Tài liệu EFL learners' use of print and online dictionaries

EFL Learners' Use of Print and Online Dictionaries in L1 and L2 Writing Processes Yuah Vicky Chun (University of Essex) Chun, Yuah Vicky. (2004). EFL Learners' Use of Print and Online Dictionaries in L1 and L2 Writing Processes. Multimedia-Assisted Language Learning, 7(1), 9-35. The study aims to obtain a profile of users in previous instruction learners have received with regard to solving vocabulary gap problems in Korean (L1) and English (L2) writing, to gain knowledge on the type and form of dictionaries, and the dictionary use strategies that are being used in writing Korean (L1) and English (L2) compositions. Data was collected through questionnaires and semi-structured interviews from 54 students in three English composition classes at a university. The analysis of the data revealed that the students have hardly received instruction for solving lexical gap problems and dictionary use in writing of L1 and L2. With regard to the type and form of dictionaries used in writing L1 and L2, the print monolingual dictionary and the Internet (online) bilingual dictionary was most popularly used where Korean-English bilingual dictionary is most frequently utilized in L2 writing. The results imply that easy access of the Internet (online) bilingual dictionaries contributes to its popular use in L2 writing. The dictionary use strategies that students employed to reduce their vocabulary gap knowledge differed significantly between L1 and L2, favoring L2. The results suggest that writing tasks in L2 entail learners to solve lexical gap problems and that there is need to devise classroom tasks for productive use of dictionaries. 10 EFL Learners' Use of Print and Online Dictionaries in L1 and L2 Writing Processes I. INTRODUCTION The current study opens at a propitious time when use of modern dictionaries, such as CD, handheld, and Internet (online) dictionaries are gaining popularity among EFL (English as a Foreign Language) learners within contexts where computers and connection to the Internet are easily accessible. While dictionaries are already one of the most readily available learning resources (Wright, 1998), online and CD dictionaries provide user-friendly functions in searching and provide quick access to entry information when a student-learner is at a computer to word process in a foreign language. In the process of writing, a student may need to make a choice between two words or retrieve a phrasal verb only partially known, and at these instances self-access resources such as CD and online dictionaries will enable students to solve their own language problems. In connection, the purpose of the study is to investigate EFL students' use of print and modern dictionaries and the strategies to use them when vocabulary gap problems or dictionary use problems are realized in writing. The study provides pedagogical implications for teachers and students in the training of dictionary use skills and strategies with reference to modern dictionaries where dictionary use in writing may also lead to learning. Moreover, to the researchers' knowledge, there have been lack of within-subject studies in the field of dictionary research that report on comparing L1 and L2 writing processes with regard to different type and form of dictionaries, and dictionary use strategies. II. LITERATURE REVIEW 1. Dictionary Use and Research in Writing Dictionary use has only recently become a topic of research interest (Hartmann, 2001; Scholfield, 1998). Studies divide into (a) questionnaire surveys concerning what dictionaries people say they use, how often, what they look up in them, and (b) research on the detailed skills or strategies that users possess, or need to posses, when actually consulting dictionaries for various specific purposes. Current research (Rundell, 1999; Scholfield, 1999) suggests that dictionaries are used about equally in the process of reading or writing, and sometimes when just studying or learning. In writing, the dictionary may be called upon for a wide range of types of information besides word meaning. A writer may retrieve a word for what they want to express, but may need to check some aspect other than its meaning. For instance, a student writer may want to Yuah Vicky Chun 11 check for irregular verb tense form, or what a typical object might be, or choose between two words they have retrieved. Futhermore, since productive skills such as writing require information about collocations, synonyms, idioms, syntactic behavior and lexical phrases, they are likely to be needed very often when the EFL student is not always aware of the proper use (Myers, 1994; Nattinger & Decarrico, 1992). As such, dictionary use in writing may lead on to helping learners solve these problems while writing, and support proponents of the 'output hypothesis' (Swain, 1995) that there is potential for learning through writing. In a study related to the use of dictionaries in writing, Harvey and Yuill (1997) examined how ESL students made use of the dictionary entry information when they were writing essays. They found that most students looked up words to check spelling and meaning; however, they also found that examples illustrating syntax, collocation, usage and context were more helpful in clarifying meaning than straight definitions. In a study about misinterpretation and errors produced by adult language learners using EFL dictionary definitions, Nesi and Meara (1994) found that their subjects did not use grammatical information in the dictionary entry, or information that did not match their preconceived ideas of what words meant. Not only did they fail to choose appropriate lexical collocations, but they were also confused about words that looked similar to one another. McAlpine and Myles (2003) also point out that students may use the dictionary when uncertain about a choice of a word or when they may want to know why a choice has been marked wrong in their written assignments. They quote Tang (1997) to infer that these kind of errors may result from: a slightly different frame of reference between English and the native language, multiple meaning of a word, partial overlap in meaning, and metaphors or idioms, or cultural expressions which are non-existent in the target or native language. 