Surveying of Elevtronic Dictionaries

To more thoroughly analyze and compare the types of dictionaries being used by Japanese college students in three college engineering classes, two kinds of surveys were designed by Loucky (29). The first was a general survey about purchase, use, and preferences regarding electronic dictionaries. The second survey (shown in the Appendix) asked questions about how various computerized functions were used at each major phase of lexical processing.

The aim was to help learners maximize these eight essential phases of vocabulary learning: (1) assessing degree of word knowledge; (2) accessing new word meanings; (3) archiving new information for study; (4) analyzing word parts and origins; (5) anchoring new words in short-term memory; (6) associating words in related groups for long-term retention; (7) activating words through productive written or oral use; and (8) reviewing/recycling and re-testing them.

After re-evaluating how well new words are learned by post-tests, any words not fully understood should be remet through planned re-encounters, retellings, and activities that encourage learners to repeat the vocabulary learning cycle again so that relearning and reactivation can take place.

The first survey described Japanese college students’ preferences and reasons for purchasing EDs. The second showed self-reported use of PEDS and how their respective functions were seen to aid in different phases of L2 vocabulary learning. Students compared their use to that of print dictionaries. A majority of East Asian students surveyed expressed a preference for using mobile or online dictionaries rather than carry bulkier book dictionaries, although a few English students carry both.

These ED preferences and patterns of use need more investigation, but probably hold true wherever the level of economic development is sufficient to support their purchase, as well as the use and availability of Internet access to online dictionary and Webreader glossing functions.

Kobayashi (33) compared the use of pocket electronic versus printed dictionaries to examine the effects of their use on LPSs used. The three major strategies she distinguished were consulting, inferring versus ignoring new terms. She found that ‘‘Pocket electronic dictionaries (PEDs) are rapidly becoming popular among L2 learners. Although many L2 learners depend on dictionaries, the prevalent view among L2 researchers and educators is that learners should use dictionaries sparsely.

They encourage students to use another lexical processing strategy (LPS), contextual guessing, for better vocabulary learning and reading comprehension. [But] are dictionaries indeed so harmful?’’ (p. 2).

As some educators and researchers have been concerned about the pedagogical value of EDs because of their perceived limitations, such as insufficient information provided, the possibility of discouraging contextual guessing, and a supposed negative impact on word retention (34-38), these educators’ and researchers’ concerns require more investigation.

So far, however, language learners’ preference for them, and EDs’ rapidly improving functions appear to be scuttling most of these previous claims. Although native readers have far larger working vocabularies to guess from context, most second language readers prefer and benefit greatly from having both monolingual and bilingual/mother tongue glosses available to them. Kobayashi (39) found that

1. More than two-thirds of the students owned a PED, and most of those who owned a PED exclusively used it regardless of purposes.

2. The PEDs owned by most students cost $100-$400, were of high quality, and did not have the disadvantages identified in other studies, such as brief definitions, the absence of examples, and inaccurate information.

3. Most students were satisfied with their PEDs, especially with their portability, and ease to look up a word, and ease to change from one dictionary to another.

4. The perceived disadvantages included the relative unavailability (or inaccessibility) of detailed usage information, examples, and grammatical information.

5. PEDs enabled students to use different types of dictionaries in different places.
6. Although both PED users and PD users depended on dictionaries, PED users used dictionaries more often. This was especially the case with smaller vocabulary size students.

7. PD users and PED users did not significantly differ in terms of their LPS use, except for the sheer frequency of dictionary consultation.
8. There was a possibility that PED users consulted dictionaries at the expense of contextual guessing.

9. Although students depended on dictionaries, whether PEDs or PDs, they also used guessing strategies frequently. They often used a dictionary to confirm guessed meaning. This was particularly the case with successful students.

10. Larger and smaller vocabulary size students differed in their use of LPSs such as basic dictionary use, extended dictionary use for meaning, extended dictionary use for usage, extended dictionary use for grammatical information, lookup strategies, note-taking strategies, guessing strategies using immediate context, guessing strategies using wider context, combined use of LPSs, and selective use of LPSs.

11. Higher and lower reading ability students differed in their use of LPSs such as basic dictionary use, extended dictionary use for meaning, extended dictionary use forusage, extended dictionary use for grammatical information, lookup strategies, self-initiation, note-taking strategies, guessing strategies using immediate context, guessing strategies using wider context, and selective use of LPSs (p.2).