See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/311441286

EFL Teachers' and Students' Perceptions of Dictionary Use and Preferences

Article in International Journal of Linguistics · December 2016

DOI: 10.5296/ijl.v8i6.10267

CITATIONS READS

23 1,674

1 author:

Eid Alhaisoni
Imam Muhammad bin Saud Islamic University
20 PUBLICATIONS 460 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Eid Alhaisoni on 16 March 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

EFL Teachers' and Students' Perceptions of Dictionary

Use and Preferences

Eid Alhaisoni
Department of English Language, College of Arts, University of Ha’il, Ha’il, Saudi
Arabia
E-mail: eid.alhaisoni@gmail.com

Received: Nov. 6, 2016 Accepted: Nov. 18, 2016 Published: December 6, 2016
doi:10.5296/ijl.v8i6.10267 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/ijl.v8i6.10267

Abstract
The present study provides insights into the perception of EFL teachers (Native and
Non-native) and students of dictionary use. Participants were 99 (56 NS and 43 NNS) EFL
teachers and 3993 (1815 male and 2178 female) students and were invited to respond to a
questionnaires. 40 students participated in a follow-up interview. The results indicate that
students overwhelmingly prefer bilingual dictionary to another type of dictionaries. Moreover,
the students reported using online dictionaries and Google translator significantly more than
print dictionaries. The study also revealed that meaning was reported to be the most lexical
information sought by the subjects of the current study. Furthermore, the findings showed
that most of the students refer to their dictionaries for word meaning and spelling but pay
little attention to other aspects such as pronunciation, illustrated examples, and collocations.
The findings revealed that EFL teachers held different perceptions on the role of the
dictionary in their learning and teaching experiences. The results of the study suggest that the
EFL teachers should incorporate ongoing training about dictionary use in the
teaching-learning process and make the students aware of the extensive vocabulary input
available in the standard dictionaries. Exposure to the parts of speech and collocation in
dictionary entries can be useful for improving productive language abilities.
Keywords: Native speaker, non-speaker, EFL, Preparatory year, EFL

31 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

1. Introduction
Vocabulary is considered to be the most important source of language proficiency (Carter
&McCarthy, 1988). EFL students employ vocabulary-learning strategies (VLS) to deal with
unknown words they encounter. Hence, dictionaries are one of the most common lexical
resource available in the form of books or in electronic versions where EFL students use VLS
to acquire new vocabulary. Using these strategies efficiently and successfully for learning
new words can lead to autonomy in students. Learners feel more confident in the ability to
use a dictionary (Gonzalez, 1999). According to Tseng (2009) cited in Sevik (2014),
dictionaries are trustworthy companions to second and foreign language learners because it
guides them to uncover the meanings of unknown words. Research into the dictionary use
reveals that they were only a few empirical studies before the 1980s (Nesi, 2014). Sevik
(2014) argues that research on dictionary ownership, preferences, and attitudes its affects are
not given equal importance in EFL contexts. Moreover, it has only drawn the attention of
researchers and educators in the last three decades. A review of related literature in the use
of dictionaries in Saudi EFL context indicates that there are few studies carried out in the
field and the first study was conducted by Al-jarf (1999). Nesi (2014) points out that the
history of research into dictionary use was characterized by small-scale studies carried out in
a variety of different contexts, rather than large-scale, long-term funded projects. Since
there is a need for a large-scale study focusing on preferences, attitudes and choice of
dictionary use, the present research intends to bridge these gaps in the field lexicography.
While teaching the Preparatory Year Intensive English Language Program students, at the
University of Hail, the researcher observed that most of them lack skills as well as the desire
to use the dictionaries that are available in printed versions. It was also noticed that they
prefer to use online dictionaries, but even while using these online dictionaries, they fail to
take advantage of the rich information provided in the dictionary entries. These observations
triggered the need to investigate and explore the reasons for such problems. Therefore, a
study was conducted focusing on the students’ as well as the teachers’assumptions and
perceptions concerning dictionary practices in the Preparatory Year, at the University of Hail,
Saudi Arabia. The present study intends to explore the students’ choice and preferences to a
particular dictionary/dictionaries as well as to find out possible ways to train them to use a
dictionary in the best possible way.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Learners' Use and Preferences
Dictionary is considered as an effective and reliable source for learning vocabulary in a
second or a foreign language (Ali, 2012). Moreover, dictionaries are a vital pedagogical tool
that exerts much influence in language learning, but the question is which kind of a dictionary
should the EFL students use?
The availability of monolingual and bilingual dictionaries in traditional forms (books) and
electronic versions resulted in diverse beliefs among the academicians. Although there is a
common belief that monolingual dictionaries are beneficial regarding their usefulness as

32 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

language learning tools, the findings from surveys suggests that learners prefer bilingual
dictionaries because it serves the dual purpose of translation as well as reference to
monolingual entries. During the late 1990s, some studies compared electronic dictionaries
with printed versions. Research into dictionary use shows that when students have a choice
among dictionaries, the majority of L2 learners including those with a high level of L2
proficiency prefer bilingual dictionaries. (Tomaszczyk, (1979), Atkins and Varantola (1998),
Schmitt (1997), Laufer (1997). It is observed that the low proficient learners feel insecure
using a monolingual dictionary because it requires L2 knowledge while on the other hand
find bilingual dictionaries useful. Scholfield (1982) reasons out that learners use bilingual
dictionaries because they can easily find the meanings or translations of unknown L2 words
in their L1 as well. According to Stein (1989), the use of a bilingual dictionary for
comprehension is effective because it provides a general understanding of certain kinds of
words, such as the entries related to biological science, cultural institutions as well as
scientific and cultural terms. She points out that the use of bilingual dictionaries is effective
because they provide ready translation equivalents for common words and exact translation
equivalents for institutional technical and scientific terms.
Thompson (1987:286) supported the development of “a new generation of learners’ bilingual
dictionaries” and argued against monolingual dictionaries. He opines that monolingual
dictionaries tend to be orbicular in defining the entries, e.g., an entry laugh, has synonyms
amuse, amusement, humour. One can also observe that these entries are routinely used as
synonyms for each other's definitions. However, in the context of vocabulary definitions
being restricted, monolingual dictionaries might still “employ a special register which is not
necessarily the most useful or rewarding for learners to be exposed to” (Thompson 1987:284),
and so they are considered to have less value to entry level EFL students. However, Laufer
(1997) argues that even if the majority learners tend to use a bilingual dictionary, it does not
imply that bilingual dictionaries are always reliable. According to Bejoint (1981:47), “those
learners who use monolingual dictionaries would help them to get into the habit of thinking in
the target language.” These observations reveal that there are advantages as well as
shortcomings and drawbacks in using bilingual dictionaries as well. In the past, researchers
argued that bilingual dictionaries narrow down the thinking process of L2 learners in the
target language and L2 learners may cultivate the tendency to understand L2 words by way of
translating them to L1 (Stein 1989, Scholfield 1995). Also, bilingual dictionaries have more
than one L1 or L2 equivalents for a given L2 or L1 entry which might pose a problem for the
dictionary users. Unlike the intermediate or advanced learners who have a certain command
of the target language, the entry- level EFL beginners are likely to be confused by
undifferentiated lists of translation equivalents, and so they may find themselves unable to
select an appropriate equivalent for the given text (Stein 1989).
Tomaszczyk (1979) conducted the first survey of the dictionary requirements of English
learners. The findings of Tomaszczyk’s study suggests that despite their perception that
bilingual dictionaries were inferior in terms of content and reliability, the subjects reported
more use of bilingual dictionaries when compared to monolingual dictionaries.
“Not only did the beginning and the intermediate FL learners rely on the bilingual

