The Efficacy of Various Types of Dictionaries on Vocabulary Learning through Translation Tasks

• Main Authors: Lee,Chen-I, 李貞儀
• Other Authors: Yu, Jyu-Fang
• Format: Others
• Language: en_US
• Published: 2012
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/26111773210614560768

碩士 === 東海大學 === 外國語文學系 === 100 === Dictionary consultation has been regarded primarily as a learning strategy to assist learners in locating the meanings of words. However, according to the Depth of Processing Hypothesis (Craik & Lockhart, 1972) and the Involvement Load Hypothesis (Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001), learners’ elaboration and engagement with the words when they consult dictionaries enhances the amount of cognitive load and determines the quality of their learning. There is a lack of experimental studies on dictionary consultation which examines the Involvement Load Hypothesis. The present study probed the vocabulary learning efficacy of three types of dictionaries: monolingual dictionaries, bilingualized dictionaries, and bilingual dictionaries. The participants are 127 university freshmen. In addition to the independent variable of dictionary type, learners’ language level, high or low, was also treated as an independent variable. The two variables generated 6 experimental groups. Before the treatment, a pretest was given to determine whether the participants already knew the 12 target words. They were asked to complete a translation task with the consultation of one type of dictionary. The translation task was used to examine the relationship between an increase in learners’ cognitive load and dictionary consultation. A posttest was then administered to examine learners’ vocabulary gain; a delayed posttest was conducted two weeks after the posttest to investigate vocabulary retention. The results indicate that the translation task facilitated vocabulary learning when the participants consulted dictionaries. Furthermore, the dictionary type makes a difference in vocabulary acquisition regardless of participant level. By and large, monolingual dictionaries enhance longer vocabulary retention than other two types of dictionaries. Those participants in the high-level group performed better on tests with monolingual and bilingualized dictionaries than with bilingual dictionaries. Dictionary type did not make significant differences in low-level participant performance. It is suggested that low level learners use bilingual or bilingualized dictionaries rather than monolingual dictionaries because low-level learners lack the language proficiency needed to benefit from monolingual dictionary use. One feature that distinguishes the present study from other similar studies is the design of test items in the posttest and delayed posttest. A survey of the instruments used in similar studies indicated that results from previous studies may have been compromised due to the nature of the items used in posttests and delayed tests. In many of those studies, instrument test items appearing in the study material were reused on the posttest or test items used in the posttest were adopted again in the subsequent tests. The present study designed the posttest and delayed posttest test items that were retrieved from the treatment material and those new to the participants. It was found that while the participants performed differently on those posttest items using old contexts and those using new contexts, their performances on the delayed posttest items using old or new contexts were similar. It appeared that the participant’s familiarity with the test items had a significant impact on their posttest performance. The influence faded off with the time. They scored similarly on the familiar and unfamiliar test items. In conclusion, the present study provides empirical evidence for the efficacy of different types of dictionaries on second language vocabulary learning. The importance of a task embedded with cognitive load, as proposed by Laufer and Hulstijn (2001), to learning efficacy was further evidenced. Moreover, the results bring forth the concern that the participant familiarity of test items makes the results significantly different.