DISCUSSION v

HOW INPUT-ENHANCED AUTHENTIC
VIDEOS SUPPORT ENGLISH LISTENING
COMPREHENSION: A DISCUSSION
FROM AN INTERACTIONIST PERSPECTIVE
NGUYEN XUAN NGHIA*
*
Hanoi University of Science and Technology, 
Received: 20/4/2019; Revised: 14/5/2019; Accepted: 17/5/2019

ABSTRACT
With the light that literature has shed on the merits of authentic videos, this paper aims to
foreground two video input enhancement activities, namely annotating and captioning and argue
that when embedded in authentic videos, annotations and captions aid EFL learners’ vocabulary
acquisition and thus English listening comprehension. To this end, annotations and captions are
discussed on the theoretical grounds of Multimodality and the Interactionist Theory of Second
Language Acquisition (SLA). The paper concludes with implications for language teachers as to
the use of input-enhanced authentic videos for educational purposes in the listening classroom.
Keywords: listening comprehension, authentic videos, input enhancement, multimodality,
interactionist theory

1. INTRODUCTION
Technologies seem to have come to aid listening
skill earlier and with greater diversity than the
other three macro English skills. Robin (2011) lists
broadcasts, tape recorders, and talking pictures as
some of the electronic mediators to the teaching of
listening skill before 1975. Since the 1980s, these
devices have been either substituted or made more
sophisticated, or naturally both, by an unending

source of authentic audiovisual materials, which
in turn came along with the advent of the Internet
and Web 2.0. However, as authentic materials
were historically created by and intended for
native speakers in contrast to those created for
pedagogical purposes, they are highly challenging

in terms of grammatical, lexical, genre, and
cultural contents (Garrett, 2009). Authentic
videos are thus dismissed as less appropriate for
learners at levels other than intermediate or above
(Guariento & Morley, 2001). One may consider
this a valid account for language teachers’ attempts
to intentionally reduce the difficulty of authentic
materials, but as Taylor (1994) puts it, materials
can only be truly authentic when language is
simplified by no means. With this understanding,
the paper highlights annotation and caption as
two video input enhancement techniques that help
create pedagogic videos without altering their
authenticity. First concepts around authenticity
and its benefits for listening comprehension are
summarized. Then literature is reviewed on two
KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

No. 19 (5/2019)

105



v DISCUSSION
theoretical tenets – multimodality and Interactionist
SLA – on which the discussion of annotation and
caption is based. At the end, recommendations are
made for language teachers in regards to the use of
authentic videos for pedagogical purposes in their
listening classroom.

2. AUTHENTICITY
Though authenticity was soon a subject of
ample discussion in the 1970s as a result of the
Communicative Language Teaching approach,
it has remained ambiguous in the field of
applied linguistics. It is the concern over the
multifacetedness of authenticity – whether it is
associated with the text per se, the interaction
between the teacher and the learner, the tasks
chosen, etc. (Gilmore, 2007) – that has led
scholars yet to address it fully. For example,
Wallace focuses on the material aspect and
defines authentic materials as “real life texts, not
written for pedagogic purposes” (1992, p.145),
while Tomlinson accentuates the task, referring
to an authentic task as “one which involves the
learners in communicating to achieve an outcome,
rather than to practice the language” (2013, p.19).
Morrow’s (1977) definition is used in this paper to
summarize those varying lens: “An authentic text
is a stretch of real language, produced by a real
speaker or writer for a real audience and designed

to convey a real message of some sort” (p.13).
Authentic materials can be classified in
different ways. On the grounds of modality,
Genhard (1996) classifies authentic materials into
three categories: authentic audiovisual materials,
which integrate both pictures and sounds;
authentic visual materials, which are image-based
and wordless; and authentic printed materials,
which are presented on paper. Concerning mainly
authenticity level of the text, Campos (1992)
proposes three types: authentic text, adapted or
simplified text, and creative text. An authentic
text is not simplified or modified to any degree,
and represent language used by native speakers in
genuine situations for the fulfilment of their social

106

KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

No. 19 (5/2019)

needs. An adapted or simplified text is characterized
by the simplification of language for the purpose
of grammar and vocabulary introduction and
reinforcement. And, a creative text is created on
the basis of the sequence of contents covered in a
textbook. This view is shared by Geddes and White
(1978), who align Campos’s (1992) paradigm
to only two categories of discourse: unmodified

authentic discourse and simulated authentic
discourse, with the former being “authentic text”
while the latter encompassing “adapted text” and
“creative text”. The diagram below represents
types of authentic materials in light of the three
mentioned approaches.

Figure 1: Types of authentic materials
(synthesized from Genhard, 1996; Campos, 1992;
and Geddes & White, 1978)
Authentic materials have been widely proved
beneficial for L2 listening comprehension in a
few ways. First, learners yield constant exposure
to real-life situations that are unachievable
inside the textbook-based classroom. Scholars
such as Gilmore (2004) highlight the cultural
contextualization of learning as the unique value
of authentic materials, particularly authentic
videos.
Second, learners have access to
incremental linguistic gains. This is enabled by
frequent repetitions of lexical, grammatical and
phonological features made by native speakers in
an unexaggerated fashion (Devitt, 1997), which
in turn strengthens the learner’s cognitive load
and thus communicative competences (Sweller
& Chandler, 2007). Also, a body of research (e.g.
Melvin & Stout, 1987; Christopher & Ho, 1996)



DISCUSSION v

has converged that authentic materials produce
an inspirational and motivational environment
for listening. In brief, the advantages of authentic
materials provide an impetus for the replacement
of purpose-written materials. In the sections below,
literature around two concepts foundational to
the discussion in this paper – Multimodality and
Interactionist SLA – is reviewed.

3. MULTIMODALITY
Kress and Van Leeuwen define multimodality as
“the use of several semiotic modes in the design
of a semiotic product or event, together with the
particular way in which those modes are combined
– they may for instance reinforce each other, fulfil
complementary roles or be hierarchically ordered”
(2001, p.20). It is the number of representational
modes involved in presenting a piece of information
that differs multimodality from unimodality,
i.e. the use of one single representational mode
(within the scope of this paper, bimodality, i.e. the
use of two representational modes, is viewed a
form of multimodality). If the traditional listening
classroom relies mostly on aural texts, the cohesion
of aural and visual materials has been in vogue,
allowed by an abundant source of videos. These
sorts of materials also mirror the complementary
nature of multimodality in that one semiotic

representation carries one set of meanings while
another a different set (Guichon & Cohen, 2016).
In the listening comprehension classroom,
multimodality is a notion that is inseparable
from audiovisual materials for the latter’s
representational essence, so the benefits of videos
are shared by multimodality. In his 2014 study,
Woottipong stated that language teachers showed
a particular liking for videos since multiple
modalities were more appealing than audio-only
instructions. This view is echoed in Oura (2001)
who found that audiovisuals engaged, motivated,
and captured the learners’ attention significantly
better than unimodal texts. Another set of benefits of
multimodality concern paralinguistic nuances, that

is how intonation, pitch, prosody, and other nonverbal expressions align with the meanings being
made. This is because learners are immersed into
a whole range of communication situations from
numerous contexts (Harmer, 2007). According
to Jones and Plass (2002), learners who were
exposed to aural and visual listening outperformed
counterparts given audio-only listening, and these
individuals also bore a lower cognitive load.

4.
INTERACTIONIST
LANGUAGE ACQUISITION

SECOND


Amongst an array of theories underlying SLA,
e.g. Universal Grammar Theories, Cognitive
Theories, Sociocultural Theories, Interactionist
Theory is of paramount importance. Originally,
interaction is described by Ellis (1999) as
“the interpersonal activity that arises during
face-to-face communication”, and also as
“the intrapersonal activity involved in mental
processing” (p.3). The former type of interaction
refers to direct conversational exchanges between
two interlocutors, in which the less competent
one (usually the learner) requests for the more
competent counterpart’s (usually the native
speaker) acts of repeating, explaining, modifying
or enhancing linguistic inputs whenever
communication breakdowns occur (Gass &
Selinker, 1994). The latter is essentially about
the kind of cognitive activity within the learner’s
mind that engages deep mental processing in
the wake of episodes of meaning negotiation
or input modification requests. Research shows
that making linguistic inputs (lexis and syntax)
and paralinguistic inputs (stress and intonation)
salient during conversational interactions is how
the more proficient interlocutor not only keeps
the conversation going in a direction that mutual
understanding is attained (Pica, 1994) but also
facilitates delayed developmental effects on the
learner’s cognition (Gass, 1997).