2. Bilingual and Monolingual Dictionaries in Writing While it has been noticed that dictionary consultation is an inevitable part of the writing process for EFL students, many studies document that there is a tendency for student writers to use more bilingual than monolingual dictionaries (Ard, 1982; Kent, 2001; Koren, 1997; McAlpine & Myles, 2003). The use of bilingual dictionaries has been favored among students for reflecting the general meaning of the target word (L2) in the native language (L1), whereas the monolingual dictionaries may give more examples and better information on grammar, collocations, and register of a word. Students may feel comfortable with using bilingual dictionaries with having a concrete concept of the word, 12 EFL Learners' Use of Print and Online Dictionaries in L1 and L2 Writing Processes or they may feel that their vocabulary in English is too limited to deal with a dictionary entry. However, the use of the bilingual dictionary has often been criticized for reinforcing a naive view of the language itself because students can begin to expect a one-to-one correlation between words of their own language and the English translation (Hunt, 1997; Tang, 1997). On the other hand, using the monolingual learner's dictionary can also be problematic when the monolingual dictionaries provide circular definitions (Thompson, 1987) which will require learners of low language proficiency to keep looking up words found in the dictionary entry. Confusion can also arise when the students may not be able to easily distinguish among types of information within an entry, or when definitions include inappropriate explanations and examples involving syntactic complexity, idiomaticity and cultural specificity (Amritavalli, 1999). Another problem of monolingual dictionaries is raised by Nesi and Meara (1994), who show that while using the learners' monolingual dictionaries, many adult learners systematically misinterpret dictionary entries. They infer that it arises when "dictionary users latch onto a part of the dictionary definition, without really understanding how it relates to the word they are looking up" (p.14). As such, there is no single dictionary that can compensate for vocabulary gap knowledge or satisfy the dictionary needs of a student writer. Moreover, when it is becoming the norm for students to compose at computers, often on a word processor with connections to the Internet, the access to various kinds of dictionaries cannot be ignored for solving lexical gap problems. 3. Use of Dictionaries in the Electronic Age The advent of computers and the Internet has brought along new possibilities for electronic storage and retrieval of massive amounts of information. Language learners have been able to excel their language learning processes by gaining swift access to reference resources, such as, online databases, and CDs. Moreover, with the increasing use of word processors in writing tasks (at least within contexts where computers are easily accessible), use of the Internet, CD, and handheld dictionaries serve to provide reference information for immediate use. While research on these types of modern dictionaries do not seem to be extensive, there have been studies, for instance, in the use of handheld calculator type dictionaries (Taylor & Chan, 1994) and comparative studies on print dictionaries vs. computer dictionaries in reading comprehension (Aust, Kelly, & Roby, 1993). Nesi (1999) reviews the various use of handheld and desktop computer dictionaries, however, taking on a skeptical view that the speed and ease of electronic lookup does not necessarily benefit the language learning process. Nevertheless, Yuah Vicky Chun 13 current literature contributes to widening understanding on what users do, what constitutes the dictionary consultation process, and how dictionary training can be implemented in the classroom. Koren (1997) compares the advantages and disadvantages of most types of modern dictionaries both from the teachers and researchers' as well as from the students' points of view, and shows that clear distinctions need to be made between tasks (e.g., learning, and reading for pleasure) in order to optimize dictionary use patterns in whether to use a single dictionary or to use it in combination with another dictionary. One of the views that she discusses is the problem of quality versus convenience between the print and electronic (handheld) dictionaries among EFL students in reading comprehension tasks. The researcher recognizes that the printed dictionaries help to learn words, whereas most electronic dictionaries help to find words, and the fact that retention of words is likely to be better with a printed dictionary. Another benefit of the printed bilingual dictionary, as Koren points out, is that it enables the reader to see a whole page with other words from the same family, plus idioms, common phrases and phrasal verbs related to the same entry. On the other hand, she mentions in her discussion that what may be preferred among students is the electronic dictionary for their speed. As a final point, Koren explains that the suitability in the types of dictionaries to be used depend on the type of task (e.g., learning, reading for pleasure, or writing essays) to be completed at hand rather than on reliance of what may be preferred among teachers and learners. Koren presents some solutions to helping EFL teachers in knowing which dictionary to recommend to their students. They are to (a) use several types of dictionaries together, for instance, bilingual and monolingual dictionaries. However, the disadvantage of this suggestion is that the look-up tasks may become tiresome and time-consuming. The second suggestion is to (b) use primarily a monolingual learner's dictionary since language learners will have fewer problems with the vocabulary of the definitions, and to (c) use a two-path bilingual dictionary, which