33 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

dictionaries almost exclusively, but also secondary school and university language teachers
used them more than L2 and other monolingual dictionaries, even though the latter were
available to them" (Tomaszczyk, p. 46).
Similar findings were reported in the studies conducted by Bejoint (1981), Schmitt (1997),
Laufer (1997), Lew (2004), AlQahtani (2005), and Schmitt’s (1997) that Japanese EFL
students prefer a bilingual dictionary regardless of their achievement level. The results of a
comprehensive study carried out on 1000 learners in seven European countries by Atkins &
Knowles (1990, cited in Laufer 1997), suggest that a majority (75%) of the students used
bilingual dictionaries.
Laufer and Melamed (1997) carried the first in a series of studies comparing the effect of
different dictionary types. These researchers relied on Longman dictionary of contemporary
English, The Megiddo modern dictionary (bilingual) and the Oxford student dictionary for
Hebrew speakers (bilingualised). After consulting entries from these dictionaries, the
researchers tested 123 students for their reading comprehension and production of words. The
results showed that comprehension scores for the user of the bilingualised dictionary were
significantly better than those for others users.The study also revealed that production scores
for users of bilingualised and bilingual dictionaries were significantly better than those of
monolingual users. However, the monolingual dictionary was found to be least effective, thus
challenging the view that it is the best choice for language learners. This study is an evidence
of the importance of the bilingualised dictionary over bilingualised dictionaries.
Laufer and her associates continued to investigate the effectiveness of various dictionary
types. Laufer and Levitzky-Aviad (2006) in their study introduced the concept of a
bilingualised dictionary for language production which provides English translation option
and usage for L1 search terms. Students were given the task of translating sentences from
Hebrew into English using a standard bilingualised dictionary with English monolingual
entries and L2 translation and a standard L1-L2 bilingual dictionary.They also rated the
dictionaries in terms of usefulness. Results for the bilingualised dictionary were significantly
better than for the other dictionary types. These studies reveal the fact that monolingual
dictionaries are used less frequently when compared to that of bilingual dictionaries in EFL
contexts.
It is also observed that the positive and negative characteristic features of monolingual and
bilingual dictionaries often influence the EFL learners choice of one dictionary to the another.
According to Baxter (1980), the positive features of a dictionary include a comprehensive
coverage of information about each L2 word, such as its accurate explanation and syntactic
construction. He is of the opinion that a monolingual dictionary gives definitions as well as
other important aspects. Baxter believes that the monolingual dictionaries promote fluency
because they offer definitions in contexts when compared to the bilingual dictionaries which
tend to give the word for word translation equivalents. He supports the use of monolingual
dictionaries and opines that bilingual dictionaries might cause confusion and ambiguity and
may not be appropriate in certain situations. In contrast, Yorio (1971); and Bensoussan et al.
(1984) argue that monolingual dictionaries often compel the students to guess and predict the

34 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

meanings which inturn can lead to doubt and confusion while the bilingual dictionaries tend to
give security of definite answers. Furthermore, monolingual dictionaries are likely to give a
long and confusing description that might not suggest the intended and desired meaning.
However, the views of Thompson (1987) also suggests the monolingual dictionaries can be a
hindrance because the learners may not be able to access an L2 item which they do not know,
and also the use of L2 for definitions and examples can cause problems for learners. Another
issue with monolingual dictionaries was raised by Nesi and Meara (1994), who showed that
many adult learners systematically misinterpret dictionary entries while using monolingual
dictionaries. Therefore, the authors question the effectiveness of definitions in EFL
dictionaries. According to Nesi and Meara (1994: 14) there are two reasons for that: firstly,
“dictionary users latch onto a part of the dictionary definition without really understanding
how it relates to the word they are looking up"; secondly "the dictionary entries were actually
misleading given the starting point of the user"
Scholfield (1982, 1999) states that we are mistaken if we think that learners can open the
dictionary and be provided with words to fit with the context. To avoid making mistakes, he
advises the users to follow Underhill's (1980:88) and Scholfield (1999) advice of scanning all
the given definitions in the entry before considering the best choice. On the other hand, some
studies recently starting investigating and comparing conventional dictionaries versus
electronic dictionaries. When students need to look up information about words or lexical
phrases, they have several dictionary resources from which to choose, including paper-based,
online resources, and handheld electronic devices.Traditionally, paper dictionaries have been
a common choice for the EFL students. Picture dictionaries give essential vocabulary in word
form along with illustrations instead of definitions and it is very helpful for low proficient
learners (Wolter, 2015).
With the rise in technological development, the use of conventional book dictionaries has
decreased because of advancements in computer-mediated tools. Studies conducted in the last
20 years found that English language learners in classrooms had embraced using electronic
dictionaries over paper-based dictionaries (Al-Jarf, 1999; Tang, 1997,). However, few studies
have researched electronic dictionary use (Liou, 2000; Liu & Lin, 2011).The two kinds of
computer-mediated look-up aids identified by Liu and Lin (2011) are the online type-in
dictionary and the pop-up dictionary. They recognized that a desired word or phrase could be
searched using the online type-in dictionary and a pop-up dictionary. Morever, they are also
useful because the words in a text can be selected or clicked to make the dictionary entries
appear alongside the text on the screen. Bower and McMillan (2006) found that 96% of the
students owned electronic dictionaries, and 90% of them were very active electronic users on
reading and writing task (writing 53% and 37%). There has been an ever increasing interest
in the use of electronic dictionaries for learning of foreign languages. The availability and
quick access to electronic dictionaries influenced student community across the nations to
make use this valuable resource. Also, many studies were conducted to evaluate students'
perception on and attitudes toward the use of electronic dictionaries. The results of most the
studies showed that students adopt very positive attitudes towards the use of electronic
dictionaries either in reading or writing and also found it beneficial for their learning

35 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

(Dashtestani, 2013). In his study, Wsechler (2000) came to a conclusion that while using a
paper-based dictionary, the average look-up time for ten words was 168 seconds (about 17
seconds per word), whereas an electronic dictionary requires 130 seconds per word (about 13
seconds per word). Weschler's findings suggests that the students could look up words about
23% faster with an electronic dictionary. It is also observed that the current models of smart
phones and notepads are capable of offering a variety of educational applications, or apps,
such as dictionaries. Type-in computer-mediated dictionaries offer a more convenient way to
search for words (Liu & Lin, 2011) and do not require that users have the alphabetical
knowledge, a skill that many EFL students lack.
2.2 Information User Checks in Dictionaries
It is quite common among the dictionary users to look-up for information in dictionaries.
Many researchers were interested in researching on the kind of information that L2 learners
tend to look-up while using dictionaries. In the past, there were many different studies
conducted in this area. However, these studies were found difficult to compare because of the
overlapping categories of information found in these studies. An important finding presented
in most of the earlier studies points to the fact that L2 learners refer to their dictionaries for
the purpose of meaning making. Further, there also seems to be a lack of clarity among the
researchers while referring to the categories such as L1 translation of an equivalent L2
vocabulary, definitions and synonyms of an L2 word, translation of an L1 word into L2. In
order to overcome this vagueness on ‘meaning-making,' researchers should be precise about
what constitutes a word meaning because a reference to‘meaning' may often not include the
categories mentioned above. Often EFL students might be interested in learning the
translation equivalent of an L2 word in L1 rather than the meaning of an L2 word. It is also
observed that students rarely use dictionaries to look-up a word pronunciation, collocations,
usage, etymology or parts of speech. Svensen (1993: 9) stated that: ‘the types of linguistic
information needed in the dictionary are of course determined by the types of linguistic
activity’. While referring to dictionaries, EFL learners might also consciously engage in
decoding as well as progress in learning new vocabulary items from monolingual or bilingual
dictionaries. During the process of decoding, it is quite natural to target on the word meaning,
but while in learning, it may perhaps be any lexical information (Nakamura 2000; Lew 2004).
Decoding is considered to be a primary activity often associated with dictionary use. The
dictionary users might initially prefer looking up for the word meaning and also progress
towards referring to the spelling or grammar that fits their decoding process. In an
investigation conducted by Harvey &Yuill (1997) on the use of monolingual dictionary by L2
learners during writing tasks, students reported that they checked for spellings more often
than for any other lexical information. It is observed that surveys often do not differentiate
between the types of word information from the types of words which dictionary users
look-up. According to Bѐjoint (1981), a few of the most looked-up words include entries
related to idioms, abbreviations, encyclopedic words, culture-specific words, taboo words,
function words, and common words.
This observation requires more systematic study, as does how successful the learner was in
achieving their “look-up” goals in relation to all these distinctions. However, nowadays with

36 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

the capability of the automatic logging of lookups when using online dictionaries these
uncertainties can be satisfactorily addressed (de Schryver&Joffe 2004). The interaction
between information type and dictionaries also needs attention. Sánchez Ramos (2005) found
the same top two types of information (meaning, spelling) sought in both bilingual and
monolingual dictionary use. The findings of Atkins & Varantola (1998) suggest that subjects
use bilingual dictionaries to find equivalents while they refer to monolingual dictionaries to
confirm their notions about the familiar equivalents.
3. Method
3.1 Subjects
The target participants in the study were 3993 (male and female) Saudi EFL students enrolled
in an intensive English language program in the Preparatory Year Program at the University
of Ha'il. After the completion of the enrollment process, these students take a placement test,
wherein their current levels of language proficiency is tested. The scores in the placement test
helps to determine the level (first, second, third, or fourth) to which a student has to register
in the Preparatory Year Programme. Since the main goal of the Preparatory Year is to prepare
the students for university undergraduate courses, the learning objectives of the course are
based on helping learners to develop their communicative, general and academic English
skills. The program has four levels, beginning with level one for the beginners and level four
is the advanced level course, which all the students need to complete before progressing to an
undergraduate university course. As mentioned earlier, the scores in the placement tests
determine to which a level a student has to register, thus, allowing students to register for
different levels, beginning from level one and the advanced being the fourth level. It also
implies that not all the students follow the same linear path of progression from the lowest to
the advanced levels. This variation in the language needs, as well as the field of study, is
reflected in the curriculum as well. The curriculum in level four is tailored to match the
proficiency levels as well as the field of study. If the students are opting for the medical field,
the content of the course will be related to medical English, as it will prepare them for the
health sciences colleges. On the other hand, if the students are opting for majoring in science,
level four will focus on English for Specific Purposes (ESP) syllabi because it is expected to
help them to progress to the field of science and engineering. Furthermore, the students
opting for majoring in humanities are supposed to study academic English in level four, so as
to enable them to cope up with their future undergraduate level courses of the humanities and
social sciences colleges.
3.2 Teachers

Gender Male Female

41 58

Mother tongue Native speaker of English Non-native speaker of English

56 43

37 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

Nationalities USA UK Canada Arabs Asia West South Africa

Europe

10 14 5 37 5 1 27

Qualifications CELAT TEFL Certificates MA in TESOL, ELT and Other

Applied Linguistics

17 29 41 12

Teaching One year 2-5 years 6-10 years More than 10 years

experience 3 36 31 29

As shown in the table (1) above, 99 English language teachers (41 males and 58 females)
volunteered to participate in this study. The teachers are from different nationalities such as
United States, UK, South Africa, Europe, Asia and the Arab world. Among them, 56 are
native speakers of English while 41 are non-native speakers of English. As shown in the table
above, these teachers are well-qualified and have obtained their degrees in the teaching of
English. However, their teaching experiences vary from two years to twenty-five years. It is
observed that most of them have substantial experience in teaching English at the tertiary
level. In the past, these teachers have traveled and taught English (EFL and ESL) in other
countries as well.
3.3 Instruments
3.3.1 Student Questionnaire
A student questionnaire was administered to gather information about the preferences to
dictionaries and the frequency of dictionary use. The questionnaires of Tomaszczyk (1979),
Baxter (1980), Bejoint (1981), Diab (1989), Battenburg (1990), Schmitt (1997), Atkins and
Varantola (1998), Lew (2004), and Alhaisoni (2008) were reviewed and certain criteria that
seems to be relevant to the student questionnaire have been used for the current research.
However, it required some content validation by two refereed professors of Applied
Linguistics. In order to avoid ambiguity in the language and ensure content validity of the
items, professional Arabic language teachers reviewed the Arabic version of the
questionnaire before being administered to the respondents. The questionnaire consists of 22
items to which students are asked to respond on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 to 5. A
range of 3.5-5 is thought to reflect the high use of that strategy, 2.5-3.4 medium use, and
1.0-2.4 low use (Oxford, 1990). The internal reliability analysis was performed using alpha to
determine the extent to which the items in the questionnaire are related to each other. Alpha
shows the internal consistency, based on the average inter-item correlation. The internal
reliability of the questionnaire was .87.

38 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

3.3.2 Teacher Questionnaire

A closed-ended questionnaire was administered to the teachers on a voluntary basis. Teachers
were asked to respond to a range of closed-ended questions related to dictionary use in the
classroom as well as the training they provide in the class. The questionnaire also focused on
demographic information, such as gender, nationalities, mother tongue and their teaching
experiences.
3.3.3 Semi-Structured Interview
The researcher used a semi-structured interview to probe students' use and preferences of
dictionaries and whether they rely on print or electronic dictionaries. In order to avoid any
influence of the questionnaires on the students’ responses during the interview period, the
questionnaires that were already administered to the students were deleted from the web
portal. The interview was intended to elicit information on the training that students
received on the use of a dictionary. Students’ willingness to participate in the interview
process were also considered before the commencement of the interview. A total of 40
students (male 20, female 20) participated in the interview.
3.4 Procedure
The student and teacher questionnaire were uploaded on the e-services system. This system is
designed mainly only for the Preparatory year students and teachers. The students are
expected to log on into this system using their usernames and passwords to check their
records in the course on a daily basis. On the other hand, teachers use the system to upload
their students' absences and grades and follow up tasks assigned by the head of the
department. The questionnaires were uploaded to the e-service system, wherein, the software
allows the students to have a choice of either skipping it or responding to the items of the
questionnaire. Once a student fills the questionnaire or opts to skip it, the questionnaire does
not again appear on the web page for the second time. At the front webpage of the
questionnaire, students were informed that there were no right or wrong answers to any of the
given questions. They were also told that their responses remain confidential and would be
used for research purposes only.
Data was analyzed using SPSS 19.0. Frequency, means and standard deviation, t-test,
Two-way repeated measure ANOVA tests. P value less than 0.05 was considered significant.
4. Results and Discussion
This section provides an interpretation of the findings of the study and gives a report and
analysis of the types of dictionaries used by Saudi EFL students enrolled in an intensive
English language programme in the preparatory year at the University of Hail. It is followed
with a discussion on the interpretation of the relationship between types of dictionaries used
and proficiency level, gender and track.

39 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

Table 2. Frequency of dictionary use by all subjects in terms of language instructions

Statement Inferential statistics
Mean SD Gender Level Track
t p t p F p
I use E-A dictionary 2.99 1.150 -3.728 .001 -0849 .396 23.266 .001
I use A-E 2.81 1.129 -3.945 .001 .391 .695 .661 .516
dictionary
I use E-E-A 2.38 1.191 1.052 .293 -.729 .466 8.062 .001
dictionary
I use E-E dictionary 2.07 1.091 -.358 .721 -1.725 .085 .721 .486

As shown in table 2, The results indicate that the frequency of dictionary use by Saudi EFL
students was moderate with an overall mean of 2.76 and standard deviation 1.23. Thus, none
in absolute terms is rated ‘frequent.' Based on this study finding, the students in the current
study seem to be relatively less sophisticated dictionary users, using all type of dictionaries at
moderate levels.
Four possible explanations can be offered for this finding. First, the students have just
finished high school and joined the preparatory year program and the high school students
rely more on their teachers’ translation than on dictionaries. Second, the teachers do not
encourage students to buy dictionaries and use them. Third, the participants study English in
an EFL setting and do not need it for daily life. Thus, it was not urgent for them to use
dictionary frequently. Fourth, it might indicate that this sample did not consist of language
learners who were as sophisticated as other groups in other contexts, and this may be due in
part to the lack of an input-rich environment.
The results showed that E-A dictionary is used more frequently than other types of
dictionaries whether overall (2.99) or for each group separately. These differences were
corroborated through one-way repeated measures ANOVA, which showed significant
differences in use of types of dictionaries by all the subjects (F =117.649, p=.001).
To know where the difference lies between the four types of dictionaries, Bonferroni adjusted
multiple comparisons were performed. The results showed that the E-A bilingual dictionary
is used significantly more than all the other types (p=.001). Furthermore, the A-E bilingual
dictionary is used significantly more often than (p=.001) the E-E dictionary which in turn, is
the least-frequently used reference work in the study. On the other hand, no significant
differences were found between other types. The result agrees with the other studies reviewed
in the literature which found that L2-L1 bilingual dictionaries were used more frequently than
other types of dictionaries (Tomaszczyk, 1979; Baxter, 1980;Battenburg, 1989; Schmitt, 1997;
Alqahtani, 2005; Ali & Siddiek,2015; Wolter; 2015). “L2 learners, even those who have
achieved a very high level of L2 proficiency and have been trained in academic skills,
including dictionary use, still reach out for a bilingual dictionary” (Laufer and Hadar,
1997:189).It is very obvious that the subjects of the study rely more frequently on L2-L1
bilingual dictionaries. The reasons for being overdependence could be due to the tendency to
feel that it is not until they know the Arabic translation of an English word that they fully

40 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

understand the meaning of a word.

The A-E bilingual dictionary was the second most used dictionary type among our subjects
(mean, 2.81), (SD=1.12). The result is in line with Al-Jarf (1999) who found that 53% of
Saudi EFL students used the A-E bilingual dictionaries whereas only 27% used the
monolingual and also agrees with what Nakamura (2000) found among Japanese learners of
English. The preference for A-E bilingual dictionaries over monolingual dictionaries could be
related to the students’ needs and the types of courses that they take. A-E bilingual
dictionaries are usually used for production.
The bilingualised dictionary is the third most used dictionary type (mean, 2.38) (SD, 1.19).
This result appears to be inconsistent with what Mackintosh (1998) found among her subjects
in the university of Ottawa. Moreover, Fan (2000) found that the majority of Chinese students
use the bilingualised dictionary. In a more recent study Ali &Siddiek, (2015) found that
Sudanese students disregard bilingualised dictionaries. They found that 44% are not aware of
the existence of bilingualised dictionaries while 42% dismiss them as being of little use. This
result indicates that our subjects are not aware of the existence or advantages of the
bilingualised dictionary. Furthermore, bilingualised dictionaries have not received the
attention they deserve since they absorb the benefits of both worlds (Raudaskoski, 2002).
Regarding the frequency use of monolingual dictionary, the results show that it was the least
used dictionary (mean, 2.07((SD, 1.09). This result goes in line with previous research
(Tomaszczyk, 1979; Baxter, 1980; Battenburg, 1989; Wolter, 2012; Al-Amin & El-Sayed,
2014; Wolter, 2015). Alqahtani (2005) found in his study about the use of VLS that Saudi
students use the monolingual dictionary less frequently when compared with the bilingual
dictionary and electronic dictionary. Moreover, Al-Jarf (1999) found that 23% of Saudi
university students use the monolingual dictionary. It could be argued that lack of L2
vocabulary knowledge to understand monolingual entries caused less use of it. According to
Nesi and Meara, 1994, the monolingual explanation is often only partially understood by
some learners and may be misunderstood by some.
Concerning the effect of gender on the frequency of dictionary use, it is noticed that there is a
significant difference between male and female in the use of E-A and A-E dictionaries
whereas no significant difference between male and female in the use of E-E-A and E-E
dictionaries. The results showed that females use all type of dictionaries more frequently than
males. This result is in line with AlQahtani's (2005) who found in his study that Saudi female
students reported using dictionaries more frequently than males. On the other hand, the
results showed no significant difference in use of all dictionary types with regard to
proficiency level.This finding aligns with Wolter's (2015) findings. However, high proficient
students reported using all dictionary types more frequently than low proficient.
When it comes to the effect of track on the frequency of dictionary use, it showed that there is
a positive correlation between track and the use of E-A and E-E-A dictionaries whereas no
significant differences between the students according to the track and the frequency of E-E
and A-E dictionaries use. To know exactly where the difference lies in the use E-A and
E-E-A dictionaries, we ran the Tukey test and found science and medical use E-A and E-E-A

