International Journal of Lexicography, Vol. 23 No. 3, pp.

257–273
doi:10.1093/ijl/ecp040 Advance access publication 1 February 2010 257

PAPER OR ELECTRONIC?
THE ROLE OF DICTIONARY FORM
IN LANGUAGE RECEPTION,
PRODUCTION AND THE
RETENTION OF MEANING AND
COLLOCATIONS

Downloaded from http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ondokuz Mayis University on November 1, 2014

Anna Dziemianko: Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan¤, Poland (danna@ifa.amu.edu.pl)

Abstract

The aim of the paper is twofold. First, it aspires to compare the usefulness of a mono-
lingual English learners’ dictionary in electronic and paper form in receptive and pro-
ductive tasks. Second, it sets out to assess the role of dictionary form in the retention of
meaning and collocations. The investigation concerns the paper and electronic versions
of a recent monolingual English learners’ dictionary, COBUILD6 (2008). The study
reports on an experiment, in which 64 upper-intermediate and advanced students took
part. The test consisted of two tasks: receptive and productive. To complete them, each
subject was assigned to work with one version of the dictionary. It turns out that
COBUILD online was more useful in both tasks. The results of an unexpected retention
test prove it to be a better learning tool as well, since it significantly enhanced the
retention of both meaning and collocations.

1. Introduction

In the 1990s, James-Catalano (1996: 31) referred to electronic dictionaries as ‘a

valuable tool in the quest for knowledge’. Research shows that the tool is in
many respects valuable indeed. It makes the process of dictionary consultation
less time-consuming and encourages exploratory browsing, which results in a
larger number of words looked up (Aust, Kelly, and Roby 1993: 70, Guillot
and Kenning 1994: 65, Nesi 2000b: 111–112, Roby 1991: 124). Besides, it is
appreciated by its users, who tend to prefer it to the bound book because of
the speed and ease of consultation as well as, increasingly often, the quality of
the information supplied (Laufer and Hill 2000: 68, Nesi 2000b: 111–112,
Taylor and Chan 1994: 602–603, Tono 2000: 861). It thus seems reasonable
# 2010 Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions,
please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
258 Anna Dziemianko

to expect that ‘if a pedagogical tool is popular with the students, the chances
are that it will also be beneficial for learning’ (Laufer and Hill 2000: 68).
However, it is still not certain whether the fast search and a larger number
of dictionary consultations stimulated by electronic reference tools have
long-lasting educational advantages (Nesi 2000b: 113, Tono 2000: 855). On
the one hand, it is believed that looking up more words might be conducive
to (incidental) vocabulary acquisition (Komuro et al. 2006: 133, Roby 1991:
124–125). Guillot and Kenning (1993: 72–73), for example, observe that the
lateral browsing encouraged by the electronic dictionary in their study ‘enabled
students to leave no stone unturned, and gave them a degree of control over the

Downloaded from http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ondokuz Mayis University on November 1, 2014

materials, and a momentum’, and that is why it can ‘generate its own learning
impetus’. Nonetheless, the authors admit that the benefits of speed alone are
open to question. Sharpe (1995: 50) points out that the short time needed to
retrieve information with the help of electronic dictionaries may not enhance
the retention of the information for language learning purposes. It is claimed
that the ease of electronic dictionary use can result in shallow processing of the
looked up words, which may be downright detrimental to retention. In Nesi’s
(2000a: 844) words, there is a ‘possibility that the most easily extracted infor-
mation may require least thought, and be soonest forgotten’. In fact, it has
been postulated that what truly matters to word retention is the attention
during the look-up process rather than the number of look-ups. Laufer and
Hill (2000: 72) found that ‘the number of times the word is looked up during a
learning session bears almost no relation to its retention’. In keeping with the
Involvement Load Hypothesis (Laufer and Hulstijn 2001, Hulstijn and Laufer
2001), retention of unknown words is conditional upon the amount of involve-
ment while processing these words. Obviously, deeper and more elaborate pro-
cessing results in better word retention. In other words, the greater the
involvement load, the better retention (Hulstijn and Laufer 2001: 545).1
Bearing in mind the risk of shallow processing of the information supplied
by electronic dictionaries, it is only natural that monitoring long-term effects
of electronic dictionary consultation on language learning is called for in the
literature on the subject (Laufer and Hill 2000: 72, Nesi 1999: 63, Nesi 2000b:
113–114). It is hoped that such research could not only influence pedagogical
decisions, but would also provide a basis for lexicographers’ choices (Laufer
2000: 849, Tono 2000: 861).
In fact, there is a substantial body of research on the use of electronic ref-
erence tools, mainly, though not only, in reading comprehension tasks, also in
comparison with the effects yielded by the consultation of paper glosses or
dictionaries, or reference to no dictionaries at all (e.g. Aust, Kelley and
Roby 1993, Chun and Plass 1996, Davis and Lyman-Hager 1997, Guillot
and Kenning 1994, Knight 1994, Komuro et al. 2006, Laufer 2000, Laufer
and Hill 2000, Lyman-Hager et al. 1993, Nesi 2000b, Peters 2007, Roby
1991, Tono 2000, Weschler and Pitts: 2000). Of these, Nesi 2000b and
 Paper or Electronic 259