is from Walz's (1990) suggestion to use both forms of the bilingual dictionaries (e.g., English-Korean and Korean-English) which would seem more suitable for students who need to know new words for production. Lee Chongmin (2002) as a part of her study surveyed Korean university student subjects in their use of dictionaries in specific tasks with focus on English-Korean bilingual and English monolingual dictionaries. She found her subjects to use paper dictionaries significantly more than electronic handheld ones both in English-Korean and English monolingual dictionaries where the difference was bigger in English monolingual dictionaries. This reflected that the subjects used paper dictionaries more often than 14 EFL Learners' Use of Print and Online Dictionaries in L1 and L2 Writing Processes electronic ones especially when they used a monolingual dictionary. Moreover, when the subjects were investigated in what kind of dictionary they used in English writing tasks, they reported to use English-Korean dictionary more than the English monolingual dictionaries, and paper dictionaries more than electronic ones. The researcher finds that subjects use more monolingual dictionaries for productive tasks such as writing than receptive tasks in reading. In spite of efforts of researchers to investigate language learners' use of dictionaries, the scope of the dictionary research remains quite limited in what learners do while writing. There have been few studies on the research of lexical behavior of learners in the way they handle vocabulary gap problems while writing, however, only alongside speaking in the literature on communication strategies (Chimpaganda, 2000; Scholfield & Katamine, 1999; Swain & Lapkin, 1995; Varadi, 1980; Yarmohammadi & Saif, 1992). In dictionary research, there have been some research on the productive use of dictionaries for monolingual (Nesi, 1987; Nesi & Meara, 1994) and bilingual dictionaries (Ard, 1982; Christianson, 1997), but in general there have been lack of research on what Hartmann (2001) labels the 'user perspective'. Hartmann points out that there is very little known about the dictionary user in what kinds of dictionaries (e.g., general or specific) are used by which kinds of users (e.g., lay or expert) for which kind of tasks (e.g., home or work) and by what kinds of look-up strategies (e.g., simple or composite). He also recognizes that the dictionary users of electronic products have not yet stood the test of time. As such, the present study aims to add findings in the use of dictionaries while writing at a computer with access to modern dictionaries by investigating the following research questions. The research questions of the current study are: 1) With regard to Korean (L1) and English (L2), have students received instruction for vocabulary gap problems and dictionary use in writing? 2) With regard to Korean (L1) and English (L2), what are the most commonly used type and form of dictionaries while writing? 3) With regard to Korean (L1) and English (L2), what dictionary use strategies do students employ to solve vocabulary problems when writing? The term 'type' specifically refers to the distinction by languages, that is the monolingual dictionaries and the bilingual dictionaries. 'Form' refers to the researcher's intention in asking the 'presentation mode' of the dictionaries of print, CD, electronic Yuah Vicky Chun 15 handheld, and online Internet dictionaries. III. RESEARCH DESIGN 1. Subjects and Setting 1) Learners-Subjects There were 54 students who took part in the present study. They were from three sections of a writing course, Intermediate English Composition, an elective course open to all students in a university in Seoul, Korea. The course offers instruction in academic writing from paragraphs to essays following the process approach. The teachers were native English and the medium of classroom language was English only. The specific English writing course was chosen for data collection since it provided the ideal context where students would have the optimum possibility of relating to and answering questions about writing procedures and use of dictionaries in the process. The students were from three groups of majors in liberal arts (n = 18 students, 33%), business (n = 16, 30%), and science (n= 20, 37%). There were equal numbers of 27 males and 27 females by chance. The mean age of the subjects was about 24. The students ranged from ages 20-21 (n = 10, 28%), 22-23 (n = 14, 26%), 24-25 (n= 14, 26%), to over 26 (n = 16, 30%). The mean age for the males was approximately 25 and 22.67 years for females. All students ranged from sophomores to juniors (no freshmen) who had all taken two semesters of general English courses required for all the students, and most of them had taken a few more elective English courses within the university other than the writing course. With the range of years in learning English, students had learnt it for less than 7 years (n = 11, 20%), 8-9 years (n = 13, 24%), 10-11 years (n = 14, 36%), and over 12 years (n= 13, 24%). In sum, the students were members of a homogeneous group all sharing similar educational contexts with having learnt English for a mean of ten years. It needs to be noted furthermore that with the influence of overseas education, there were 12 students (20%) who had received some of their education in English-speaking countries ranging from a few months to nine years before coming to the university. 2. Data Collection Instruments The instruments used for the collection of data on students' experience with regard 16 EFL Learners' Use of Print and Online Dictionaries in L1 and L2 Writing Processes to dictionary use in writing L1 and L2 were a questionnaire and semi-structured interviews. 