." Ricardo wasexcited when he discovered that his bookon bees had some of the same words hehad seen on the captioned video. Hediscovered that bees live in a "colony" andthat they also have "workers" and a"queen." The pictures he found of littlehoneybee grubs didn't seem as awful asthe termite babies in the video. Dianetook the African termite story home toread to her brother, who loves bugs, andChris decided he was going to search forreal termites. He thought he might findsome at home because his mother had saidthe house was going to fall down if theydidn't get rid of the termites!

The children in this fourth grade class-room have been learning to read andwrite in a literacy program that includes

9

2 Patricia Koskinen, Robert Wilson, Linda Gambrell & Susan Neuman

Figure 1.Captioned Science Program

the use of captioned television as one ofmany reading materials. Captioned televi-sion is used as a supplement to the basicreading instructional program. While allchildren in this classroom had opportuni-ties to view content-related televisionprograms with captions, the children whoare experiencing reading difficulties re-ceive supplemental reading instructionwhich uses the captions on the video asreading material. Reading the captionsprovides these students with opportunitiesto engage in guided reading activities inthe highly motivating and i-einforcingcontext of television viewing.

The addition of captions to U.S. com-mercial and public television programs

provides many opportunities for screenreading. Captions, which are similar tosubtitles on foreign films, can be seen ontelevision sets that have special electronicTele Caption decoders. A decoder, which iseasily attached to a television set, can bepurchased for approximately U.S. $160.Some schools have purchased decoders andteachers are now using high-interestcaptioned programming to develop literacyskills. In the near future, however, cap-tions will be available at no additional costto viewers of regular television due torecent legislation passed by Congress. TheTelevision Decoder Circuitry Act of 1990requires that all new television sets sold inthe United States after June 1993 have

NRRC National Reading Research Center

Captioned Video & Vocabulary Learning 3

built-in circuitry to decode and displayclosed-captioned programming.

Captions were originally developed fordeaf and hearing-impaired viewers, buteducators of students with normal hearinghave found that captions can turn telfrvi-sion into a moving storybook. Captionsput words in a motivating environmentwhere the audio and video contexts helpviewers understand printed words theymight not know how to read. Becausethere are now over 450 hours of captionedtelevision programming broadcast weeklyon the major networks and cable stations,educators are becoming increasingly awareof the many screen-reading opportunities.

Although much of the original re-search on captioned television was con-ducted with deaf or hard-of-hearing indi-viduals, during the last ten years a numberof research studies have focused on thepositive benefits of using captioned tele-vision with students who have normalhearing. These studies have explored theeffects of captioned television on motiva-tion, reading vocabulary, and readingcomprehension with below-average read-ers and bilingual students. Several studiessuggest that students with reading diffi-culties can and do read captions on televi-sion (Adler, 1985; Koskinen, Wilson,Gambrell, & Jensema, 1986). In a laterstudy conducted by Koskinen, Wilson,Gambrel!, and Jensema (1991),below-average readers who receivedtwice-weekly captioned television instruc-tion over a two-month period reported

that viewing television with captions washighly motivating.

Most importantly, several studiesindicate that captions enhance the readingvocabulary and comprehension ofschool-age below-average readers (Adler,1985; Koskinen, et al., 1986; Koskinen,Wilson, Gambrell, & Jensema, 1987). Andanother study conducted with bilingualstudents found that those who viewedcaptioned videos performed significantlybetter on word identification, word mean-ing, and content learning assessments thanstudents who viewed the same videoswithout captions (Neuman & Koskinen,1992).

Taken together, these studies suggestthat captioned television is a motivatingmedium for improving the vocabulary andcomprehension skills of below-averagereaders and bilingual students. Thesestudies also support the theoretical notionthat simultaneous processing (au-dio/video/text) enhances learning.

CLASSROOM USE OFCAPTIONED TELEVISION

Because captioned video instruction in-volves the use of relatively new technolo-gy, research has also explored teachers'skill in developing and implementingwell-structured vocabulary and comprehen-sion lessons with captioned video materi-als. In a study conducted with 45 learningdisabled students, classroom teachersdeveloped supplemental reading lessons

instructional Resource No. 3, Summer 1993

1


using captioned programs such as situationcomedies, cartoons, and science videos(Koskinen, et al., 1991). Not only wasthere high teacher and student satisfactionwith these lessons, but objective evalua-tions by trained observers indicated thehigh quality of teacher-designed lessonsand an equally high level of student moti-vation and on-task behavior. All seventeachers involved in this study reportedthat captioned TV was well suited to thedevelopment of vocabulary skills. Theseteachers also suggested a variety of otherskills for which captioned video is wellsuited, such as prediction, character analy-sis, and sequencing. In addition, teachers'ratings of students' on-task behavior andinterest were exceptionally high.

