A lot of the difference in the research comes down to what the researchers feel the learning goal is. From a big-picture, 30,000-foot view, not using subtitles is going to give you a better understanding of how a language "feels." E.g., if you consistently watch videos without subtitles you'll eventually understand the rhythm and flow much, much better.
But. In a lot of the pro-subtitle research you share, the researchers are working with a specific learning goal in mind, like improving vocabulary or pronunciation. Subtitles works really well for the first skill, not so much for the second.
So, in practical terms, what this means is that a learner should use subtitles, sometimes, dependin on what they want to learn. Here's a plan I like to use: I sit down with a student and watch an episode of Friends. We do this cold, no prep, no explanation, etc. We use subtitles. Then, after the episode, we discuss who the characters are, what their relationships are, and so on. We then build a plan where, over the course of months, we watch specific scenes. We will often watch a scene several times. The first time with no subtitles, the next time with subtitles, highlighting certain words or phrases, the next time with dual subtitles where we compare how things are expressed in English vs. their native language, and finally, once more without any subtitles, so they can see how their comprehension and understanding has evolved.
I'm going on too long, but the point is, as you are already aware - should you use subtitles? Sure, sometimes.
Exactly. It depends. On what you want to practice that time, how good you are at that and potentially competing skills, etc. For example, if you can't speed read as the written words go by, you won't be able to catch the spoken words very well. If you can repeat the specific sequence multiple times, you can practice both. Etc.
One of my favorite things to practice with subtitles is "editing" - catching whether what they've said matches what the subtitle claims they said or whether it was shortened or changed to fit.
I didn't know it was called "editing", but I sometimes catch myself doing this! It sparks so many interesting questions: why did they write it differently? Does it mean the same thing? What did they actually say?
I'm glad you brought this up, it's an underrated practice method to have fun with subtitles! You also remind me how useful subtitles were at the beginning of my Korean studies: it helped me learn to read faster by associating words and sounds.
Recognizing meaning and words without subtitles is a useful skill to practise.
I wrote this around the hypothesis "subtitles split your attention " that I wanted to prove wrong, but you're making me want to write a lot more about when (not) to use them! 😊
This reminds me of a study my professor mentioned where adult ESL learners who watched English sitcoms with English subtitles learned up to 80% more than those who used subtitles in their native language. I personally try to keep Japanese subtitles on as much as possible, but sometimes, when I just want to relax and enjoy, I'll turn on dual subtitles and focus mostly on the English ones.
I used to feel a bit guilty for using dual subtitles all the time, but it's actually helpful! I find myself catching interesting words and pausing to note down cool sentences with subtle meanings.
When I try to understand a new language, it always sounds like a cluster of meaningless sounds, so subtitles are super reassuring and grounding for me 😊
When I listen only with Korean subtitles, it feels like a different experience - more like a real life situation without specific word analysis!
I had to think about this question for a bit! I've used Mayer's principles for a decade in my work and I never thought of the redundancy principle in the context of subtitles but it makes sense! When watching a movie or series with subtitles you are receiving three signals: video, audio, and subtitles. But I think the cognitive load really comes into play when all three signals are NEW. My assumption is that if it's content you are reviewing, the cognitive load would be very different. I absolutely find it overwhelming to watch something new with subtitles in my target language. I'm going to try watching something with subtitles and mute the audio to see if it seems less overwhelming. It reminds me of playing a video game with text conversations in my target language since there is no audio.
That's interesting! For me, if I have both audio and text, it's actually helping my comprehension a lot. My best example is reading a book with the audiobook. Linking the sound to the spelling of words helps my listening a lot.
I feel like my auditive and visual memories work together to lower the workload rather than overwhelming me. We need more research on this! Maybe it depends on people?