41 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

dictionaries more frequently than humanity students. The reason might be that the science
and the medical students are studious, and the competition among students is high. They
work hard to get a high GPA to enable them to get a seat in health science colleges and
engineering college. They have to improve their English because the medium of instruction in
their colleges is English. On the other hand, students of Humanities branch will join
education and social science colleges when they finish the preparatory year, and the medium
of instruction is Arabic.
Table 3. Frequency of dictionary use by all subjects in terms of medium
Statement Inferential statistics
Mean SD Gender Level Track
t p t p F P
I use paper 2.14 1.113 -1.305 .192 .773 .439 .807 .446
dictionary
I use HHE 2.36 1.253 -.294 .769 .646 .519 3.934 .020
dictionary
I use my mobile 3.47 1.334 -2.563 .010 -4.647 .001 43.852 .001
I use Google 3.45 1.303 -3.510 .001 -3.396 .001 8.170 .001
translator

The results showed that the students reported using mobile to find the meanings of unknown
words more often than any other kind of dictionary (mean,3.47) (SD 1.334). These
differences were corroborated through one-way repeated measures ANOVA, which showed
significant differences in use of types of dictionaries by all the subjects (F =112.215, p=.001).
In order to know where the differences lie among use of these type of dictionaries, Bonferroni
adjusted multiple comparisons were performed. The results indicate that the mobile
dictionary is statistically significantly different from all other dictionary types except Google
translator where no significant difference. The preference of using mobile dictionary over
other type of dictionaries support Liu & Lin's (2011) argument who claim that developed
smart phones and notepads are capable of offering a variety of educational applications, or
apps, such as dictionaries. Type-in computer-mediated dictionaries offer a more convenient
way to search for words and do not require that users have the alphabetical knowledge, a skill
that many EFL students lack. The students might no longer need conventional dictionaries
where they can get all the information they need instantly.
The second most popular dictionary type among the students was the Google translator,
(mean,3.45), (SD,1.30). This result supports the findings mentioned above where students
reported using their mobile dictionaries to check unknown vocabulary. In the interview, the
students mentioned that they use their mobile to check unknown words either by using
dictionaries installed on their mobiles or using Google translator and this shows the high
frequent use of mobile and Google translator over other type of dictionaries in terms of the
medium. Dwaik (2015) found that the highest reading proficiency is acquired by the students
who use online dictionaries.

42 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

It should be noted here that our subjects use print and HHE dictionaries less frequently and
the mean frequency is below the middle point.
Concerning the effect of gender on the frequency of dictionary use in terms of medium, it
noted that female students use mobile and google translator significantly more than male
students. Several studies have established the existence of gender differences in language
learning. The results indicate that females are more frequent users of strategies (Ehrman and
Oxford, 1989; Green and Oxford, 1995; Oxford, 1993). Green and Oxford (1995) found that
females use strategies more frequently than males.
When it comes to the effect of proficiency levels on the use of the dictionary in terms of
medium, the results showed that high proficiency level students use mobile and google
translator significantly more than low proficiency level students.
When it comes to the effect of track on the frequency of dictionary use in terms of medium, it
showed that there is a positive correlation between track and the use of mobile and google
translator whereas no significant differences between the students according to the track and
the frequency of print and HHE dictionaries use. To know exactly where the difference lies in
the use of mobile and Google translator, we conducted the Tukey test, and found science and
medical use mobile and google translator more frequently than humanity students. This result
supports the findings we mentioned in table 2 where medical and science students use
dictionaries more frequently than the students of humanities.
Table 5. Frequency of lexical information sought by all
Statement Inferential statistics
Mean SD Gender Level Track
t p t p F p
To know meaning 3.29 1.271 -2.403 .016 -.534 .396 9.979 .001
in Arabic
Arabic to English 3.12 1.224 -2.764 .006 1.609 .695 1.992 .137
Explanation in 2.85 1.218 -1.910 .056 1.726 .084 3.723 .024
English
Synonyms and 2.67 1.175 -.251 .802 .976 .329 1.325 .266
antonyms
Pictures 2.82 1.311 -4.073 .001 3.500 .001 .477 .621
Different meanings 2.92 1.174 -1.741 .082 -.505 .614 6.241 .002
Spelling 3.19 1.250 -3.151 .002 .368 .713 6.784 .001
Pronunciation 3.11 1.247 -4.896 .001 .339 .735 7.634 .001
Illustrated 2.70 1.153 -.660 .509 .932 .351 1.865 .155
examples
Parts of speech 2.83 1.209 -2.779 .005 2.147 .032 2.562 .077
Derivations 2.73 1.197 -2.518 .012 .872 .383 2.749 .064
Origin 2.46 1.168 .677 .498 1.443 .149 1.191 .304
Tenses 2.83 1.209 -3.460 .001 .147 .883 3.010 .049

