Summary Transcript vs. Real-Time Captions: Which is Better?

Key points:

In recent years, the education sector has rapidly adopted closed captioning, driven not only by its positive impact on comprehension and inclusive learning, but also by the need to meet accessibility standards and provide accommodations for diverse learning styles.

While K-12 schools and higher education institutions have made considerable efforts to meet accessibility standards (and should be applauded for that effort), one in four lawsuits in education focus on accessibility. Therefore, the focus on captioning, a requirement in K-12 education and higher education, has intensified.

As technology advances, we've seen other tools emerge, including summary transcription. When choosing between summary transcription and real-time captioning, it's critical to understand which is right for your organization.

Summary Transcript: What and Why

Summary transcription, a form of “speech-to-text services,” provides “meaning-for-meaning” transcriptions by summarizing the essence of a discussion or other spoken content. This service aims to convey the speaker's intended meaning in as few words as possible so that the reader can quickly understand the information and participate in the discussion. Because it is intended for quick comprehension, it is measured in terms of how closely the content captures the speaker's intended meaning, but does not take into account precise words.

Transcriptionists of summary transcripts are often trained in text condensation strategies. They offer real-time summary transcripts for conferences, meetings, and live events, whether remotely or in the classroom.

Real-time subtitles: when and why

Real-time captioning is performed by professionally trained captioners, automated speech recognition (ASR), or a combination of both. Unlike summary transcription, real-time captioning provides verbatim, “word-for-word” transcripts in real time. Since verbatim transcription aims to capture every word spoken in a discussion, the accuracy of real-time captioning is meticulously measured in terms of word error rates and formatting error rates. The word error rate represents the percentage of incorrect words, while the format error rate considers errors in punctuation, grammar, speaker identification, non-speech elements, capitalization, and other notations.

While there is currently no definitive legal requirement for live captioning accuracy rates, the industry standard for captioning on recorded content is 99 percent, which provides some context for where accuracy rates should be. live.

Real-time captions can be delivered to students in several ways. If the student is in person, she can receive captions on a second screen, such as a tablet or laptop. Alternatively, real-time captions can be delivered remotely through solutions such as Communication Access Realtime Translation, or CART, which adapt to student preferences.

Although more expensive due to intensive training for stenographers and voice writers, real-time captioning is often necessary as an accommodation for students who are deaf or hard of hearing, ensuring an equitable experience as required by the Education Act. Americans with Disabilities (ADA).

What to select

The decision to use a real-time captioning service or a summary transcription service ultimately depends on the needs and preferences of the student, as these two tools, while serving similar purposes, have different applications.

Meaning-for-meaning transcription is aimed at consumers who prioritize the general meaning of what is said over textual details. For students who want to understand the general gist of a discussion rather than each word, the summary transcript can be a great option—an academic SparkNotes, if you will!

Students with hearing impairments, who can hear some or most of the spoken content but may need reinforcement from written text, may prefer to use meaning-for-meaning transcription. Conversely, d/Deaf students could opt for real-time subtitles as a necessary accommodation.

It is important to remember that the benefits of closed captioning or real-time transcription extend beyond people who are deaf or hard of hearing. Students with attention deficit disorder, for example, often find that closed captioning provides the reinforcement they need to stay focused during and after class.

Bottom line: Real-time closed captioning is an essential adaptation, while the summary transcript serves as a valuable study tool that cannot replace closed captioning as an adaptation.

The value of both for fully inclusive learning environments

While the summary transcript serves as a valuable study resource, it falls short of providing the “equal experience” required by the ADA. The real strength lies in the strategic integration of tools like real-time captioning and summary transcription. This not only aligns with the principles of Universal Design for Learning (UDL), but also shows a commitment to inclusive education.

By incorporating real-time closed captioning, educational institutions demonstrate their dedication to ensuring that hearing-impaired students can fully participate in live educational content. At the same time, the use of summary transcripts helps streamline access to essential course material, supporting effective study and knowledge retention.

Both technologies contribute to creating a more inclusive and supportive learning environment. Adopting these technologies demonstrates a commitment to addressing diverse learning needs and ensuring that all students have the opportunity to excel academically. As educational practices continue to evolve, the integration of these tools will play a crucial role in promoting equal access to educational content and improving the overall learning experience for students.