78
than the subjects who used PDs, 86% and 62% respectively, and it took them 50%
less time to translate the passage
.
Leffa asserted that when learners are engaged in
using the PD while reading, they lose the context of the passage during the lookup
process
.
He suggested that this shortcoming can easily be avoided with an ED, as the
speed of access allows the context to remain in the short term memory, which
accelerates comprehension
.
Similarly, Aust, Kelley and Roby (1993) examined 80 undergraduate L2
learners for their use of online and printed dictionaries. The measures were lookup
frequency, reading time, efficiency, and degree of comprehension
.
The findings
revealed that the subjects used online dictionaries much more frequently than PDs
.
Online dictionaries provided easier and more efficient use, which motivated the
subjects
to be fully engaged in reading
.
Findings from this study also suggest that
online dictionary use might reduce the overall reading time
.
Moreover, Koga (1995) compared online dictionaries and PDs regarding their
effects on L2 reading comprehension
.
Forty university students read six texts in three
conditions (no dictionary, PD, and online) and answered comprehension questions
.
Koga found out that the subjects finished the reading tasks in less time in the no-
dictionary condition than in the ED condition, and faster in the ED condition than in
the PD condition
.
In addition, the subjects had higher reading scores in the ED
condition than in the no-dictionary condition, and higher scores in the no-dictionary
79
condition than in the PD condition
.
Koga suggested that the ED had less interference
in the reading process, which facilitated the students’ comprehension
.
Some researchers had an interest in PEDs, among them Iwamato (1998) who
compared a PED with a PD as to which type was more efficient in locating the first
meaning in an entry as well as the contextual meaning
.
Iwamato instructed 10
university students to locate the first meaning in an entry for a group of words, using a
PED and a PD
.
Then the students had to locate the contextual meaning in an entry for
another set of words, using a PED and a PD
.
Iwamoto (1998) found that the students accessed the first meaning
significantly faster with a PED than with a PD, and that they accessed the contextual
meaning much faster with a PED than with a PD
.
Unlike in the PD condition, no
substantial differences in performance between the students were found in the PED
condition, indicating that a PED allowed more efficient access to information for all
students
.
Likewise, Shimizu (2003) investigated the effects of a PED compared to a PD
on retrieving meaning and example by 77 university students. The subjects took a
speed test to locate word meanings and examples, using either a PED or a PD
.
They
also filled out a questionnaire about their perceptions of the two dictionary types
.
The
results revealed that the PED was more effective in finding word meanings, and that
the users’ familiarity with the PED accelerated the task
.
However, no significant
80
differences in the efficiency of accessing examples were found between the two
conditions
.
Interestingly, the vast majority of participants preferred the PED search
.
Moreover, Koyama and Takeuchi (2003) examined 26 university EFL students
and 16 high school students to see how their lookup patterns differed using a PED and
a PD
.
The subjects finished a reading task using either a PD or a PED
.
A week after
later, they were given two types of tests
:
recall and recognition
.
The subjects also
completed a survey about their impression regarding the dictionaries they used
.
The findings revealed no significant differences in the number of lookups and
search time. In addition, there were no significant differences in the scores for recall
and recognition
.
Interestingly, most of the students appreciated PED use because of
its portability and ease of use
.
However, some of them complained about the PED not
providing as adequate information as the PD; although both dictionary types
contained the same amount of information
.
Koyama and Takeuchi (2003) explained
this belief by the fact that the PED’s screen was small, thereby making the students
switch between different screens to get detailed information
.
In another study, Koyama and Takeuchi (2004a) examined how the difference
in the interface designs between a PED and a PD could affect EFL students’ search
behavior
.
Eighteen undergraduate students read two texts without using any
dictionary type, and then took a vocabulary test with a PED or a PD
.
The students had
to supply definitions for four target words using the dictionary and to quote usage
Dostları ilə paylaş: |