How Effective is the Electronic Dictionary in Sense Discrimination?

Kim Hua Tan

Abstract


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 com-parison groups: (1) Groupe-pre and Groupp-pre, (2) Groupe and Groupp, (3) Groupe-without and Groupe-with, and (4) Groupe-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, how-ever, 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 sug-gests that subjects' perceived efficacy beliefs are not good predictors of their performances.

Keywords: EFFICACY, ACTUAL EFFICACY, SELF-PERCEIVED EFFICACY, ELECTRONIC DICTIONARIES, PRINTED DICTIONARIES, POLYSEMOUS WORDS

Opsomming: Hoe doeltreffend is die elektroniese woordeboek by bete-kenisonderskeiding? Hierdie artikel vergelyk die doeltreffendheid van die elektroniese woordeboek met dié van die gedrukte woordeboek om aanleerders te help om die betekenisse van polisemiese woorde in woordeboeke te onderskei. Die navorsingsontwerp in hierdie artikel wat 'n aanpassing van die gemengde metodologie voorgestel deur Johnson en Christensen (2004) is, omvat 'n kwalitatiewe fase en 'n kwantitatiewe fase in die totale navorsingstudie langs die dimen-sies van tydsvolgorde en paradigmabeklemtoning. Die element van "vergelyking" wat ingesluit word, het 'n ontwerp van vier in pare gerangskikte vergelykingsgroepe tot gevolg: (1) Groepe-pre en Groepp-pre, (2) Groepe en Groepp, (3) Groepe-sonder en Groepe-met, en (4) Groepe-sonderLaeMed en Groepe-metLaeMed. Bevindings toon dat die elektroniese woordeboek doeltreffend is deur Lae tot Medium Bekwame studente (Groepe-LaeMed) in die elektroniese groep te help na doelbewuste woordeboek-opleiding in navigasie en vensteroorskakeling. Dit word getoon deur die verbeterde puntestande ten opsigte van tyd geneem (doeltreffendheidsmaatstaf) en die belangrike verband tussen werklike doeltreffendheid en selfgeskatte doeltreffendheid. Die resultate toon dat woordeboekgebruikers woordeboekopleiding gegee moet word wat berus op die spesifieke probleme waarvoor hulle te staan kom. As 'n geheel egter het die gedruktewoordeboekgroep 'n hoër doeltreffendheid as die elektroniese groep, maar daar was geen waarneembare tendens in die verhouding tussen die werklike doeltreffendheid en die selfgeskatte doeltreffendheid van altwee groepe nie. Dit dui daar-op dat proefpersone se geskatte doeltreffendheidsbeskouings nie goeie voorspellers is van hul prestasies nie.

Sleutelwoorde: DOELTREFFENDHEID, WERKLIKE DOELTREFFENDHEID, SELFGE-SKATTE DOELTREFFENDHEID, ELEKTRONIESE WOORDEBOEKE, GEDRUKTE WOORDE-BOEKE, POLISEMIESE WOORDE


Keywords


EFFICACY; ACTUAL EFFICACY; SELF-PERCEIVED EFFICACY; ELECTRONIC DICTIONARIES; PRINTED DICTIONARIES; POLYSEMOUS WORDS

Full Text:

PDF


DOI: https://doi.org/10.5788/19-0-439

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.



ISSN 2224-0039 (online); ISSN 1684-4904 (print)

Creative Commons License CC BY 4.0


Powered by OJS and hosted by Stellenbosch University Library and Information Service since 2011.


Disclaimer:

This journal is hosted by the SU LIS on request of the journal owner/editor. The SU LIS takes no responsibility for the content published within this journal, and disclaim all liability arising out of the use of or inability to use the information contained herein. We assume no responsibility, and shall not be liable for any breaches of agreement with other publishers/hosts.

SUNJournals Help