Within the domain of CALL, Chapelle (2005)
has reshaped the concept of “interpersonal
KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

No. 19 (5/2019)

107


v DISCUSSION
interaction” by adding a “between person
and computer” facet to the existing “between
people” one. She also notes three benefit groups
of interaction as opportunities for negotiation of
meaning, acquiring enhanced input, and focusing
attention on linguistic form, and aligns them to three
types of interaction as shown in the table below:
Table 1: Alignment of types of interaction to their
benefits (adapted from Chapelle, 2003)
Types of interaction
Interpersonal
interaction

Intrapersonal
interaction

Benefits

Between people (learner
– native speaker)


Negotiating meaning

Between person and
computer (learner computer)

Acquiring enhanced
or modified input

Within the person
(learner)’s mind

Focusing attention
on linguistic form in
the input

How interaction with computer promotes
L2 acquisition in light of Chapelle’s (2005)
conceptualization is indexed in the learner’s
exposure to enhanced input displayed on the
computer screen. During this process, the learner
notices input forms and makes form-meaning
mappings, then gradually internalizes those
connections via a course of intrapersonal activity.
This standpoint by Chapelle provides thrust for a
good deal of research. For example, Borrás and
Lafayette (1994) found that accompanying aural
input with L2 subtitles in listening lessons offered
learners input of two modes, to the latter which
they referred to decode the former in terms of not

only general messages but also linguistic forms
and meanings. In another study, Grace (1998)
put learners in contact with L1 translations and
annotations of different types (e.g. written and
visual) to aid comprehension of vocabulary, and
concluded that those enhanced inputs remedied
miscomprehension and prompted noticing. This
line of research has also been extended to the area
of reading comprehension, with Plass et al. (1998)
providing multiple forms of annotations to help with
vocabulary and proving their encouraging effects
on learners’ acquisition. These findings mirror

108

KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

No. 19 (5/2019)

the need and also potential for the introduction
of Interactionist SLA into instructional design.
Given Long’s (1991) argument about the nature of
the Interactionist Theory that only when noticed
and comprehended can input become valid,
instructional materials or CALL tasks should be
designed in a way that key linguistic features are
made salient, and enhancement of linguistic input
is offered (Chapelle, 2007). In the next parts, I
provide definitions of the two input enhancement
methods – annotation and caption, and discuss

them on the grounds of Multimodality and
Interactionist SLA to illuminate how they support
listening comprehension.

5. ANNOTATION AND CAPTION
Annotations are explanatory notes added to
demystify the meaning of an unknown word and
come in three fundamental forms: written, visual/
pictorial, and audiovisual (Jones, 2004). Written
annotations can be L2 definitions or L1 translations
of the target word. Visual/pictorial annotations,
the representation in imagery, and audiovisual
annotations, the support with both pictures and
sounds, may potentially overload listeners if
embedded in an existing audiovisual layer and
seem to be a more appropriate for multimedia
reading texts, so are not within the scope of the
current paper.
Captions refer to “on-screen text in a given
language combined with a soundtrack in the same
language” (Markham & Peter, 2003, p.332). It is
important to distinguish captions from subtitles
which refer to “on-screen text in the same
language of the viewers that accompany the
second language soundtrack of the video material”
(ibid.). In alignment with the nature of authentic
videos as previously mentioned, that is language
input should not be simplified or modified, the
term “captions” is employed to address the matter
under examination in this study. Guillory (1998)

classifies captions into two types: keyword captions
and full captions, with the former highlighting


DISCUSSION v

only words that are either targeted or tough in
their meaning, pronunciation, or morphological
structure by themselves, and the latter displaying
the entire spoken text.