At the conclusion of the study, allparticipating teachers indicated that theywould use captioned television in theirclassrooms on the average of once or twicea week. Students participating in thestudy reported that they enjoyed watchingcaptioned TV programs and that watchingcaptioned TV helped them learn newwords.

CAPTIONED TELEVISION ANDVOCABULARY LEARNING

Of the many uses of captioned video in thedevelopment of literacy skills, vocabularylearning appears to be one of the mostvaluable. Nagy and Herman (1987) havediscussed the need for learning words fromcontext, and captioned video provides a

semantically enriched context where visualimages and sound lend meaning to theprinted words that appear on the screen(Neuman & Koskinen, 1992).

Researchers have documented thatstudents learn new words through reading(Jenkins, Stein, & Wysocki, 1984; Nagy,Anderson, & Herman, 1987), estimatingthat they acquire 3,000 words per yearthrough wide reading (Nagy, Herman, &Anderson, 1985). As McKeown and hercolleagues have pointed out, word learn-ing is related to the frequency of exposureto print (McKeown, Beck, Omanson, &Pop le, 1985). While many high-achievingstudents read extensively, low-achievingstudents often read infrequently, and thushave less exposure to print. We know,however, that many students spend agreat deal of time watching television

.(Beentjes & Van Der V. , 1988). If theywatch captioned television, they will berepeatedly exposed to words in contextand the opportunity for vocabulary learn-ing will be enhanced. Stahl and Fairbanks(1986) also have noted the importance ofcontext in vocabulary instruction. In theirreview of 52 studies, they concluded thateffective vocabulary instruction involvescontextual as well as definitional instruc-tion. Captioned television allows viewersto focus attention on both definitional andcontextual information; it enhances wordmeaning by providing a semantically richvisual setting that presents printed wordsin context with pictorial images (Neuman& Koskinen, 1992).


1 2


Captioned television provides a presen-tation of information that includes oppor-tunities to view the video action, hear thespoken word, and see the printed text.This multi-sensory presentation is appeal-ing to students. Not only does it decreasethe difficulty of learning new words, but itis a medium with which students feelconfident (Koskinen, et al., 1991).Salomon (1984) noted that students per-ceive themselves as highly effective atprocessing information from television. Amajor problem for below-average readershas been attending to the reading task.The world of print has often been threat-ening for these students and many havefound that the best way to deal with thisthreat is to avoid reading. The motivatingqualities of captioned television in theinstructional setting can help studentsovercome this avoidance. They want towatch captioned television and are inter-ested in reading associated printed text(Koskinen, Wilson, & Jenseme, 1985;Koskinen, et aL, 1991).

Because of the enriched contextualsetting for vocabulary learning andstudents' positive response to captionedvideo, teachers have become creative indeveloping vocabulary activities that usecaptioned video. These activities have thesame features of any well developed vo-cabulary lesson, including multiple oppor-tunities to interact with targeted wordswithin a meaningful context. The follow-ing example shows how one teacher used

captioned video to focus on vocabularydevelopment.

HOW MRS. HOWE'S CLASS USESCAPTIONED TELEVISION

Mrs. Howe's class had been studyinginsects, so she decided to use atwo-minute 3-2-1 Contact video toshow them an African termite colony.After telling the students that theywere going to watch a program abouthow new termite colonies are built,she put the phrase Alate termitecolonies on the chalk board. She

pointed to appropriate words in thephrase as she explained that theywere going to learn about the insideand outside of Alec termite colonies.She went on to activate prior knowl-edge by having a short discussionabout what students knew related tothe colony building of bees, ants, andtermites. After this discussion, Mrs.Howe gave a two-sentence introduc-tion to the video and asked the stu-dents to watch the program carefullyand to read the captions so they coulddescribe the inside and outside of thetermite colony.