43 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

Singular and plural 2.77 1.204 -3.226 .001 3.241 .001 .004 .996

The results of the survey showed that using a dictionary to find meaning of a word in Arabic
reported to be the most frequent checked item in the dictionary (mean, 3.29) (SD,1.27). This
view is largely present in other studies. This results goes in line with Wolter's (2015) findings.
She found that the vast majority of the students look for a definition when they use their
dictionaries. Bejoint (1981) found that 87% of his subjects placed meaning among the most
sought-after piece of information. Hartmann (2005) also found that his subjects showed a
strong preference for looking up definitions and a parallel lack of interest in other items.
Spelling is ranked as the second most frequently checked lexical information by subjects in
this study (mean, 3.19), (SD,1.25). This concurs with findings by Tomaszczyk, (1979);
Hartmann, (1999) and Alqahtani, (2005) and indicates that spelling is of great importance for
learners of English. For many people, spelling mistakes is a symptom of illiteracy. The fact
that many English words are spelled illogically and inconsistently will probably cause
confusion in students when they begin to write such words. Hence learners have to be aware
of the source of correct spelling and the dictionary is their first choice to use as a reliable
source for checking spelling.
Checking the equivalency of an Arabic word in English was reported to be the third most
frequent kind of lexical information that Saudi EFL students look up in their dictionaries,
(mean,3.12),(SD,1.22). Holzman (2000) found that Israeli students refer to their dictionaries
to get the translation of Hebrew words in English.
Pronunciation is reported to be the fourth category of lexical information that Saudi students
check in their dictionaries (mean,3.11), (SD,1.24) which indicates that our subjects
sometimes use their dictionaries to check pronunciation of another word. In fact, no group of
users reported consulting this material on a regular basis. Tomaszczyk (1979), Bejoint (1981),
Kharma (1985), Iqbal (1987), Diab (1990), Al-Jarf (1999), and Holzman (2000) reported in
their studies that students consulted pronunciation relatively infrequently. Such a finding is
curious because language learners often insist they need assistance with pronunciation. Diab
(1990), for example found that a vast majority of students desire help with pronunciation.
Battenburg (1990) argued that the problem is that it is difficult to understand the
pronunciation system employed in dictionaries. He added that instructors should teach their
students how to use the pronunciation key and material concerning word stress (p.96).
Research findings have shown that when students know how to say a word, it is easier for
them to commit the word to memory (Chi et at., 1994; Fan, 1998). In the interview, the
students reported that they check pronunciation from their mobiles but not frequently.
However, the findings of the study show that our subjects as we mentioned earlier are not
frequent users of dictionaries. Using dictionaries to find out different meanings of a word was
reported to be the fifth item students reported to check in their dictionaries (mean,2.92),
( SD,1.17). These figures support the interest among L2 learners in using dictionaries to find
the meaning of a word as the dictionary is an inventory of words with glosses.
Concerning independent variables (IV) of the study, the results showed that female check
dictionary to find the meaning of a word in Arabic, spelling, Checking the equivalency of an

44 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

Arabic word in English and pronunciation significantly more than male whereas no
significance difference between the subjects according to the proficiency level. However, the
results showed that medical and science students use their dictionaries to check the above
mentioned four items except Checking the equivalency of an Arabic word in Englishmore
frequently than humanities students.
Using dictionaries to find out different meanings of a word was reported to be used
moderately with a mean frequency rating of 2.92 and SD of 1.174. These figures support to
some extent the interest among L2 learners in using dictionaries to find the meaning of a
word as the dictionary is basically an inventory of words with glosses. The results showed
that medical and science students use their dictionaries to find out different meanings of a
word more frequently than humanities. On the other hand, there is no difference according to
the gender and proficiency level.
The use of dictionaries to check tense, pictures and part of speech reported to be used by our
subjects on average. This trend lends some support to the research of Fan (2000) who found
that such lexical information was not much referred to by subjects. It could be argued that
some L2 learners consider it unnecessary to check these forms in the dictionary. Furthermore,
with regard to checking tenses in the dictionary, teachers in Saudi Arabia focus mainly on
grammar paying much attention to verb conjugation, and they give the students’ quizzes
regularly to evaluate student knowledge. In addition, students in high school and those at the
intermediate level of proficiency must memorize irregular verbs from their text books. This
may be one more reason why students do not feel the need to refer to their dictionaries to
check the tense forms. On the other hand, other lexical information such as synonyms and
antonyms, illustrated examples, Derivations, Origin and Singular and plural are reported to be
infrequently sued. This result supports the findings of the study which shows that our subjects
are less frequent dictionary users.
Table 6. Teachers' Responses

Statement NS NNS Exp. Less exp. Total

Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

I like dictionaries 4.32 .724 4.45 .621 4.29 .821 4.46 .785 4.38 .912

Dictionaries are 4.62 .507 4.71 .621 4.59 .721 4.81 .853 4.67 .764
useful

I use dictionaries in 2.32 1.21 3.12 .921 2.75 .985 2.61 1.01 2.7 1.02
my class I teach

My students like 4.21 .899 4.26 .981 4.25 1.02 4.22 .865 4.22 .975
online dictionaries

My students like 2.72 .854 2.76 .962 2.78 1.01 2.70 .991 2.75 .872

45 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

print dictionaries

My students know 4.15 .715 4.21 .967 4.17 1.05 4.19 1.21 4.21 1.06
how to use online
dictionaries

My students know 2.97 1.20 2.87 1.10 2.81 .991 3.03 1.11 2.94 1.25
how to use print
dictionaries

I assign homework 2.1 .745 2.8 1.21 2.42 1.2 2.57 .969 2.48 1.20
related to dictionary
use

I would prefer to 3.89 1.02 3.95 1.05 3.62 1.1 4.22 1.14 3.94 1.06
receive more
training on how to
use dictionary in my
class

Our concern in this section is to find out the teachers' perception about dictionary use. The
data obtained from the questionnaire was analyzed using t-test to find out the overall
frequencies of teachers responses to the questions. Moreover, the differences between NS and
NNS and between experienced teachers and less experienced teachers were of interest to
investigate. The results showed that teachers intensely like dictionaries and consider them
useful with mean (4.38) and (4.67) along with the relatively small standard deviations. The
results also showed no significant differences between NS and NNS and between experienced
and less experienced which indicates that the teachers have a strong overall agreement about
liking dictionaries. Nonetheless, the responses to the question about using a dictionary in the
classroom suggest that dictionaries are infrequently used with mean 2.7. This implies that
they believe in the usefulness of dictionaries, but they do not use it and do not incorporate
dictionary use with great frequency in their classrooms. This point needs further investigation
to find out the reason. The reason behind this might be that teachers are instructed to follow
the instructions given in the textbooks. The researcher also observed that textbooks
prescribed for the preparatory year programme do not have sections or subsections about
dictionary use. In order to teach dictionary skills, one has to prepare additional course
materials, and this requires effort and time, which teachers may not be able to spare. A reason
could be that the programme is very intensive and the teachers have to follow a very detailed
pacing schedule and complete the curriculum on time as planned by the departmental
committee. The results showed that NNS use dictionaries in the classrooms significantly
more than NS. It seems that NNS strongly believe in the importance of dictionaries as second
language learners and they had experienced this when they learned the English language in
their schools. On the other hand, most of the NNS participated in the study speak only
English, and they did not have the experience to learn the second language.

