Conclusions and Recommendations. Bibliography

To conclude, CALL and website e-learning developers need to remember that teachers need to be able to scale their language and vocabulary learning activities from those that require simpler and easier processing for lower level students, to activities that require deeper and more complex lexical processing for more advanced language learners using various kinds of EDs, both online and offline, whether stationary or mobile. It is also important for teachers to give more clear guidance about particular kinds of EDs, especially including good online programs for learning, to help maximize the use of their functions for education.

We can only help maximize each program’s effectiveness if students learn how to use their various functions as efficiently as possible to help them at each stage of processing new words outlined above. Further helpful guidelines and goals to examine when seeking to integrate new insights and innovations from CALL into the field of foreign language reading and vocabulary development are given by Sokmen (46).

In her words, among the many areas in need of further systematic research in this field, ‘‘we need to take advantage of the possibilities inherent in computer-assisted learning, especially hypertext linking, and create software which is based on sound principles of vocabulary acquisition theory ... programs which specialize on a useful corpus... provide.. .[for] expanded rehearsal, and engage the learner on deeper levels and in a variety of ways as they practice vocabulary. There is also the fairly unchartered world of the Internet as a source for meaningful activities for the classroom and for the independent learner’’ (p. 257).

In this way, using proven portable devices, multimedia translation software, and well-designed, interactive websites as much as possible, language learning can be made much more interesting and effective as these CALL resources are all used as tools for developing more balanced communication skills, which emphasize blending active production and interactive, content-based learning with authentic tasks and materials made much more accessible, comprehensible, and memorable with the help of modern technology. All in all, we can be quite optimistic about the future of EDs, as de Schryver (25) is. Listing 118 ‘‘lexicographers’ dreams’’ in summarized tables, he masterfully ‘‘incorporates almost every speculation ever made about electronic dictionaries (EDs)’’ (p. 61) in Roby’s terms (47).

Roby (47) further notes that not only technical hardware, but also human ‘‘fleshware’’ is the most crucial element when designing EDs, otherwise users may drown in a sea of data. One cannot drink efficiently from a fire hose. As he states, ‘‘Sophisticated software and huge hardware cannot guarantee the quality of an electronic dictionary... Good online dictionaries will be equipped with ‘spigots’ that allow users to draw manageable amounts of information... Information must be internalized for it to be considered knowledge.’’ In the vast reaches of virtual e-learning cyberspace, one does indeed require a common gold standard compass, or better yet, a virtual Rosetta Stone for language learning, such as those helpful sites provided here.

As second language learners venture into ‘‘terra incognita’’ they do need clear maps and strategies to improve their navigation on various Web-Quests for knowledge. Roby (47, p. 63) correctly asserts that ‘‘Dictionaries can be guides because they ‘potentially intersect with every text of the language: in a sense all texts lead to the dictionary’ (quoting Nathan)... Learners can make forays into cyberspace with an electronic dictionary as a navigational [tool]. And in a real sense, one can expect to see portable, wireless dictionaries that will both allow physical mobility and afford Internet access.’’ (In fact, most mobile phones and Wi-Fi laptops already do).

Tailoring computerized dictionaries to effectively support learners’ needs will require specific attention to their types, functions, and uses to best guide learners and teachers to most effective integration of these portable and online tools into language and science education. Research is showing us that all future EDs would do well to include preorganized categories of terms, searchable by topic and semantic field.

Five examples of these already found online include: 1) UCREL’s Semantic Analysis System located at http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/ucrel/usas/ with 21 major A-Z discourse fields; 2) Variation in English Words and Phrases (VIEW) at http://view.byu.edu/; 3) this writer’s bilingualized Semantic Field Keyword Approach covering about 2000 intermediate to advanced terms in nine academic disciplines found at: http://www.call4all.us///misc/ sfka.php; 4) ThinkMap’s Visual Thesaurus at http:// www.visualthesaurus.com/index.jsp7vt ; and 5) Wordnet found at http://wordnet.princeton.edu/. This writer’s www.CALL4ALL.us site helps to integrate essential, common core vocabulary in many ofthese academic disciplines with most web dictionaries for 500 major world language pairs. For an overview, see its site map at ( http://www. call4all.us///home/_all.php?fi=0) or see Loucky (32,48,49).

In the final analysis, probably what learners are guided to do with new terms will prove to be a more important learning factor than multimedia glossing and text concor-dancer options alone can provide. New technologies do indeed offer more powerful resources than ever before for independent or classroom study of languages.

Word learning options will probably be best maximized when computing power is used to enhance learners’ access to various types of EDs of high quality simultaneously in all fields, while likewise providing them with the means to autoarchive and organize new target vocabulary as they are shown how to actively use these new terms productively as soon as possible.

Bibliography:
1. F. T. Dolezal and D. R. McCreary, Pedagogical Lexicography Today: A Critical Bibliography on Learners’ Dictionaries with Special Emphasis on Language Learners and Dictionary Users. Lexicographica, Series Maior 96. Tubingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 1999.

2. B. Laufer and M. Kimmel, Bilingualized dictionaries: how learners really use them, System, 25: 361-362, 1997.
3. R.Lew, Which dictionary for whom? Receptive use of bilingual, monolingual and semi-bilingual dictionaries by Polish learners of English. Poznan: Motivex, 2004.

4. B. Laufer and T. Levitzky-Aviad, Towards a bilingualized dictionary for second language production. AsiaLEX, Singapore, 2005, pp. 1-6.

5. J. P. Loucky, Assessing the potential of computerized bilingual dictionaries for enhancing English vocabulary learning, in P. N. D. Lewis, (ed.), The Changing Face of CALL: A Japanese Perspective,Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger, 2002, pp. 123-137.

6. J. P. Loucky, Comparing translation software and OCR reading pens. In M. Swanson, D. McMurray, and K. Lane (eds.), Pan-Asian Conference 3 at 27^thInternational Conference of JALT, National Conference Proceedings CD, Kitakyushu, Japan, 2002, pp. 745-755.