Skip to main content

Individual Differences in Dictionary Strategy Use

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
  • 3394 Accesses

Part of the book series: Second Language Learning and Teaching ((SLLT))

Abstract

In the past 25 years there has been a flurry of interest in the complex nature of dictionary use, and researchers have devised taxonomies of strategies which aim to describe the process of looking up a word according to different purposes. Most research has focused on identifying and isolating specific strategies across large groups of users, with a view to validating existing taxonomies of dictionary use strategies. By contrast, there appears to be a paucity of research investigating the complexity and the interconnectedness of factors that have a bearing on the individual user’s strategic behaviour in dictionary use, which, we would like to argue, is only possible through an in-depth qualitative case study approach. This article reports on an exploratory case study which has involved three first-year Modern Languages students at three different levels of competence (ranging from B1 to B2). The three participants were asked to carry out four tasks for receptive and productive use of a monolingual dictionary (Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English 2003). In order to tap the participants’ thought processes, we asked them to engage in concurrent verbalization. The experiment was video and audio recorded and the students’ verbalizations were subsequently transcribed. Data analysis has shown how individual strategy use is correlated with each participant’s English language proficiency and their degree of language awareness.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Nesi (2000), Humblé (2001), Hartmann (2003) for a review of the main studies on learners’ dictionary use.

  2. 2.

    Cf. Nesi (2000) for a review of studies on the use of both the bilingual and the monolingual dictionary which have used the think-aloud techniques; cf. also Wingate (2004).

  3. 3.

    Dörnyei (2007: 147) points out that the main difference between these two types of introspection lies in the timing: the retrospective interview or report happens after the task has been completed, whereas the think-aloud technique is applied real-time, concurrently to the examined task/process.

  4. 4.

    Leow and Morgan-Short (2004: 37) address the issue of ‘reactivity’—“the act of thinking aloud may trigger changes in learners’ cognitive processes while performing the task” and conclude that the potential impact of reactivity in studies that employ concurrent verbalization procedures remains to be empirically tested in the Second Language Acquistion field.

  5. 5.

    For example, Bishop (2000) carried out research with students of the Open University with the aim of devising guidelines for using bilingual dictionaries; Winkler (2001) investigated how EFL learners use a learners’ dictionary in book form and on CD-ROM; Nesi and Haill (2002) reported on an investigation into the dictionary-using habits of students at a British university over a period of three years; Wingate (2004) studied three groups of students using monolingual and bilingual dictionaries.

  6. 6.

    With reference to the findings from studies within developmental psychology, Macaro (2006: 327) concludes that “for a strategy to be effective in promoting learning or improved performance, it must be combined with other strategies either simultaneously or in sequence, thus forming strategy clusters”.

  7. 7.

    Cf. Dörnyei (2005: 171) for a review of research in the area of learner variation in strategy use. Macaro (2006: 320–321) states that a body of evidence coming from learner strategy research has led scholars to make claims such as: (a) strategy use seems to correlate with different aspects of language learning success and motivation; (b) there are group and individual differences in learner strategy use; (c) learner strategy training can be effective if it is carried out over an extended period of time and if it includes a focus on metacognition.

  8. 8.

    When decoding–reading–one is dealing with the meaning of a lexical item. An encoding learner needs more information than a decoding learner and the information is of a different nature. When encoding learners look up a word whose meaning they already know to some extent. They may want to confirm this meaning, but their main interest is usage, a combination of syntax and collocation (Humblé 2001: 63–66). Nation (2001: 283–288) suggests making a similar distinction in his dictionary skill taxonomy according to whether the dictionary is used for receptive use (with listening and reading) or for productive use (with speaking and writing).

  9. 9.

    This strategy was originally described in a study carried out with 10–11-year old children by Miller and Gildea (1987) in order to discover the kinds of mistakes native speakers of English attending schools in the United States make when looking up words. A detailed description of this study can be found in Nesi (2000: 42–46).

References

  • Beaven, B., ed. 2008. IATEFL 2007 Aberdeen Conference Selection. Canterbury: IATEFL.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bishop, G. 2000. Developing learner strategies in the use of dictionaries as a productive language learning tool. Language Learning 22: 58–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chi, A. 2003. Teaching dictionary skills in the classroom. In ed. R.R.K. Hartmann, 355–369.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cowie, A. 1999. English dictionaries for foreign learners. A history. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dörnyei, Z. 2005. The psychology of the language learner. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dörnyei, Z. 2007. Research methods in applied linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ericsson, K., and H. Simon. 1993. Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data (revised edition). Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartmann, R.R.K., ed. 2003. Lexicography. Critical concepts. 1 vols. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Humblé, P. 2001. Dictionaries and language learners. Frankfurt: Haag and Herchen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, K. 2002. Designing language teaching tasks. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, K., ed. 2008. Expertise in second language learning and teaching. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Larsen-Freeman, D. 2008. Teaching begins with learning. Paper presented at the University of Milan, April 14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leow, R., and K. Morgan-Short. 2004. To think aloud or not to think aloud: The issue of reactivity in SLA research methodology. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 26: 35–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Macaro, E. 2006. Strategies for language learning and for language use: Revising the theoretical framework. Modern Language Journal 90: 320–337.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G.A., and P.M. Gildea. 1987. How children learn words. Scientific American 257: 94–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Müllich, H. 1990. Die Definition ist blöd!’ Herübersetzen mit dem einsprachigen Wörterbuch. Das französische und englische Lernerwörterbuch in der Hand der deutschen Schüler. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nation, I.S.P. 2001. Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nesi, H. 2000. The use and abuse of EFL dictionaries. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nesi, H. 2003. The specification of dictionary reference skills in higher education. In ed. R.R.K. Hartmann, 370–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nesi, H., and R. Haill. 2002. A study of dictionary use by international students at a British university. International Journal of Lexicography 15: 277–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neubach, A., and A.D. Cohen. 1988. Processing strategies and problems encountered in the use of dictionaries. Journal of the Dictionary Society of North America 10: 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedrazzini, L., and A. Nava. 2008. How do they actually use the dictionary? In ed. B. Beaven, 183–185.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholfield, P. 1999. Dictionary use in reception. International Journal of Lexicography 12: 13–34.

    Google Scholar 

  • Szczepaniak, R. 2003. What users do with dictionaries in situation of comprehension deficit: An empirical study. Studia Anglica Posnaniensia 39: 191–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tono, Y. 2003. Research on dictionary use: Methodological considerations. In ed. R.R.K. Hartmann, 394–412.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wingate, U. 2004. Dictionary use—the need to teach strategies. Language Learning 29: 5–11.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winkler, B. 2001. Students working with an English learners’ dictionary on CD-Rom. Papers from the ITMELT 2001 Conference.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luciana Pedrazzini .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pedrazzini, L., Nava, A. (2012). Individual Differences in Dictionary Strategy Use. In: Pawlak, M. (eds) New Perspectives on Individual Differences in Language Learning and Teaching. Second Language Learning and Teaching. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20850-8_20

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics