Claims

Viewing captioned instructional videos does not significantly improve EFL learners' content comprehension compared to viewing without captions.

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · causal r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i? There was no statistically significant difference between the experimental and control groups on the content comprehension sub-section of the CST. → BavaHarji 2014

Evidence

BavaHarji 2014

BavaHarji, M., Alavi, Z. K., & Letchumanan, K. (2014). Captioned Instructional Video: Effects on Content Comprehension, Vocabulary Acquisition and Language Proficiency. English Language Teaching, 7(5). https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v7n5p1

q3 · i? · causal · r2

In the same study, the content comprehension sub-section of the Content Specific Tests showed no significant difference, "t (90) = -.73, p = .436", with a mean difference of only 1.36 points between the experimental (M = 46.00) and control (M = 44.64) groups.

"there was no signific ant difference for content comprehension ( t (90) = -.73, p = .436), indicating that the experimental group did not out-perform the control group"

Discussion

Page metadata
Field Value
status review
generated by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-11-03
trust unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.