I also feel that reading a book with the audio is more helpful than only reading the text or only listening the the audiobook. That's why I didn't understand Zoe's point at first. Since the redundancy principle states that "People learn better from graphics and narration than from graphics, narration and on-screen text," I think that means that in the case of video with subtitles, the video is the "graphics," the audio is the "narration," and the subtitles are the text. Therefore according to the redundancy principle that's three ways of presenting the same information and according to Mayer's research two is better than three.
We definitely need more research! I don't think this principle applies perfectly to all forms of video content because I don't know how Mayer defines educational material. But when it comes to language learning, I think it would be helpful to define "learning" because it seems to me that watching a new video for first time means that I'm "learning" the video, audio, and text, but if I'm rewatching the same video and already know what happens, then I'm focusing mostly on the audio and text. I think that lines up with the advice of studying a language with material you're already familiar with.
I assume this would also depend on the level of comprehensible input in each form. Regardless, I find it interesting and would like to see how much more effective it really is to limit to two inputs if in the case of language learning we’re probably not going to view the contet only once and will repeatedly review it anyway 😁
So cool of you to have looked into the science of it all! That's the unsettling part of trying to find "confirmation" of a theory though -- unless the topic is super well-researched, you're equally likely to find research confirming and disproving the theory. That's why I'm slightly skeptical of any method claiming to be "based on scientific research", unless the authors can actually prove rigor. So it's super healthy to doubt claims!
And when it comes to subtitles, I love them, and sometimes I'll even put subtitles in a target language over content in a language I know perfectly well (I watched The Office with Swedish subtitles, for example). It might sound counterintuitive and counterproductive, but for me at least it's a good way of getting certain "set phrases" engrained. You get the "oh, so that's how they say X in this language" moment a lot with this method.
I never tried this reversed method, it sounds fun!
It is indeed super important to always stay skeptical of claims - especially in fields where the results highly depend on the individual (cognitive and learning science).
Great post! I agree writing posts that involve research is challenging. I think you did well to include research while also talking about your own personal experience.
To me, subtitles are a tool that any language learner than use to help themselves better comprehend or learn a language. 🙂
A lot of the difference in the research comes down to what the researchers feel the learning goal is. From a big-picture, 30,000-foot view, not using subtitles is going to give you a better understanding of how a language "feels." E.g., if you consistently watch videos without subtitles you'll eventually understand the rhythm and flow much, much better.
But. In a lot of the pro-subtitle research you share, the researchers are working with a specific learning goal in mind, like improving vocabulary or pronunciation. Subtitles works really well for the first skill, not so much for the second.
So, in practical terms, what this means is that a learner should use subtitles, sometimes, dependin on what they want to learn. Here's a plan I like to use: I sit down with a student and watch an episode of Friends. We do this cold, no prep, no explanation, etc. We use subtitles. Then, after the episode, we discuss who the characters are, what their relationships are, and so on. We then build a plan where, over the course of months, we watch specific scenes. We will often watch a scene several times. The first time with no subtitles, the next time with subtitles, highlighting certain words or phrases, the next time with dual subtitles where we compare how things are expressed in English vs. their native language, and finally, once more without any subtitles, so they can see how their comprehension and understanding has evolved.
I'm going on too long, but the point is, as you are already aware - should you use subtitles? Sure, sometimes.
Exactly. It depends. On what you want to practice that time, how good you are at that and potentially competing skills, etc. For example, if you can't speed read as the written words go by, you won't be able to catch the spoken words very well. If you can repeat the specific sequence multiple times, you can practice both. Etc.
One of my favorite things to practice with subtitles is "editing" - catching whether what they've said matches what the subtitle claims they said or whether it was shortened or changed to fit.
I didn't know it was called "editing", but I sometimes catch myself doing this! It sparks so many interesting questions: why did they write it differently? Does it mean the same thing? What did they actually say?
I'm glad you brought this up, it's an underrated practice method to have fun with subtitles! You also remind me how useful subtitles were at the beginning of my Korean studies: it helped me learn to read faster by associating words and sounds.
Thank you for pointing this out!
Recognizing meaning and words without subtitles is a useful skill to practise.