1) Learner Questionnaire The questionnaire was constructed based on the research questions. It aimed to gather information about dictionary use in L1 and L2 writing. The format of the questions were dominantly multiple-choice where students could choose as many as relevant to their experience. There were also open-ended (descriptive) questions asked to complement answers from the multiple choice questions to encourage liberty and depth over what the students could remember about their dictionary use patterns in writing experience of L1 and L2, and not to impose researcher's bias. All questions were delivered in Korean (L1) so as to make it easily comprehensible for the students, and any field specific terminology was avoided and explained in the most easiest phrases. The questionnaire was 5 pages long and was administered by the classroom teachers at the beginning of the semester during one of their regular classroom sessions. It took the students 15-20 minutes to complete, and the response rate was 100%. It was reminded that the learners should answer the questions related to their past dictionary use experience by excluding the experience from the current writing course. 2) Learner Interview Semi-structured interviews were conducted with eighteen students from "Intermediate English Composition" to triangulate responses from the questionnaires. The interview sessions were held at the beginning of the semester. The students were volunteers and were contacted by the researcher for arrangement of dates and times to meet by email for reasons of clarity and students' preferred means of communication The interviews were held in the teacher's office and it took 20 minutes for a single interview. The interviews were held in Korean and recorded on digital voice recorders and the researcher simultaneously took notes. The semi-structured interviews, in parallel with the questionnaire questions, asked about prior dictionary use experience in writing Korean and English compositions. Questions asked were related to the research questions on: 1)What the students did when they realized a vocabulary problem while writing, 2)What dictionaries they most commonly used and 3) Which part of the dictionary entry information they found most useful when writing. Yuah Vicky Chun 17 3) Data Analysis All responses that could be quantified were analyzed using SPSS for Windows 10. Qualitative responses elicited by the questionnaire were tallied according to the keywords or phrases of the short answers that students wrote. Although the students' descriptive answers have the limit of reporting what they wish to report and perhaps leave out on any significant information that needs to be known about previous dictionary use experience in writing, it was believed that what the students reported was what they most easily remembered as being the most important or influential part of their experience with dictionaries. IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 1. Instruction of Strategies on Vocabulary Problems and Dictionary Use The research question one was: With regard to Korean (L1) and English (L2), have students received instruction for vocabulary gap problems and dictionary use in writing? 1) Students' Previous Experience with Instruction in Solving Vocabulary Problems The following Table 1 shows the learners' responses in the questionnaire as to what extent they have received formal instruction to help them solve vocabulary gap problems while writing L2 (English) and L1 (Korean) writing. The students were specifically asked if they had received any formal instruction for what to do when stuck for a word or expression in both languages, in other words, strategies to solve vocabulary gap problems. [Table 1] Experience of Instruction for Vocabulary Problems sometimes rarely never Chi-squared p x² 6 11 33 English (L2) writing 39.5 .00* (11%) (21%) (61%) Korean (L1) writing 3 16 35 28.8 .00* (5%) (30%) (65%) Note: *= statistically significant (p<.05) often 4 (7%) 0 (0%) 18 EFL Learners' Use of Print and Online Dictionaries in L1 and L2 Writing Processes The results from the questionnaire suggest that not many students have received instruction for what to do when they realize a gap in their vocabulary knowledge in L2 and L1. In the case of English writing, 10 subjects (18%) responded to a positive experience of having instruction for what to do when they had a gap in their vocabulary knowledge while writing. In the case of Korean writing, 3 subjects (5%) responded positively. There were statistically significant differences in the responses of experience between instruction of strategies for solving vocabulary gap problems in L1 and L2 writing, and the results show that the learners had slightly more frequent experience of strategy instruction for vocabulary gap problems in English than in Korean. Nevertheless, the relatively high number of responses for 'never' having received instruction for vocabulary problems revealed that the students had been left alone to solve vocabulary problems while writing in L1 and L2. The differences here after all may not be as important as noticing the lack of any teaching of strategies to solve vocabulary gap problems of writing in both languages. Students may often be placed in the situation to write as best as they can with access to only dictionaries. Students may select the one most easily accessible rather than the one that seems best for the task (e.g., pleasure reading or exam studying) to be completed. The student interviews also underline that there was hardly any reference to teaching of strategies when they were stuck for a word or phrase in both languages. It seems that most of the problems had been left to students to solve during their independent writing processes. In connection, the students had been asked in the questionnaire to describe their knowledge of strategies for vocabulary problems (e.g., what to do when stuck for a word) in Korean and English writing. In the case of English writing, eight subjects gave a response which was mostly about using dictionaries and asking a teacher or a friend to fill in for the knowledge gap. In other words, the strategies students knew about solving vocabulary problems while writing fell in the category of appealing for assistance (Bialystok, 1990; Faerch & Kasper, 1983). One student reported in detail that when he was stuck for a word, he had been told to find a synonym in a thesaurus closest in meaning, select