Komuro et al. (2006) compare the use of actual paper and electronic mono-
lingual English learners’ dictionaries, rather than their adaptations, specifically
designed (electronic) consultation tools or paper/electronic glosses. Komuro
et al. (2006: 111) are rightly surprised by the fact that user research concerning
monolingual English learners’ dictionaries in electronic form is still ‘extremely
rare’ even though, for some time now, CD-ROMs have been almost routinely
attached to the major monolingual English dictionaries for learners. Worse yet,
it appears that ‘even those who market electronic dictionaries seem to be
uncertain of user requirements’ (Nesi 1999: 63). Unfortunately, there is also
a paucity of research on the role of paper and electronic monolingual

Downloaded from http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ondokuz Mayis University on November 1, 2014

English learners’ dictionaries in vocabulary retention. Even when a pedagogical
dictionary in both formats is used in research, hardly any attempts are
made ‘to monitor the long-term benefit of look-up. We cannot be certain,
for example, that the subjects remembered any of the words they looked up
in either format’ (Nesi 2000b: 114).2 Likewise, the study by Komuro et al.
(2006), which judges the usability of OALDCE7 on paper and in electronic
form and leads to the conclusion that explicit instruction in using the electronic
version is necessary, is not concerned with any long-lasting effects of
dictionary use.

2. The study

The aim of the present study is to compare the usefulness of a monolingual

English learners’ dictionary in paper and electronic form in receptive and
productive tasks, and assess the role of dictionary form (paper and electronic)
in the retention of meaning and collocations. It is hoped that the experiment
can contribute to the body of research in the field in three ways. First, it centers
on paper and electronic versions of an actual monolingual English learners’
dictionary, the latest edition of Collins COBUILD Advanced Dictionary
(6th edition, 2008), and not on glosses, electronic consultation tools or multi-
media applications, existing or devised for research purposes. Its findings may
thus be informative to English learners and their teachers, who still quite often
rely on dictionaries available in bookstores, which, as already mentioned, typ-
ically come in paper and electronic form, rather than on consultation tools at
the cutting edge of computer technology, usually beyond the reach of the gen-
eral public. Second, the investigation goes beyond receptive tasks, which tend
to prevail in the studies in the field. In this way, it gets closer to the actual
purpose of pedagogical dictionaries, which abound in features facilitating
production. Third, the research aspires to compare long-term educational
advantages of paper and electronic dictionary consultation. It is believed that
this aspect of the investigation can give an insight into pedagogical implications
of the choice of dictionary form as well as facilitate making recommendations
to language learners and teachers.
260 Anna Dziemianko

The study attempts to answer the following research questions:

(1) Is the electronic dictionary more useful in L2 production and reception

than the paper one?
(2) Which dictionary, paper or electronic, is a better learning tool? In other
words, is vocabulary retention (i.e. the retention of meaning and collo-
cations) dependent on the form of the consulted dictionary (paper vs.
electronic)?

Downloaded from http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ondokuz Mayis University on November 1, 2014

3. The experimental method

To answer the research questions an experiment was conducted in which 64

upper-intermediate and advanced students of English (B2-C1 in CEFR)
at Poznań University took part. The experiment consisted of a pretest, a test
proper and an unexpected delayed recall test. The structure of the test proper
is discussed first as it provided the basis for the design of the pretest and the
posttest.
The test proper consisted of two tasks: receptive and productive. In the
former, the meaning of the following nine English nouns and phrases, consid-
ered difficult for advanced learners, had to be explained either in Polish or in
English: backgammon, booby prize, clampdown, collateral damage, down under,
dream ticket, flapjack, onus and outcrop. In the latter, nine sentences were to be
completed with appropriate prepositions. The prepositions had been removed
from the following collocations, which featured in the sentences: on the blink, in
cahoots with, up the creek, at gunpoint, wreak havoc on, in the offing, in the
pipeline, under sedation, on the trot.3 Thus, the tasks involved what Nation
(2001: 358-360) as well as Laufer and Goldstein (2004: 406) call passive (recep-
tive) recall and active (productive) recall, respectively.4 The tasks were given to
the subjects on paper. To complete them, each subject was assigned to work
with either the paper or the electronic version of COBUILD6. The latter is
available on-line and can be accessed by a pin code. Importantly, the two ver-
sions of COBUILD6, one of the most recently published pedagogical diction-
aries of English, offer the same information in the entries for the target items,
which made it possible to focus on the role of dictionary form as such.5 Before
the experiment, the subjects participated in an orientation session, during which
they could acquaint themselves with the access structures in both dictionary
formats. The subjects’ random assignment to the paper dictionary or the elec-
tronic dictionary resulted in splitting the sample into two groups, the paper
dictionary group (henceforth PD Group) of 30 subjects, and the electronic
dictionary group (henceforth ED Group), made up of 34 students.
The pretest was the same as the test proper and was administered immedi-
ately before the latter. The subjects were asked to perform the receptive and the
 Paper or Electronic 261