6. DISCUSSION
6.1. Annotated and captioned videos are
multimodal
One of the arguments considered in the present
paper is that annotated and/or captioned videos are
multimodal. In fact, a typical video is multimodal
for its aural and visual representations (with
the understanding that bimodality is a form of
multimodality as mentioned earlier). A written
annotation, when added to a video, makes it
threefold in modality, i.e. aural, visual, and textual.
In a similar vein, when captions, be they keyword
or full, are inserted into a video, they radically
switch it from a piece of two-modality material
into that of three. Figures 2 and 3 below illustrate
this. It is also important to note that annotations
and captions can appear synchronously in a same
video, and language teachers can use different
dynamics, depending on their specific aims. For

example, instead of presenting the textual content
in form of either annotations or captions, they may
do so with both by providing keyword captioning
of a lexical item on the bottom of the screen and
its definition or translation in an annotation bubble
on the top.

Figure 2. Annotation of “the Celts”

Integrating annotations and captions into
videos clearly signifies the plurality of semiotic
modes in accordance with Kress and Van
Leeuwen’s (2001) definition of multimodal
materials. These modes consolidate one another
and provide complementary and mutual support as
in the examples above: the annotated definition of
“the Celts” and the captioned keyword “immense”
(the textual modality) synchronize with the
speaker’s speech (the aural modality). This in
turn generates an eminently interactive product
that aids learning to a great extent as indicated by
literature regarding multimodality, i.e. linguistic
gains, paralinguistic subtleties, and motivational
factors (e.g. Woottipong, 2014; Harmer, 2007;
Jones & Plass, 2002)
6.2. Annotated and captioned videos
promote listening comprehension from the
perspective of Interactionist SLA
The other argument made about annotated and
captioned videos in this paper is that they offer

comprehensible input to facilitate listening
comprehension. According to researchers (e.g.
Kim, 2015), L2 listening comprehension is a
complex process, involving two processes: a topdown process and a bottom-up process. In the topdown process, learners mobilize their “schemata
or background knowledge” to gain the gist and
main ideas of the aural text, while with bottom-up
processing, they are drawn to discrete words and
phrases to decipher the meaning and content (Kim,
2015, p.16).

Figure 3. Keyword captioning of “immense”
KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

No. 19 (5/2019)

109


v DISCUSSION
Regarding top-down processing, annotated
videos serve well on this, in that the annotated
content goes beyond explanation of a lexical word to
the level that is directed at activation of background
knowledge and scaffolding of comprehension.
To the best of my knowledge, this is lacking in
previous studies, so purposely made prominent
in this report. For example, in a video comparing
the size of the Sun with that of other stars in the
universe, I created an annotation with the question
“Is the Sun the largest star in the universe?” to

elicit the learners’ prior knowledge about this
matter and prepare them for what was coming next
in the video (Figure 4). This conforms to Kim’s
(2015) analysis of the top-down listening process
that processing prior knowledge paves the way for
learners’ “grasp of incoming information” (p.16).
Bottom-up processing is catalyzed by
interactions with both annotations of individual
words/phrases and captions. With annotations,
the matter of concern is whether definitions or
explanations should be provided in L1 as in Figure
5 or L2 as in Figure 2. In actuality, the speed of
an authentic video would not afford listeners time
and space to read L2 definitions, so L1 translations
seem to be the ideal option. This can be elucidated
by a body of research about the inextricable link
between L2 words, L1 translations, and pictures
(e.g. Paivio, 1986). Take a further look into Paivio’s
dual coding theory for an example. The theory
postulates that there are two information channels
in the learners’ mind: an L1 verbal channel and

Figure 4: Annotation of a question

110

KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

No. 19 (5/2019)


a nonverbal/imagery channel. The L2 verbal
channel is formed and developed owing to the fact
that the L2 word is connected to the image and L1
verbal subsystem existing in the learner’s mind.
This can be further illustrated from Figure 5, that
is by the time listeners hear the word “the Celts”
and the image depicting these tribes pop up on the
screen, the L1 translation “người xen-tơ” allows
them to assimilate “the Celts” with its meaning
thanks to their consciousness of the L1 and visual
cues. Captions provide half of this route, in this
regard, as far as keyword captions are concerned.
This means that when hearing and seeing the
captioned word and the corresponding image on
the screen, listeners make an interconnection and
thus the form-meaning mapping. In fact, literature
has proved that watching videos with keyword
captions made it easier for learners to understand
the content for decreased cognitive load which
would otherwise be heavy under full caption
condition (Guillory, 1998).
Above all, the described forms of annotations
and captions result in interactive experiences
between the learners and the computer rather
than between the learners and native speakers
as originally stipulated by Interactionist theory
of SLA. Put it differently, they constitute a
technological platform for the learners to interact
with enhanced inputs and benefit from them for
lexical acquisition and comprehension of aural

texts (Chapelle, 2003).