a word and to use a monolingual dictionary to double check on the information of the word. As such, cross-referencing has been known to be one of the ideal ways of looking up words in dictionaries (Scholfield, 2002, personal communication). Another student had been told to use the dictionary like her 'other self' and try to become familiar with the words or phrases she had looked up. Two other students displayed a passive attitude toward accessing the words needed to be used by relying on the correction of vocabulary errors by a teacher, or to rely on Yuah Vicky Chun 19 input from the teacher/instructor during the planning stage of writing in giving them the content words and expressions needed to write essays on a specific topic. In another response, one student reported that she had been instructed to use a known word closest in meaning 'without hesitation'. This is an approach that was taken in favor of fluency in communication (e.g., frequent use of avoidance in what to say) rather than accuracy (e.g., by frequent use of dictionaries). In the case of Korean writing, two students gave descriptions as to what they had been instructed to do when meeting vocabulary problems while writing. They both explained that they would ask the teacher for the appropriate vocabulary to be used. Another student referred to a long term plan, one that falls in "meta-cognitive strategy" (O'Malley & Chamot, 1990) mentioning that he would read up a lot of books to learn vocabulary that might be needed while writing. As a whole, the low response rate from the quantitative and qualitative data both support that there is lack of recognition on vocabulary problems while writing. The issue is connected to the examination of dictionary use strategies while writing in trying to fill a learner's knowledge gap in vocabulary. 2) Students' Previous Experience with Instruction on Dictionary Use In connection to the examination of students' ability and knowledge in solving vocabulary problems while writing, there was also an investigation on the use of dictionaries. The following Table 2 shows the learners' responses in the questionnaire as to what extent they have received formal instruction for effective dictionary use in L2 (English) and L1 (Korean) writing. The students were specifically asked for both languages: "In your writing class, how often were you taught to effectively make use of a dictionary in writing a composition?" [Table 2] Experience of Instruction for Dictionary Use often sometimes rarely never Chi-squared x² 1 17 34 English (L2) writing 2 53.4 (4%) (2%) (31%) (63%) Korean (L1) writing 0 2 15 37 34.8 (0%) (4%) (28%) (68%) Note: *= statistically significant (p<.05) p .00* .00* 20 EFL Learners' Use of Print and Online Dictionaries in L1 and L2 Writing Processes The results from the questionnaire suggest that not many students have been instructed to make effective use of dictionaries while writing. In the case of English writing, 3 subjects (6%) responded to a positive experience of having received any instruction on dictionary use while writing. In the case of Korean writing, 2 subjects (4%) responded positively. There were statistically significant differences in the responses of experience between instruction on dictionary use strategies in L1 and L2 writing, and the results show that the learners had slightly more frequent experience of strategy instruction on dictionary use in English than in Korean. What is more noticeable is that any instruction on dictionary use has been infrequent for both languages. This finding has also been validated in a project coordinated by Atkins & Varantola (1998). The study confirmed a number of findings of other studies that the majority of students had received no (or very little) instruction in the use of dictionaries, for instance, that regardless of training most do not know under which of their constituent parts idioms should be looked up. When the students were asked in the questionnaire to describe their knowledge of how they had been using the dictionary while writing, only one out of the 54 students reported for Korean writing. She had been instructed to find the meaning of a word in a dictionary by finding the word through the Hangul (Korean writing system) consonant and vowel order. This is, however, a basic dictionary use method rather than a strategy that most students, who have used a Korean monolingual dictionary, would know about. In the case of English writing, the description about dictionary use strategies in English was also limited. Two subjects explained that they had been told to make use of example sentences in monolingual dictionaries. This approach, however, carries some restrictions when the dictionary entry does not carry the needed example sentence. One other student who had been at a summer language program abroad reported that he had been instructed to map out words or expressions related to the theme or topic of writing in a tree diagram (i.e. semantic mapping) and to learn the words or expressions in relation to one another after looking up the words in an English monolingual dictionary. However, for these kinds of strategies to be successful, the role of the information-giver or the teacher is important. The teacher may need to conduct informative brainstorming sessions before the writing task, introduce dictionaries for productive use, such as the thesaurus, or provide self-access links to the Internet, such as at Visual Thesaurus 1) where definitions are presented with information on synonyms and collocations in semantic map diagrams. 1) http://www.visualthesaurus.com/online/index.html Yuah Vicky Chun 21 2. The Types and Forms of Dictionaries The research question was: With regard to Korean (L1) and English (L2), what are the most commonly used type and form of dictionaries while writing? In the questionnaire, the subject-learners were asked about the Korean and English monolingual dictionaries, and the Korean-English and English-Korean bilingual dictionaries. On the whole, for all 'types' of dictionaries, the subjects were asked to choose dictionary 'forms' that they found useful for writing in L1 and L2. 