After viewing the video and fol-lowing up on the initial purpose ofdescribing the colony, Mrs. Howeintroduced the word mound, one offive key vocabulary words related tothe topic that were visually portrayedin the video. The students wereshown the word mound written on aword card and asked to look for it in

Instructional Resource No. 3, Summer 1993

1 3


the captions while they watched thevideo a second time. When theyfound the word, they raised theirhands as a signal to pause the videoso the word could be discussed.When the students described theword mound, it was in elaborateterms, noting its height, color, tex-ture, and purpose. Mrs. Howe pro-ceeded to introduce the individualwords build, chamber, colonies, andtunnels in a similar fashion. The stu-dents enjoyed talking about thewords while looking at their videoimages.

After the screen reading, the stu-dents focused on the key words inprinted text. They were guided tofind these key words in a typed hand-out that contained sentences from thecaptioned video. As a conclusion tothe lesson, the students were encour-aged to focus on the broader contextfrom which the words originally came.They were asked .what parts of theprogram they liked best and weregiven an opportunity to describe afavorite part. Mrs. Howe then pre-viewed a few books from the librarycorner that contained informationabout termites and other insects thatlive in colonies.

Mrs. Howe and other teachers at thesame school have capitalized on the powerof video, using it as a way to get childrenexcited about ideas in the world, particu-larly about science and social studies con-cepts. They have also used these videos as

N hook to books." The children whoviewed the African terrhite video wereeager to talk about what they had seenand to share their knowledge with others.The 254 minute science video providedthem with enough information so thatwhen they explored texts on termites, ants,and bees, they found familiar words andconcepts. Students were motivated to lookat magazines and books about otherinsects and discovered, for example, thatant colonies also had an intricate system of"tunnels" and "chambers" with "workers,""soldiers," and a "queen."

The valuable activity of rereadingmaterial for different purposes is often adifficult task for below-average readers.Students who watched the termite video,however, were enthusiastic about reread-ing the captions as they rewatched thevideo. These students used the wordsfrom the captioned video in a variety ofways. Some students organized theirinformation about termites on a semanticmap, while others reviewed the video sothey could be the announcers and read thecaptions aloud with the sound turned off.As students wrote news articles on ter-mites, bees, and ants for the classroomnewspaper, they rewatched the video andcompared it to information they found ininsect books.

In addition to reading the captions onthe television screen, some students alsohad the opportunity to read captions onpaper. Teachers have used caption scriptsas regular texts to develop reading skills


14


and promote interest in independentreading. The technology for taking cap-tions from television and printing themout on a personal computer has just re-centl) become commercially available. Inthe near future, teachers will have easyaccess to printed reading material thatcomes directly from their students' favoritetelevision programs.

There are a number of concerns relat-ed to the use of captioned video as asource of reading materials forbelow-average readers that need to berecognized. First, the match betweenwhat one hears (the audio) and the printone sees (captions) is not precise. Whilemajor concepts and ideas in the dialogueare presented in print, some words andphrases may be omitted due to the limitedspace available for displaying the text or toreduce the speed of captions. Second, therate of the caption presentation is also aconcern. The captions on many cartoons,situation comedies, and educational pro-grams are presented at a rate of approxi-mately 120 words per minute, a rapid ratefor developing readers (Spache, 1981). Athird concern is that captions are presentedin all capital letters, rather than the tradi-tional print convention of using upper caseand lower case letters.

Despite these concerns, the results ofrecent research indicate that the use ofcaptioned video enhances the readingperformance of below-average readerswhen it is used as part of reading instruc-tion (Koskinen, et al., 1987). Students have

also learned words by simply viewingcaptioned video without the benefit ofteacher-directed vocabulary instruction(Adler, 1985; Koskinen, et al., 1986;Neuman & Koskinen, 1992). These resultshave led educators to suggest that, inaddition to using captioned video atschool, having captions available at homefor regular television viewing would pro-vide opportunities for repeated exposureto print, thereby assisting vocabularydevelopment. Even though there aresubstantial differences between readingprinted text and reading screen text,below-average readers appear to benefitfrom the combination of sound, visualimages, and printed words providec1 bycaptioned video.