productive tasks relying on their knowledge. No access to any dictionaries was

allowed at that time. At the stage of data analysis, the results of the pretest
made it possible to exclude the cases where the subjects knew the meaning of
the target phrases or the target collocations, and could thus draw on their
knowledge of English, rather than dictionary information, in performing the
task proper.
The pretest was accompanied by a short questionnaire, where the subjects
were asked if they used pedagogical dictionaries of English, and if yes, whether
they consulted paper or electronic ones. The questionnaire was meant to reveal
whether the subjects’ familiarity with such dictionaries could be a factor influ-

Downloaded from http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ondokuz Mayis University on November 1, 2014

encing their performance in the test.
Immediately after the sheets with the pretest and the questionnaire had been
collected, the test proper was administered, and the subjects were asked to
perform the receptive and the productive tasks using the dictionaries to
which they had been assigned. To be on the safe side, they were also requested
to use the dictionaries only to complete the tasks, and to refrain from any
lateral browsing, in case it might affect retention. The subjects’ behavior
during the experiment was carefully monitored so that no such browsing
took place.6
Two weeks later, an unexpected vocabulary retention test was administered.
The test was identical with the test proper with the exception that the order of
the target items was changed so as to reduce the risk of the subjects’ relying on
their recall of the sequence of correct responses.

4. Results

4.1. Main findings

In the questionnaire, all the subjects declared that they consulted monolingual
English learners’ dictionaries as a matter of routine. The proportions which
illustrate their familiarity with paper and electronic dictionaries are shown
graphically in Figure 1.
It turns out that in each experimental group, comparable proportions of
students were used to consulting electronic and paper dictionaries (Z test for
dependent samples: Paper Dictionary Group – familiarity with paper diction-
aries: 93.33%, familiarity with electronic dictionaries: 90.00%, p=0.65,
non-significant, alpha-level=0.05; Electronic Dictionary Group – familiarity
with paper dictionaries: 97.06%, familiarity with electronic dictionaries:
94.12%, p=0.56, non-significant, alpha-level=0.05). The proportions were
comparable also across the groups (Z test for independent samples: familiarity
with paper dictionaries – Paper Dictionary Group: 93.33%, Electronic
Dictionary Group: 97.06%, p=0.48, non-significant, alpha-level=0.05; famil-
iarity with electronic dictionaries – Paper Dictionary Group: 90.00%,
262 Anna Dziemianko

paper dictionaries

electronic dictionaries

100

80

60

40

Downloaded from http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ondokuz Mayis University on November 1, 2014

20

0
PD Group ED Group
Figure 1: The subjects’ familiarity with dictionary formats by groups: Paper
Dictionary Group (PD Group) and Electronic Dictionary Group (ED
Group)

Electronic Dictionary Group: 94.12%, p=0.54, non-significant,

alpha-level=0.05). Thus, the subjects’ dictionary using habits connected with
either dictionary form, or their preference for paper/electronic dictionaries,
could not be a factor affecting performance in the experiment. Also, as already
mentioned, the cases where the subjects correctly explained the meaning of a
target noun or phrase, or filled out a gap with a correct preposition excluded
from analysis corresponding responses in the test.7
The results obtained in the productive and the receptive tasks in the test
proper and in the delayed recall test, expressed in absolute and percentage
terms, are given in Table 1. In the table, N represents the total number of
cases taken into consideration in given experimental conditions, whereas K
shows the number of correct answers. To identify the statistical significance
of the influence exerted on the subjects’ performance by dictionary form,
the Z test for independent samples was conducted (two-tailed; alpha-
level=0.05). The results are given in the table as well.
As can be seen, in the test proper, the subjects consulting the electronic
dictionary performed much better than those using the paper dictionary. The
difference is highly significant for both receptive and productive tasks.
Likewise, the results of the retention test indicate that the consultation of the
electronic dictionary was more beneficial to remembering both the meaning of
the target items and the target collocations. The difference between paper and
electronic dictionary conditions was statistically highly significant in the reten-
tion test as well.8
 Paper or Electronic 263