1) Use of Dictionaries in English Compositions The students were asked what type of dictionary they mostly used while writing compositions in English. Subjects were asked to mark the relative frequency of using a certain type of dictionary when writing compositions in English; they were asked to mark the order from the least frequently used to the most frequently used among the three types of dictionaries from Korean-English, English-Korean bilingual dictionaries, and the English monolingual dictionary. The results showed that students in their writing process use the Korean-English bilingual dictionary most frequently (63%), the English-Korean bilingual dictionary next frequently (24%), and the English monolingual dictionary least frequently (13%). In the same line, Stein (1990) suggests that the most natural progression seems to be from the bilingual to the monolingual general-purpose dictionary, and recommends learner's monolingual dictionary to be more suited for intermediate and advanced learners. 2) Korean and English Monolingual Dictionaries Learner-subjects were asked for both English and Korean monolingual dictionaries as to the 'form' of dictionaries that was most useful to them for writing. The learners were asked to choose as many items that were relevant to their writing process. Item: Forms of Dictionaries Print Online Handheld Hardly used CD [Table 3] Use of Monolingual Dictionaries English Monolingual Dictionary Frequency rank 31(57%) 1 16(30%) 2 7(13%) 3 8(15%) 4 4(7%) 5 Korean Monolingual Dictionary Frequency rank 23(43%) 1 18(33%) 3 2(4%) 4 20(37%) 2 1(2%) 5 22 EFL Learners' Use of Print and Online Dictionaries in L1 and L2 Writing Processes As the results indicate, students most favored using the print dictionary for both Korean and English bilingual dictionaries. The online dictionary ranked 2nd for the English monolingual dictionary and 'hardly used' was ranked as 2nd for the Korean monolingual dictionary. It reflects overall that student writers need the Korean monolingual dictionary much less frequently than when writing in English or a foreign language. All in all, dictionaries in 'print' form seemed to be the most popular while the online dictionary was the next commonly used in the English and Korean writing processes. [Table 4] Use of Monolingual Dictionaries in L1 and L2 Writing Items: Forms English Korean English and Neither Used Chi-squared of (Including x² Dictionaries Mono Mono Korean Mono no response) 30 20 17 15 Print 7.41 (62%) (42%) (35%) (31%) 15 17 9 25 Online 5.77 (31%) (35%) (19%) (52%) 6 2 2 42 Handheld (12%) 14.61 (4%) (4%) (88%) 4 1 1 44 CD 11.23 (8%) (2%) (2%) (91%) Note: *= statistically significant (p<.05) p .01* .02* .00* .00* With regard to the use of 'type' of monolingual dictionaries, the results for each were statistically significant. There were 30 subjects (62%) and 20 subjects (42%) that showed positive responses for using the 'print' English and Korean monolingual dictionaries respectively. 15 subjects (31%) and 17 subjects (35%) showed positive responses for using 'online' English and Korean dictionaries respectively. On the other hand, 44 subjects (91%) and 42 subjects (88%) showed negative responses for using CD and handheld dictionaries respectively in their writing processes. As a whole, the pattern of results reflect that 'print' and 'online' monolingual dictionaries are commonly used in the students' writing processes whereas the 'handheld' and 'CD' seem unpopular for use. Yuah Vicky Chun 23 3) English-Korean and Korean-English Bilingual Dictionaries Learner-subjects were asked for both English-Korean and Korean-English bilingual dictionaries as to the 'form' of dictionaries that was most useful to them for writing. The learners were asked to choose as many items that were relevant to their writing processes. Items: Forms of Dictionaries Online Print Handheld Hardly used CD [Table 5] Use of Bilingual Dictionaries English-Korean Bilingual Dictionary Frequency rank 29(54%) 1 21(39%) 2 12(22%) 3 3(6%) 4 2(4%) 5 Korean-English Bilingual Dictionary Frequency rank 31(57%) 1 22(41%) 2 14(26%) 3 2(4%) 5 3(6%) 4 The pattern of the results almost paralleled for both bilingual dictionaries only showing slight differences in the 'hardly used' and 'CD' categories. The most favored 'form' was the 'online' followed by 'print' and 'handheld' bilingual dictionaries. The low relative response in the rank of 'hardly used' shows overall that students writing a composition in English as a foreign language necessitates them to write with access to bilingual dictionaries in their writing processes. This may prove that students are writing in a foreign language by checking information about the word they are using or making a choice between two words or phrases they may want to use and dictionaries are assisting them to do that. The results of the semi-structured interviews revealed that Korean-English dictionaries were most often used in the students' writing processes where online bilingual dictionaries at Yahoo! Korea 2) and Naver 3) were frequently accessed. Their reasons for the preference of the online dictionaries is in speed. They explained that online dictionaries are fast, easy to read and easy for noticing important information which is often in hyperlinks. The links easily extended the information about the word, such as in finding example sentences, derivatives, synonyms, collocational expressions, 2) http://www.yahoo.co.kr 3) http://www.naver.com 24 EFL Learners' Use of Print and Online Dictionaries in L1 and L2 Writing Processes and other related words so that the students did not have to do a new search at the site. In other words, the "parallel and multi-path (multilingual)" search functions (Koren, 1997) seem to be more important for productive tasks, such as writing. Items: Forms of Dictionaries Online Print Handheld CD [Table 6] Use of Bilingual Dictionaries in L2 Writing Eng-Kor Bilingual 29 (59%) 21 (43%) 12 (24%) 2 (4%) Kor-Eng Bilingual 30 (61%) 20 (41%) 13 (26%) 3 (6%) Note: *= statistically significant (p<.05) Eng-Kor and Kor-Eng 27 (55%) 17 (35%) 11 (22%) 2 (4%) ChiNeither squared Used x² 17 (35%) 30.41 25 (51%) 24.51 35 (71%) 34.59 46 (94%) 31.97 p .00* .00* .00* .00* With regard to the use of 'type' of bilingual dictionaries, the results for each were statistically significant. There were 29 subjects (59%) and 30 subjects (61%) that showed positive responses for using 'online' English-Korean and Korean-English bilingual dictionaries respectively. What may be noticeable is that 27 (55%) students who use the Korean-English bilingual dictionary may use the English-Korean bilingual dictionary and vice versa. For instance, the use of the two bilingual dictionaries becomes easily bidirectional at online dictionary sites; one may switch very easily from one type to the other by instant mouse clicks. 