How effective is the electronic dictionary in sense discrimination?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This article compares the efficacy of the electronic dictionary with that of the print dictionary in helping learners differentiate senses of polysemous words in dictionaries. An adaptation of the mixed methodology proposed by Johnson and Christensen (2004), the research design in this article encompasses a qualitative phase and a quantitative phase in the overall research study along the dimensions of time order and paradigm emphasis. The element of 'comparison' is included resulting in a design of four paired comparison groups: (1) Groupe-pre and Groupp-pre, (2) Groupe and Groupp, (3) Groupe-without and Groupe-with, and (4) Group e-withoutLowMed and Groupe-withLowMed. Findings show that the electronic dictionary is effective in helping Low to Medium Proficient students (Groupe-LowMed) in the electronic group after deliberate dictionary training in navigation and windows switching. This is indicated by improved scores regarding time taken (efficacy rate) and a significant correlation between actual efficacy and self-perceived efficacy. The results imply that dictionary users need to be given dictionary training based on specific problems they face. As a whole, however, the print dictionary group has higher efficacy than the electronic group but there was no discernible trend in the relationship between its actual efficacy and the self-perceived efficacy for both groups. This suggests that subjects' perceived efficacy beliefs are not good predictors of their performances.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)262-274
Number of pages13
JournalLexikos
Volume19
Publication statusPublished - 2009

Fingerprint

dictionary
discrimination
electronics
Group
self-efficacy
Discrimination
Electronic Dictionary
Efficacy
research planning
Dictionary
paradigm
methodology
trend
performance
student

Keywords

  • Actual efficacy
  • Efficacy
  • Electronic dictionaries
  • Polysemous words
  • Printed dictionaries
  • Self-perceived efficacy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Language and Linguistics
  • Linguistics and Language

Cite this

How effective is the electronic dictionary in sense discrimination? / Tan, Kim Hua.

In: Lexikos, Vol. 19, 2009, p. 262-274.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{fc43c3a3ad8a43748aab17c4ed9b8ce8,
title = "How effective is the electronic dictionary in sense discrimination?",
abstract = "This article compares the efficacy of the electronic dictionary with that of the print dictionary in helping learners differentiate senses of polysemous words in dictionaries. An adaptation of the mixed methodology proposed by Johnson and Christensen (2004), the research design in this article encompasses a qualitative phase and a quantitative phase in the overall research study along the dimensions of time order and paradigm emphasis. The element of 'comparison' is included resulting in a design of four paired comparison groups: (1) Groupe-pre and Groupp-pre, (2) Groupe and Groupp, (3) Groupe-without and Groupe-with, and (4) Group e-withoutLowMed and Groupe-withLowMed. Findings show that the electronic dictionary is effective in helping Low to Medium Proficient students (Groupe-LowMed) in the electronic group after deliberate dictionary training in navigation and windows switching. This is indicated by improved scores regarding time taken (efficacy rate) and a significant correlation between actual efficacy and self-perceived efficacy. The results imply that dictionary users need to be given dictionary training based on specific problems they face. As a whole, however, the print dictionary group has higher efficacy than the electronic group but there was no discernible trend in the relationship between its actual efficacy and the self-perceived efficacy for both groups. This suggests that subjects' perceived efficacy beliefs are not good predictors of their performances.",
keywords = "Actual efficacy, Efficacy, Electronic dictionaries, Polysemous words, Printed dictionaries, Self-perceived efficacy",
author = "Tan, {Kim Hua}",
year = "2009",
language = "English",
volume = "19",
pages = "262--274",
journal = "Lexikos",
issn = "1684-4904",
publisher = "Buro van die Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - How effective is the electronic dictionary in sense discrimination?

AU - Tan, Kim Hua

PY - 2009

Y1 - 2009

N2 - This article compares the efficacy of the electronic dictionary with that of the print dictionary in helping learners differentiate senses of polysemous words in dictionaries. An adaptation of the mixed methodology proposed by Johnson and Christensen (2004), the research design in this article encompasses a qualitative phase and a quantitative phase in the overall research study along the dimensions of time order and paradigm emphasis. The element of 'comparison' is included resulting in a design of four paired comparison groups: (1) Groupe-pre and Groupp-pre, (2) Groupe and Groupp, (3) Groupe-without and Groupe-with, and (4) Group e-withoutLowMed and Groupe-withLowMed. Findings show that the electronic dictionary is effective in helping Low to Medium Proficient students (Groupe-LowMed) in the electronic group after deliberate dictionary training in navigation and windows switching. This is indicated by improved scores regarding time taken (efficacy rate) and a significant correlation between actual efficacy and self-perceived efficacy. The results imply that dictionary users need to be given dictionary training based on specific problems they face. As a whole, however, the print dictionary group has higher efficacy than the electronic group but there was no discernible trend in the relationship between its actual efficacy and the self-perceived efficacy for both groups. This suggests that subjects' perceived efficacy beliefs are not good predictors of their performances.

AB - This article compares the efficacy of the electronic dictionary with that of the print dictionary in helping learners differentiate senses of polysemous words in dictionaries. An adaptation of the mixed methodology proposed by Johnson and Christensen (2004), the research design in this article encompasses a qualitative phase and a quantitative phase in the overall research study along the dimensions of time order and paradigm emphasis. The element of 'comparison' is included resulting in a design of four paired comparison groups: (1) Groupe-pre and Groupp-pre, (2) Groupe and Groupp, (3) Groupe-without and Groupe-with, and (4) Group e-withoutLowMed and Groupe-withLowMed. Findings show that the electronic dictionary is effective in helping Low to Medium Proficient students (Groupe-LowMed) in the electronic group after deliberate dictionary training in navigation and windows switching. This is indicated by improved scores regarding time taken (efficacy rate) and a significant correlation between actual efficacy and self-perceived efficacy. The results imply that dictionary users need to be given dictionary training based on specific problems they face. As a whole, however, the print dictionary group has higher efficacy than the electronic group but there was no discernible trend in the relationship between its actual efficacy and the self-perceived efficacy for both groups. This suggests that subjects' perceived efficacy beliefs are not good predictors of their performances.

KW - Actual efficacy

KW - Efficacy

KW - Electronic dictionaries

KW - Polysemous words

KW - Printed dictionaries

KW - Self-perceived efficacy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77949516025&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77949516025&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:77949516025

VL - 19

SP - 262

EP - 274

JO - Lexikos

JF - Lexikos

SN - 1684-4904

ER -