Student enthusiasm about captionedvideo reading activities has led teachers toexplore their use with a range of program-ming and for many educational purposes(Koskinen & Wilson, 1987; Koskinen, et al.,1991). Situation comedies and cartoonsare particular favorites in which studentslook eagerly for interesting new words.The considerable dialogue in these pro-grams offers many examples of figurativelanguage which are easily understoodwhen discussed with the video context.Teachers also use comedy and cartoonvideos to encourage prediction skills. Afterplaying a short segment, teachers may stopthe tape to discuss events and then askstudents to predict what will happen next.Viewing is then continued so students canverify their predictions. Discussion of these


15

8 Patricia Koskinen, Robert Wilson, Linda Gambrel! & Susan Neuman

programs often leads to the exploration ofcharacter motivation, plot episodes, andother story structure elements. Thesetopics are naturally introduced by studentsand can be extended by the teacher. Inaddition, students frequently use newlyacquired vocabulary in retellings of thesestories and they are interested in writingalternative endings or continuing episodesof a favorite program. As teachers reflecton all the video/reading/writing interac-tions by below-average readers, they areexcited by the instructional potential 'Ifcaptioned video. It appears that the confi-dence and interest that students bring totelevision viewing transfers to experienceswith print on related topics.

SUGGESTIONS FOR GETTING STARTED

The following are a few suggestionsthat teachers have found helpful whenusing captioned video.

1. Get to know your equipment. Ittakes only limited practice (5-10 minutes)to calm any fears you may have aboutusing a TV, Tele Caption decoder, and VCRduring instruction. The decoder, whichpermits the captions to be seen, is easilyattached to any television. If you have atelevision with a built-in decoder, all youneed to do is push the button which ac-cesses the captions.

2. Select a high-interest captionedvideo. There are many hours of captionedprogramming available each week, includ-ing situation comedies, news features,

dramas, educational programs, etc. Closedcaptioned programs are identified in TVguides with the letters CC Select materialthat will suit the educational needs andinterests of your students. Teachers havefound that the science and social studiescontent of programs such as 3-2-1 Contactand Reading Rainbow focus on conceptsand themes that are common to the ele-mentary curriculum. The producers ofthese programs encourage their educa-tional use, so they have imposed feweducational viewing restrictions.

3. Preview the video. After selectingan appropriate video, preview it to locatethe important concepts and vocabularythat are visually portrayed. This informa-tion will help you decide which segment(s)of the video you'll want to use. Try tokeep the segment short (less than 5 min-utes) so that viewing time will be only asmall part of the normal instructionalperiod. Record the VCR's counter num-bers so the segment can be easily accessed.

4. Locate related texts. To provideopportunities to extend the vocabularyand concept knowledge presented in thevideo, locate books and magazines thatfocus on the same concepts. If possible,make copies of some of the video captionsso that students can also use them asprinted reading material after havingviewed/read the program.

5. Introduce the video. As with anyinstructional material, activate prior knowl-edge before viewing and establish thepurposes for viewing. Introduce the video


16


segment with the sound on so that stu-dents can use the visual and audio input.After students have become accustomed toscreen reading, the audio can occasionallybe turned off for a minute, and studentscan be challenged to see if they can readto determine what is happening (Goldman& Goldman, 1988). A major advantage ofcaptioned television, however, is themulti-sensory stimulation, so most teachersgenerally leave the sound on.

6. Provide opportunities forrewatching the video and for readingrelated texts. To encourage vocabularyuse, repeated exposures to print, andextension of knowledge, allow students toreview the video and read related booksand magazines. Teachers have found thatstudents are eager to retell and writeabout viewing experiences. Other activi-ties such as reading along with captiontext have also been effective in enhancingword knowledge.

7. Create a video library. Since videoactivities are so effective and popular withstudents, you'll want to keep a record ofyour activities so you or other teachers canuse them again. Some schools have beguncollections of tapes and video lessons thatare stored in the school's media center.These schools have developed their ownindexes that identify tape segments bytopic. They also provide folders that in-clude video lesson suggestions, relatedbooks, and other supplemental material.Teachers use their colleagues' ideas and

enthusiastically contribute their own suc-cessful activities to this communal resource.

Captioned movies and some educa-tional programming (such as ReadingRainbow videos) can be purchased atcommercial video stores and from educa-tional publishers. There are, however,copyright laws which restrict the taping oftelevision programs. The restrictions limitkeeping recordings to no more than 45days and they can be used by an individualteacher no more than two times. Furtherinformation can be obtained by checkingthe guidelines for recording related to theCopyright Act of 1976 as amended in 1981(International Reading Association, 1982).

SUMMARY

The addition of captions to television is atechnological breakthrough that can beused to enhance the vocabulary and com-prehension skills of a range ofbelow-average readers. Its motivationalqualities make it appealing to studentswho have been difficult to reach withtraditional methods and materials. Cap-tioned television offers an option forstarting students on the road to reading.Not only does it capture their attention,but its multi-sensory presentation of infor-mation decreases the difficulty of learningnew words. Students feel confident pro-cessing information from television andattend to the semantically rich context.The combination of the video action with


1 7


spoken dialogue and printed words is apowerful tool in learning to read.