21 subjects (43%) and 20 subjects (41%) showed positive responses for using print English-Korean and Korean-English bilingual dictionaries respectively. The CD bilingual dictionaries did not show to be popularly used as reference material during the students' writing processes. As a whole, the students are more active in using bilingual dictionaries than monolingual dictionaries in their writing processes. The 'print' form was the preferred form of monolingual dictionaries, and the 'online' dictionary proved to be the preferred form of bilingual dictionaries when writing. These results are connected to the fact that when student writers have to hand in word processed assignments, which is becoming the norm in academic contexts, they are often composed at a computer linked to the Internet. According to the interview, it is easy access to information on a word or phrase in both languages of L1 (Korean) and L2 (English) at one sitting that encourage students to use online dictionaries. Students explained in the Yuah Vicky Chun 25 interviews that taking advantage of the online dictionaries becomes immediately apparent; clicking on a related word or phrase in a list takes them to the appropriate information category such as for the L2 equivalent word of L1, to a derivative of the word, or to check up on synonymous L1 words to arrive at better L2 words. However, the basic usage pattern is situational rather than general. The analysis of the data from student interviews reveal that students tend to use more online or CD dictionaries when composing at a computer, or print and electronic handheld dictionaries when the look-up task needs to be brief, or when there is a problem with access to a computer. 3. Dictionary Use Strategies in Korean and English Compositions Research question three was: With regard to Korean (L1) and English (L2), what dictionary use strategies do students employ to solve vocabulary problems when writing? The learners were specifically asked for both English and Korean: "Think about your writing process when you are writing in English/Korean. As you prepare and then write essays in English/Korean to what extent do you......?" In the questionnaire they were asked to rate a Likert's scale from 1-5 ranging from 1 as never, 2 as rarely, 3 as sometimes, 4 as often and 5 as always. Table 7 presents the quantitative results from responses of 54 learners. Missing responses are excluded in the analysis. [Table 7] Dictionary Use Strategies in Writing English writing Korean writing Items Mean SD rank Mean SD rank Use a dictionary when not sure about 4.46 .67 1 3.54 1.11 1 spelling Use a dictionary when not sure about 4.42 .61 2 3.26 .99 2 meaning of a word Use a dictionary when not sure about 4.12 .92 3 3.25 1.07 3 register of a word Successfully use the dictionary to find 3.82 .92 4 2.84 1.14 5 the wanted information Use a dictionary for words that cannot 3.83 .92 5 2.98 1.19 4 be fully remembered Note: SD= standard deviation, * = statistically significant (p<.05) t p -5.04 .00* -7.46 .00* -4.37 .00* -4.79 .00* -5.16 .00* 26 EFL Learners' Use of Print and Online Dictionaries in L1 and L2 Writing Processes The results reveal that dictionary use strategy for checking spelling was ranked as the most frequently employed of the students for L1 (Korean) and L2 (English) writing. The data from the interview supports that students, for instance, would try to look up the dictionary to guess at the spelling of a word that they had heard at a movie or news broadcast. One student said that if the attempt failed in an English-Korean dictionary, she would try to cross-reference it by attempting to find the English word in the Korean-English dictionary. The next frequently used strategy to use dictionaries for checking on the meaning and register in L1 and L2 writing. Moreover, the extent to students' success in using dictionaries to find the wanted information ranked 4th in L1 writing and 5th in L2 writing. The mean difference between L2 and L1 in the successful use of dictionaries validates that students use more dictionaries in L2 writing to be successful in their dictionary use attempts. Similarly, the mean difference in L1 and L2 in the use of dictionaries for words that cannot be fully remembered explains that there are more instances of lexical gap in the student writers' knowledge in L2 writing and thus more possibility of using the dictionary. In the semi-structured interviews, the students' evaluated their dictionary use attempts to be successful most of the time, and the information category they mostly referred to was for example sentences, and less frequently for other information categories. The students' awareness about the importance of example sentences shows that they realize contextual information to be important in writing tasks. In fact, many students reported about having difficulties in selecting an appropriate word to fit the context of the sentences they were writing. When the students were asked as to what they did when their dictionary use attempts had been unsuccessful in accessing the needed word or information category, they reported that they would change the word to one that they were more familiar with, paraphrase, or appeal to a teacher or friends for help, and in extreme cases abandon using the word to express the idea they had in mind. The results of the