46 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

The teachers' responses to the questionnaire items indicate that teachers see students as being
both comfortable with and knowledgeable about using online dictionaries more than print
dictionaries. These results support the findings in the students’ questionnaire where they
reported using online dictionary frequently and significantly more than print dictionaries. The
comparison of the means shows that teachers observe or feel that students are more
comfortable with online dictionaries than that of the printed versions.
The data analysis also revealed that teachers assign homework to the students related to
dictionary use occasionally which goes in line with the responses of the teachers regarding
the use of the dictionary in the classroom. The results showed that NNS teachers assign
homework to the students related to the dictionary use significantly more than NS and this
agrees with the findings mentioned earlier that NNS use dictionaries in the classroom
considerably more than NS.
When it comes to training on how to use a dictionary in the classroom, the results showed
that both NS and NNS prefer to receive training on dictionary use. Unfortunately, neither
teachers nor students receive proper training on how to use a dictionary. Most of the studies
found that teachers do not give much attention to the importance of training their students on
how to use dictionaries.
5. Conclusion
The purpose of this study was to explore Saudi EFL preparatory year students' perception of
dictionary use as well as teachers' opinion about dictionary use. The results revealed that
students reported using bilingual dictionary more than other type of dictionaries. Moreover,
online dictionaries and Google translator reported to be used significantly more than print
versions. Hence, it would be beneficial for teachers to learn about the new technology in
looking up words and then train their students in its use. Technology such as smartphones and
dictionary applications make accessing word information a convenient process for many
language learners. The study also revealed that meaning was reported to be the most lexical
information sought by the subjects of the current study which goes in line with all the
previous studies conducted on dictionary use and preference. Furthermore, the findings
showed that most of the students check their dictionaries for word meaning and spelling and
they pay little attention to other information such as pronunciation, illustrated examples, and
collocations. It is certainly a pity that despite the time and efforts spent by lexicographers on
supplying different information besides word definitions, they are not fully utilized by the
users (Tono, 2001). Information about pronunciation and part of speech in an entry can be
beneficial for students to improve their writing and speaking abilities with words. The ability
to use words in a clear, comprehensible and grammatically correct way also becomes
increasingly important as students advance in their language proficiency.
5.1 Pedagogical Implications
English language teachers should take into consideration their students’ abilities and needs
related to the use of a dictionary. They should do their best to provide their students with
information about dictionaries and the differences among them. Teachers should be aware of

47 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

their learners in order to guide them to the dictionary use. (Scholfield, 1997). Teachers are
supposed to help their students to use dictionaries in a better way. Two levels of help should
be offered: the first involves showing them how to find the relevant entry or subdivision,
while the second concerns finding the piece of information they require within the entry itself
(Béjoint, 1981). Concerning the first level, on the one hand, learners should be trained in, for
example, where to look up a compound noun or an idiom. Their attention should be drawn to
the differences between dictionaries in the topic under consideration. At the second level, on
the other hand, learners should be trained in how to exploit all the available information in
the entry before deciding on the meaning of the new word (Laufer and Hadar, 1997).
Learners have to be trained in how to progress from definitions to examples, and the context
in question, to be able to select the appropriate meaning (Baxter, 1980). In addition to
meaning, learners also have to be trained in how to use different dictionary codes in order to
be able to extract the information needed from what is provided.Moreover, teachers should
share the dictionaries and look up sources that their students like and prefer to use, and those
could be explored for the information about words they provide ( Wolter, 2015). Al-Amin
and El-Sayed (2014) suggested that teachers include task-based activities that offer learners
ways to experience the facets of dictionary entries, such as definitions, pronunciations, and
collocations. It would be very beneficial for students to be asked to look up collocations for
words while completing writing tasks, and these activities should be offered on an ongoing
basis (Gonzalez & Martinez, 2011).
Teachers also need to develop syllabi and incorporate learner training programs to teach
students appropriate dictionary use as well as strategies to facilitate language learning. To
achieve this objective within a formal institutional setting, two sets of considerations are
required in the order. First of all, teachers should decide what to teach concerning dictionary
use and strategies, and how much time will be devoted to dictionary instruction (Huang,
2003). Moreover, it should be linked to specific course objectives and also integrated with
other course content (Carduner, 2003). In brief, learners’ awareness should be raised
regarding all issues that are related to dictionaries, such as dictionary type and features. Their
dictionary use strategies should be developed by training. Training would be more effective if
it involved regular dictionary use ‘in small doses rather than one monster session per month’
(Wright, 1998: 12).

References

Al-Amin, N., & El-Sayed, A. (2014), Exploring the English language teachers’ attitudes
towards the use of pedagogical dictionaries in their classes. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics and English Literature, 2, 91-107.
Ali, H. (2012). Monolingual dictionary use in an EFL context. English Langauge Teaching, 7,
16-24.
Ali, N., & Siddiek, A. (2013). Exploring English language teachers’ attitudes toward using
pedagogical dictionaries; a Sudanese perspective. International Journal of Applied
Linguistics and English Literatur, 3(3), 171-188.

48 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

Al-Jarf, R. (1999). Use of electronic dictionaries in ESL classroom. TESOL Arabia’99.5th

Annual Conference entitled “Teaching, learning and technology.” Conference Proceedings
Vol. IV.
Al-Jarf, R. (2000). Electronic Dictionaries and Translation. Linguistica Communication; 10.
Alqahtani, M. (2005). The use of vocabulary learning strategies by EFL learners at three
different educational levels. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Essex
Atkins, B. T. S., & Knowles, F. E. (1988). Interim report on the EURALEX/AILA research
project into the use of learners' dictionaries. In J. Zigany (Ed.), BudaLEX '88 Proceedings (pp.
381-392).
Atkins, B. T., & Knowles, F. F. (1990). Interim report on the EURALEX / AILA Research
Project into dictionary use. In I. Magay, & J. Zigany (Eds.), BudaLEX 88 proceedings.
Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 381-392.
Atkins, B. T., & Varantoal, K. (1998). Language learners using dictionaries: the final report
on the EURALEX/LILA research project on dictionary use. In B. T. S. Atkins (Ed.), Using
dictionaries: studies of dictionary use by language learners and translators. Tübingen:
Niemeyer.
Atkins, B. T. S. (1996). Bilingual dictionaries past, present, future. In M. Gellerstam et al. eds.
Euralex’ 96 Proceedings, Gotherburg university, Department of Swedish, 515-546.
Atkins, B. T. S. (1997) Monitoring dictionary use. International Journal of Lexicography,
10(1), 1-45.
Atkins, B. T. S., & Varantoal, K. (1998). Monitoring dictionary use. In B. T. S. Atkins (Ed.),
Using dictionaries: studies of dictionary use by language learners and translators. Tübingen:
Niemeyer.
Atkins, T. B. (1985). Monolingual and bilingual learner’s dictionaries. In Ilson, R. (Ed.).
Dictionaries, lexicography, and language learning, 15-24. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Battenburg, J. (1989). A study of English monolingual learner’s dictionaries and their users’
Unpublished Ph.D Thesis. Prdue University.
Battenburg, J. (1991). English monolingual learners' dictionaries: a user-oriented study.
Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Baxter, J. (1980). The dictionary and vocabulary behaviour: a single word or a handful?
TESOL Quarterly, 14, 325-336.
Béjoint, H. (1981). The foreign student's use of monolingual English dictionaries: a study of
language needs and reference skills. Applied Linguistics, 2(3), 207-222.
Bensoussan, M., Sim, D., & Weiss, R. (1984). The effect of dictionary usage on EFL test
performance compared with student and teacher attitudes and expectations. Reading in a
Foreign Language, 2(2), 262-276.