Figure 5: Annotation of “the Celts”


DISCUSSION v

7. CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
The departure point for this paper is that authentic
videos are beneficial for second language learners
in listening comprehension, fundamentally
thanks to genuine situations and linguistic
and paralinguistic elements they provide. On
this premise, the paper revisits annotation and
caption as two input enhancement activities
that can be performed on authentic videos, and
argues that they further aid learners’ linguistic
gains and thus listening comprehension abilities.
From its discussion grounded on the theories of
Multimodality and Interactionist SLA, the paper
arrives at the following practical implications for
language teachers who intend to use authentic
videos in their listening classroom.
[1] Videos should be opted for with the
perception that their authenticity is not reduced on
any level.
[2] Annotations should expand from
explanations and/or definitions of individual words/
phrases to posing of questions for prior knowledge
activation and comprehension scaffolding as

well. When annotations are intentionally aimed at
individual lexical items, they should be done so in
L1 as opposed to L2.
[3] Captions should be supplied in key words
rather than in full for optimal learning experiences.
Perhaps, an experimental study is needed in the future
to genuinely test the effect of these suggestions./.
References:
Borrás, I., & Lafayette, R. C. (1994). Effects of multimedia
courseware subtitling on the speaking performance of
college students of French. Modern Language Journal,
78(1), 61-75.
Campos, R. O. (1992). Authenticity in listening and written texts.
LETRAS, 1(25), 169-194.
Chapelle, C. A. (2003). English language learning and
technology: Lectures on applied linguistics in the age of
information and communication technology. Amsterdam:
John Benjamins Publishing.

Chapelle, C. A. (2007). Technology and second language
acquisition. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 27, 98114.
Chapelle, C. A. (2009). The relationship between second
language acquisition theory and computer-assisted
language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 93,
741-753.
Chapelle, C.A. (2005). CALICO at center stage: Our emerging
rights and responsibilities. CALICO Journal, 23(1), 5-16.
Christopher, E., & Ho, S. (1996). Lights, camera, action:
exploring and exploiting films in self-access learning. Taking
Control: Autonomy in Language Learning, 185-200.

Devitt, S. (1997). Interacting with authentic texts: Multilayered
processes. The Modern Language Journal, 81(4), 457-469.
Ellis, R. (1999). Learning a second language through interaction.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Garrett, N. (2009). Computer-assisted language learning
trends and issues revisited: Integrating innovation. The
Modern Language Journal, 93, 719-740.
Gass, S, M. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second
language learner. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gass, S. M., & Selinker, L. (1994). Second language
acquisition: An introductory course. US: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Geddes, M., & White, R. (1978). The use of semi-scripted
simulated authentic speech in listening comprehension.
Audiovisual Language Journal, 16(3), 137-145.
Genhard, J., G. (1996). Teaching English as a foreign
language:
A
teacher
self-development
and
methodology. Ann Abor: The university of Michigan Press.
Gilmore, A. (2004). A comparison of textbook and authentic
interactions. ELT Journal, 58(4), 363-374.
Grace, C. (1998). Retention of word meanings inferred from
context and sentence-level translations: Implications for
the design of beginning-level CALL software. The Modern
Language Journal, 82(4), 533-544.
Guariento. W., & Morley, J. (2001). Text and task authenticity in

the EFL classroom. ELT Journal, 55(4), 347-353.
Guichon, N., & Cohen, C. (2016). Multimodality and CALL. In
F. Farr, & L. Murray (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of
Language Learning and Technology (509-521). Routledge.
Guichon, N., & McLornan, S. (2008). The effects of multimodality
on L2 learners: Implications for CALL resource design.
System, 36(1), 85-93.
Harmer, J. (2007). The practice of English language teaching.
UK: Pearson Education. 

KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

No. 19 (5/2019)

111


v DISCUSSION

Jones, L. (2004). Testing L2 vocabulary recognition and recall
using pictorial and written test items. Language Learning &
Technology, 8(3), 122-143. 
Jones, L. C., & Plass, J. L. (2002). Supporting listening
comprehension and vocabulary acquisition in French with
multimedia annotations. The Modern Language Journal,
86(4), 546-561.
Kim. H. S. (2015). Using authentic videos to improve EFL
students’ listening comprehension. International Journal of
Contents, 11(4), 15-24.
Kress, G., & Van Leeuwen, T. (20015). Multimodal discourse:

The modes and media of contemporary communication.
London: Oxford University Press.
Long, M. (1991). Focus on Form: A Design Feature in Language
Teaching Methodology. In K. De Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C.
Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign Language Research in CrossCultural Perspectives (39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Markham, P., & Peter, L. (2003). The influence of English
language and Spanish language captions on foreign
language listening/reading comprehension. Journal of
Educational Technology Systems, 31(3), 331-341.
Melvin, B. S., & Stout, D. S. (1987). Motivating language
learners through authentic materials. In W. Rivers (Ed.),
Interactive Language Teaching (44-56). New York:
Cambridge University Press.

Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston. 
Pica, T. (1994). Research on negotiation: What does it reveal
about second language learning conditions, processes,
and outcomes? Language Learning, 44(3), 1-35.
Plass, J. L., Chun, D., Mayer, R., & Leutner, D. (1998).
Supporting visual and verbal learning preferences in
a second-language multimedia learning environment.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(1), 25-36.
Robin, R. (2011). Listening comprehension in the age of Web
2.0. In N. Arnold & L. Ducate (Eds.), Present and Future
Promises of CALL: From Theory and Research to New
Directions in Language Teaching (93-108). CALICO.
Sweller, J., & Chandler, P. A. (2007). The effect of written text on
comprehension of spoken English as a foreign language.
American Journal of Psychology, 120(3), 237-261.

Taylor, D. (1994). Inauthentic authenticity or authentic
authenticity? TESL-EJ, 1(2). Retrieved from />Tomlinson, B. (2013). Introduction: Are materials developing?
In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Developing Materials for Language
Teaching (2nd ed.) London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Wallace, C. (1992). Reading. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Morrow, K. (1977). Authentic texts and ESP. In S. Holden (Ed.),
English for Specific Purposes (13-17). London: Modern
English Publications.

Winke, P., Gass, S., & Sydorenko, T. (2010). The effects of
captioning videos used for foreign language listening
activities. Language Learning & Technology, 14(1), 65-86.

Oura, G. K. (2001). Authentic task-based materials: Bringing
the real world into the classroom. Sophia Junior College
Faculty Bulletin, 21, 65-84.

Woottipong, K. (2014). Effect of Using Video Materials in
the Teaching of Listening Skills for University Students.
International Journal of Linguistics, 6(4), 200-212.

SỬ DỤNG VIDEO ĐỜI THỰC CÓ CHÚ THÍCH, PHỤ ĐỀ ĐỂ NÂNG CAO KỸ NĂNG
NGHE HIỂU TIẾNG ANH: THẢO LUẬN TỪ GÓC ĐỘ CỦA LÝ THUYẾT TƯƠNG TÁC
NGUYỄN XUÂN NGHĨA
Tóm tắt: Với việc các nghiên cứu trước đã chỉ ra lợi ích của video đời thực đối với kỹ năng
nghe hiểu Tiếng Anh, bài viết này chứng minh rằng chú thích và phụ đề khi được đưa vào video
đời thực sẽ giúp người học cải thiện hơn nữa vốn từ vựng và kỹ năng nghe hiểu của mình. Bài
viết cũng sẽ thảo luận tác dụng của hai hình thức này trên cơ sở lý thuyết về Đa phương thức và
Thuyết tương tác của Lý thuyết thụ đắc ngôn ngữ thứ hai. Ở phần cuối là một số gợi ý cho giáo

viên khi sử dụng video đời thực có chú thích và phụ đề vào mục đích giảng dạy.
Từ khoá: nghe hiểu, video đời thực, chú thích, phụ đề, đa phương thức, lý thuyết tương tác
Ngày nhận bài: 20/4/2019; ngày sửa chữa: 14/5/2019; ngày duyệt đăng: 17/5/2019

112

KHOA HỌC NGOẠI NGỮ QUÂN SỰ

No. 19 (5/2019)