Information about Tele Caption decod-ers may be obtained from:

The National Captioning Institute5203 Leesburg PikeFalls Church, Virginia 220411-800-533-WORD

REFERENCES

Adler, R. (1985). Using closed-captioned televi-sion in the classroom. In L. Gambrell & E.McLaughlin (Eds.), New directions in read-ing: Research and practice (pp. 11-18).

Silver Spring: Yearbook of the State ofMaryland International Reading Associ-ation.

Beentjes, J., & Van Der Voort, T. (1988).

Television's impact on children's readingskills: A review of research. Reading Re-search Quarterly, 23, 389-413.

Goldman, M., & Goldman, S. (1988). Reading

with closed-captioned television. Journalof Reading, 31, 458-461.

Hornblow, L., & Hornblow, A. (1968). Insects

do the strangest things. Michael K. Frith(III.). New York: Random House.

International Reading Association. (1982).

Off-air recording of television programs:Copyright law guidelines. The ReadingTeacher, 35, 830-832.

Jenkins, J., Stein, M., & Wysocki, K. (1984).Learning vocabulary through reading.American Educational Research Journal,21, 767-788.

Koskinen, P. S., & Wilson, R. M. (1987). Have

you read any good 7V lately? Falls Church,VA: National Captioning Institute, Inc.

Koskinen, P. S., Wilson, R. M., Gambrell, L. B., &Jensema, C. J. (1986). Using closed cap-tioned television to enhance reading skillsof learning disabled students. In J. A. Niles& R. V. Lalik (Eds.), Solving problems inliteracy: Learners, teachers, and researchers(pp. 61-65). Rochester, N.Y: NationalReading Conference.

Koskinen, P. S., Wilson, R. M., Gambrel!, L. B., &Jensema, C. J. (1987). Using the technologyof closed-captioned television to teachreading to handicapped =dents. Perfor-mance Report, United Stz:Zes Departmentof Education Grant No. G-00-84-30067.Falls Church, VA: National CaptioningInstitute.

Koskinen, P. S., Wilson, R. M., Gambrel!, L B., &Jensema, C. J. (1991). Captioned videotechnology and television-based readinginstruction. In S. Clewell (Ed.), Literacy:Issues and practices (pp. 39-47). Bethesda,MD: Yearbook of the State of Maryland!:.ternational Reading Association.

Koskinen, P. S., Wilson, R. M., & Jensema, C.(1985). Closed-captioned television: Anew tool for reading instruction. ReadingWorld, 24, 1-7.

McKeown, M., Beck, I., Omanson, R., & Pople,M. (1985). Some effects of the nature andfrequency of vocabulary instruction on theknowledge and use of words. Reading Re-search Quarterly, 20, 522-535.

Nagy, W. E., Anderson, R. C., & Herman, P.(1987). Learning word meanings fromcontext during normal reading. AmericanEducational Research Journal, 24, 237-270.


18


Nagy, W. E., & Herman, P. (1987). Breadth anddepth of vocabulary knowledge: Implica-tions for acquisition and instruction. In M.McKeown & M. Curtis (Eds.), The nature ofvocabulary acquisition (pp. 19-35).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Nagy, W. E., Herman, P., & Anderson, R. C.(1985). Learning words from context.Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 233-253.

Neuman, S. B., & Koskinen, P. S. (1992). Cap-tioned television as comprehensible input:Effects of incidental word learning incontext for language minority students.Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 95-106.

Salomon, G. (1984). Television is 'easy andprint is 'tough": The differential invest-ment of mental effort as a function ofperceptions and attributions. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 76, 647-658.

Spache, G. (1981). Diagnosing and correctingreading disabilities (2nd ed.). Boston:Allyn and Bacon.

Stahl, S., & Fairbanks, M. (1986). The effects ofvocabulary instruction: A model-basedmeta-analysis. Review of EducationalResearch, 56, 72-110.


19

NRRC NationalReading ResearchCenter

318 Aderhokl, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia 30602-71252102 J.M. Patterson Building, University of Maryland, College Park. Maryland 20742

20

instruction. md. 93 20p. - eric · nrrc. national reading research center. captioned video &...

Documents