49 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

Bower, J., & MacMillan, B. (2007). Learenr use and views of portable electronic dictionaries.
In K. Bradford-Watts (Ed). JALT 2006 Conference Proceedings. Tokyo: JALT.
Cote Gonzalez, M & Martinez, T. The effect of dictionary training in the teaching of English
as foreign language. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Inglese, 24, 31-52.
Dashtestani, R. (2013). EFL teachers’ and stduents’ perspectives on the use of electronic
dictionaries for learning English. CALL-EJ, 14(2), 51-65.
Diab, T. (1990). Pedagogical lexicography: A case study of Arab Nurses as dictionary users.
Tubingen: Niemeyer.
Diab, T., & Hamdan, M. (1999). Interacting with words and dictionaries: The case of
Jordanian EFL learners. International Journal of Lexicography, 12(4), 281 – 305.
Dwaik, R. (2015), English digital as valuable blended learning tools for Palestinian college
students. English Language Teaching, 8(11), 1-10.
Fan, M. (1998). An investigation into the problem of recording technical vocabulary.
Asia-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education and Development, 1(1), 83-92.
Fan, M. Y. (2000). The dictionary look-up behavior of Hong Kong students: A Large-scale
survey. Educational Journal, 28(1), 123 – 138.
Green, J. M., & Oxford, R. (1995). A closer look at learning strategies, L2 proficiency, and
gender. TESOL Quarterly, 29(2), 261-297.
Harvey, K., & Yuill, D. (1997) A study of the use of a monolingual pedagogical dictionary
by learners of English engaged in writing. Applied Linguistics, 18(3), 253-278.
Haynes, M., & J. Coady (Ed.), Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp.
46-64).
Holzman, S. (2000). Reading English as a foreign language with an electronic dictionary: an
exploratory study of the processes of L2 classroom reading by L1 Hebrew speaking college
students in Israel. PhD dissertation. Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
Kharma, N.N. (1985). Wanted: a brand-new type of learners’ dictionary. Multilingua, 4,
85-90.
Laufer, B., & Levitzky-Aviad, T (2006). Examining the Effectiveness of ‘Bilingual
Dictionary Plus’ a Dictionary for Production in a Foreign Language. International Journal of
Lexicography, 19, 135-155.
Laufer, B. (1993). The effect of dictionary definitions and examples on the use and
comprehension and production of new L2 words. Cahiers de lexicologie, 63(2), 131-142.
Laufer, B. (1995). A case of semi-bilingual dictionary for productive purposes. Kernerman
dictionary news. No3.
Laufer, B. (2000). Dictionaries and vocabulary learning: does technology make a

50 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

difference?EURALEX, Stuttgart.
Laufer, B., & Hadar, L. (1997). Assessing the effectiveness of monolingual, bilingual, and
''bilingualized'' dictionaries in the comprehension and production of new words. The Modern
Language Journal, 81(2), 189-196.
Laufer, B., & Hill, M. (2000). What lexical information do L2 learners select in a CALL
dictionary and how does it affect word retention? Language Learning & Technology, 3(2),
58-76.
Laufer, B., & Kimmel, M. (1997). Bilingualized dictionaries: how learners really use them.
System, 25(3), 361-369.
Laufer, B., & L. Melamed. (1994). Monolingual, bilingual and 'bilingualized' dictionaries:
which are more effective, for what and for whom? In W. Martin et al (Ed.), EURALEX '94
Proceedings (pp. 565-576). Amsterdam: Free University.
Laufer, B., Elder C., Hill, K., & Congdon, P. (2004). Size and strength: do we need both to
Measure vocabulary knowledge? Language Testing, 2, 202-226.
Liu, T. C., & Lin, P. H. (2011). What Comes with technological convenience? Exploring the
behaviours and performances of learning with computer-mediated dictionaries. Computer in
Human Behaviour, 27(1), 373-383.
Nakamura, T. (2000). The use of vocabulary learning strategies: The case of Japanese EFL
learners in two different learning environments. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Essex,
UK.
Nesi, H. (1994). The effect of language background and culture on productive dictionary use.
In W. e. a. Martin (Ed.), EURALEX'94 (pp. 577-585). Amsterdam: New University.
Nesi, H., & Meara, P. (1994). Patterns of misrepresentation in the productive use of EFL
dictionary definitions. System, 22(1).
Oxford, R. (1993). Instructional implications of gender differences in second/foreign language
learning style and strategies.Applied Language Learning, 4, 65-94.
Ramos, M. M. (2005). Research on dictionary use by trainee translators. Translation Journal,
9(2).
Schmitt, N., & McCarthy, M. eds. (1997). Vocabulary: Description, Acquisition and
Pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schmitt, N. (1997). Vocabulary learning strategies. In N. Schmitt & M. McCathy (Eds.),
Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
199-227.
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Schofield, P. (1999). Dictionary use in reception. International Journal of Lexicography,

51 www.macrothink.org/ijl
 International Journal of Linguistics
ISSN 1948-5425
2016, Vol. 8, No. 6

12(1), 13 – 34.
Scholfield, P. (1982). The role of bilingual dictionaries in ESL/EFL: a positive view.
Guidelines, 4(1), 84-98.
Scholfield, P. J. (1982a). The role of bilingual dictionaries in ESL/EFL: a positive view.
RELC Guidelines, 4(1), 84-98.
Sevik, M. (2014). University prep-school EFL learners’ dictionary ownership and preferences.
Procedia, 158, 226-232.
Stein, M. J. (1989). The healthy inadequacy of contextual definition. In T. Huckin, M.
Svensen, Bo (1993). Practical Lexicography. Principles and Methods of Dictionary-making
[translated from the Swedish Handbok i lexikografi (1987) by J. Sykes and K. Schofield]
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tang, G. M. (1997). Pocket electronic dictionaries for second language learning: help or
hindrance? TESL CANADA JOURNAL, 15(1), 39-57.
Thompson, I. (1987). Memory in Language learning. In Wenden, A., & Rubin, J. (Eds.),
Learner Strategies in Language Learning (pp. 43-56) New York: Prentice-Hall International.
Lew, R. (2004). Which dictionary for whom? Reception use of bilingual, monolingual and
semi-bilingual dictionaries by Polish learners of English. Poznan: Motivex.
Tomaszczyk, J. (1979). Dictionaries: users and uses. Glottodidactica, 12, 103-119.
Tono, Y. (2001). Research on dictionary use in the context of foreign language learning:
focus on reading comprehension. Tübingen: Niemeyer
Underhill, A. (1985). Working with the monolingual learners’ dictionary. In Ilson, R. (ed).
Dictionaries, lexicography, and language learning, 103-114. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Wolter, L, (2015), Dictionary use and preferences of L2 English learners in an intensive
english context. Unpublished PhD thesis, St. Cloud State University.

Copyright Disclaimer
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to
the journal.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative
Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).

52 www.macrothink.org/ijl

View publication stats