I wrote this around the hypothesis "subtitles split your attention " that I wanted to prove wrong, but you're making me want to write a lot more about when (not) to use them! 😊
This reminds me of a study my professor mentioned where adult ESL learners who watched English sitcoms with English subtitles learned up to 80% more than those who used subtitles in their native language. I personally try to keep Japanese subtitles on as much as possible, but sometimes, when I just want to relax and enjoy, I'll turn on dual subtitles and focus mostly on the English ones.
I used to feel a bit guilty for using dual subtitles all the time, but it's actually helpful! I find myself catching interesting words and pausing to note down cool sentences with subtle meanings.
When I try to understand a new language, it always sounds like a cluster of meaningless sounds, so subtitles are super reassuring and grounding for me 😊
When I listen only with Korean subtitles, it feels like a different experience - more like a real life situation without specific word analysis!
I had to think about this question for a bit! I've used Mayer's principles for a decade in my work and I never thought of the redundancy principle in the context of subtitles but it makes sense! When watching a movie or series with subtitles you are receiving three signals: video, audio, and subtitles. But I think the cognitive load really comes into play when all three signals are NEW. My assumption is that if it's content you are reviewing, the cognitive load would be very different. I absolutely find it overwhelming to watch something new with subtitles in my target language. I'm going to try watching something with subtitles and mute the audio to see if it seems less overwhelming. It reminds me of playing a video game with text conversations in my target language since there is no audio.
That's interesting! For me, if I have both audio and text, it's actually helping my comprehension a lot. My best example is reading a book with the audiobook. Linking the sound to the spelling of words helps my listening a lot.
I feel like my auditive and visual memories work together to lower the workload rather than overwhelming me. We need more research on this! Maybe it depends on people?
I also feel that reading a book with the audio is more helpful than only reading the text or only listening the the audiobook. That's why I didn't understand Zoe's point at first. Since the redundancy principle states that "People learn better from graphics and narration than from graphics, narration and on-screen text," I think that means that in the case of video with subtitles, the video is the "graphics," the audio is the "narration," and the subtitles are the text. Therefore according to the redundancy principle that's three ways of presenting the same information and according to Mayer's research two is better than three.
We definitely need more research! I don't think this principle applies perfectly to all forms of video content because I don't know how Mayer defines educational material. But when it comes to language learning, I think it would be helpful to define "learning" because it seems to me that watching a new video for first time means that I'm "learning" the video, audio, and text, but if I'm rewatching the same video and already know what happens, then I'm focusing mostly on the audio and text. I think that lines up with the advice of studying a language with material you're already familiar with.
I assume this would also depend on the level of comprehensible input in each form. Regardless, I find it interesting and would like to see how much more effective it really is to limit to two inputs if in the case of language learning we’re probably not going to view the contet only once and will repeatedly review it anyway 😁
So cool of you to have looked into the science of it all! That's the unsettling part of trying to find "confirmation" of a theory though -- unless the topic is super well-researched, you're equally likely to find research confirming and disproving the theory. That's why I'm slightly skeptical of any method claiming to be "based on scientific research", unless the authors can actually prove rigor. So it's super healthy to doubt claims!
And when it comes to subtitles, I love them, and sometimes I'll even put subtitles in a target language over content in a language I know perfectly well (I watched The Office with Swedish subtitles, for example). It might sound counterintuitive and counterproductive, but for me at least it's a good way of getting certain "set phrases" engrained. You get the "oh, so that's how they say X in this language" moment a lot with this method.
I never tried this reversed method, it sounds fun!
It is indeed super important to always stay skeptical of claims - especially in fields where the results highly depend on the individual (cognitive and learning science).
It's an easy way to squeeze in more language learning with 0 pressure on yourself.
Great post! I agree writing posts that involve research is challenging. I think you did well to include research while also talking about your own personal experience.
To me, subtitles are a tool that any language learner than use to help themselves better comprehend or learn a language. 🙂