five-paired t-tests indicate that were significant differences in the occurrence of dictionary use strategies between the L1 and L2, favoring L2 writing. The results explain that the level of learners' attempts to use the dictionary was relatively more frequent than that toward L1 writing. It affirms that learners encounter more lexical gap problems while writing in the L2. On the whole, EFL teachers in writing instruction may need to be concerned with the problem-oriented nature of the writing process with regard to students' lexical gap problems and devise tasks to use dictionaries more effectively. Yuah Vicky Chun 27 V. CONCLUSION 1. Summary of Findings As a foundation to the study in dictionary use, it was found in the questionnaire that the students had rarely received instruction for what to do when encountered with vocabulary gap problems, and lacked knowledge of strategies in using dictionaries effectively for both L1 and L2 writing. In order to investigate their expectations for what information dictionaries should carry, the students were asked what type and form of dictionaries they were using. As to the type and form of dictionaries that were being used during the writing processes, the print was the preferred form for both English and Korean monolingual dictionaries. While the use of the Korean-English dictionary was more common than the English-Korean dictionary in the L2 writing process, the online bilingual dictionaries ranked as the most frequently used for both types. The use of the word processor with connections to the Internet contribute to profuse and transient uses of online dictionaries. The speed and the bidirectional nature in the access of bilingual online dictionaries contribute to its popular use particularly in the L2 writing process. In the students' dictionary use strategies in L1 and L2 writing, there were significant differences, favoring L2. It implies that there are more uses of the dictionary in the L2 writing process. The quantitative results revealed that students were using the dictionary most frequently for checking spelling, and the next frequently for meaning and register. In comparison, the interviews further revealed that the students in many cases relied on online dictionaries for information on example sentences, and synonyms of words students wanted to use. Many students confessed about having difficulties in selecting the appropriate word from the dictionary entries to use within the context of the sentences they were writing. 2. Implications for Dictionary Use Research and Training The research so far on EFL students' dictionary use patterns with regard to particular type and form of dictionaries contributes to expanding our knowledge of dictionary users in dictionary research, and also provide some views on how teachers can help learners access accurate information from dictionaries by starting from the ones that students like to use. For teachers and researchers, the results show how language learners access dictionaries in need of certain information categories, and what may be troubling the students most in the productive use of dictionaries in L1 and L2 writing. 28 EFL Learners' Use of Print and Online Dictionaries in L1 and L2 Writing Processes The results show that there need to be more classroom time spent on using the dictionaries. Even though there were less instances of dictionary use in L1 writing, the findings for use of dictionaries in L2 provide implications that the use of L1 monolingual dictionaries should be encouraged in L1 writing, for instance, in refining and optimizing the appropriate choice of words, and referencing example sentences. For L2 writing tasks, example sentences from the learners' monolingual dictionaries can be utilized, and students' inappropriate sentences from essays may also be brought to their attention to point out misused words within a context of a sentence. It requires modelling by the teacher in use of a newly learnt word, and requires the student to perform a task using the targeted skills. In the same vein, Cubillo (2002) states that as with many other aspects of language learning, exposure to input, such as repeated reminders that there are dictionaries to help the students' language learning process and the discussion of the kind of information that may contain is not enough for the concept to be acquired (Swain, 1995); learners need to find themselves in a situation where this type of dictionary is needed and then the teacher should remind learners of its characteristics, provide significant activity, and create an appropriate environment in which to use it. It is not an issue of what users use most or what they find most interesting. For instance, in order to utilize online and CD dictionaries, classroom reading tasks may be devised for students to read passages on the Internet (e.g., Short Stories at East of the Web)4), so that the look-up procedures may be swift and accurate. Writing tasks may be completed at message boards(e.g., Yahoo! Groups)5), with email or word processors to allow look-up procedures to be less troublesome for students to achieve expressing what they have in mind. For students, the present kind of study may sensitize them to become aware that there are various type and form of dictionaries other than the ones they commonly like to use. If it is the case that bilingual online dictionaries are most popularly used among students, they need to become aware about access to other type and form of dictionaries. As for the monolingual dictionaries whether in print or CD, it needs to be pointed out that they carry wealth of information on words and exercises to go along with them (Tribble, 2003). There is also need to devote classes to introduce learners to using monolingual learners' dictionaries in the classroom, and to introduce that workbooks exist with many dictionaries (Stark, 1990). Although the CD dictionaries did not show to be popularly used in the current study, access to CD form dictionaries are easily 4) http://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/indexframe.html 5) http://groups.yahoo.com