Table 1: Effects of paper and electronic dictionary use on production and

reception in the test proper and in the unexpected recall test
Task Dict. N K % Dict. N K % Z Test p

Test proper receptive Paper 263 242 92.0 Electr. 298 294 98.7 3.805 0.0001
productive Paper 231 213 92.2 Electr. 271 267 98.5 3.446 0.0001
Retention test receptive Paper 245 153 62.4 Electr. 244 187 76.7 3.430 0.0003
productive Paper 219 100 45.7 Electr. 218 139 63.8 3.810 0.0002

Downloaded from http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ondokuz Mayis University on November 1, 2014

Table 2: Repeated measures ANOVAs: The test proper and the unexpected
recall test
Test proper Retention test

SS df MS F p SS df MS F p

Intercept 327120.1 1 327120.1 33314.24 0.000 139129.0 1 139129.0 13250.38 0.000

DICT. 374.9 1 374.9 38.18 0.000 2401.0 1 2401.0 228.67 0.000
Error 157.1 16 9.8 168.0 16 10.5
TASK 0.0 1 0.0 0.00 0.980 1995.1 1 1995.1 182.53 0.000
TASK DICT. 0.6 1 0.6 0.04 0.835 36.0 1 36.0 3.29 0.088
Error 207.4 16 13.0 174.9 16 10.9

4.2. Ancillary findings

While the results of the Z test sufficiently explain the role of dictionary form in
language reception, production and the retention of meaning and collocations,
the collected data make it possible to go beyond these primary aims. They can
also reveal if the type of task played a role in the test proper and in the delayed
recall test. The results of the repeated measures ANOVAs with the task (recep-
tive vs. productive) as the repeated measures (within-group) factor are shown
in Table 2.9
The results of the ANOVAs confirm the statistically significant effect of
dictionary type in both the test proper and the recall test, and indicate that
the task played a role only in the retention test. To find out more about the
effects, the results of the Tukey HSD test are shown in Table 3. Mean propor-
tions taken into account in the Task x Dictionary interaction are shown graph-
ically in Figure 2.10
As can be seen, the type of task had no effect on the results obtained in the
test proper with the help of either dictionary. The subjects in each dictionary
group were comparably successful in reception and production. By contrast, in
the retention test, the subjects achieved much better results in passive recall
than in active recall. The regularity obtained when paper and electronic
264 Anna Dziemianko

dictionaries were consulted, although the results were overall better when the
latter were referred to.11 The results are hardly surprising; it is easier to remem-
ber meaning than prepositions. Nonetheless, both these activities are facilitated
much more by the electronic dictionary than by the one on paper.

5. Discussion

The results of the experiment suggest that the electronic dictionary is more
useful in dealing with receptive and productive tasks. Importantly, it also

Downloaded from http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ondokuz Mayis University on November 1, 2014

proves to be a better learning tool than the paper dictionary; its use results
in better retention of meaning and more effective retrieval of collocations.

Table 3: The Tukey HSD test: The test proper and the unexpected recall test
Test proper Retention test

DICT. Mean % DICT. Mean %

 
paper 92.1 paper 54.0
electronic 98.6 electronic 70.3
TASK Mean % TASK Mean %
 
productive 95.3 productive 54.7

receptive 95.3 receptive 69.6
DICT. TASK Mean % DICT. TASK Mean %
 
paper receptive 92.0 paper productive 45.6
 
paper productive 92.2 paper receptive 62.4
 
electronic productive 98.4 electronic productive 63.9
 
electronic receptive 98.7 electronic receptive 76.8

PD PD
ED ED
TASK*DICT. (test proper) TASK*DICT. (retention test)
100 100
80 80
60 60
40 40
20 20
0 0
receptive productive receptive productive
Figure 2: Mean proportions TASK DICT. (the test proper and the retention
test)
 Paper or Electronic 265

In other words, the electronic dictionary largely enhances both passive recall
and active recall.
The findings seem to substantiate James-Catalano’s (1996: 31) claim, with
which the present paper opens, since the electronic dictionary turns out to be
genuinely helpful in language learning. Such a conclusion appears to dispel
fears of ‘a technology that can answer questions so quickly that it may per-
suade its users that there is no point in memorizing for learning’ and blur ‘the
distinction between information gained and knowledge sought’ (Sharpe 1995:
49–50). The negative effect of shallow processing of dictionary information,
which electronic dictionaries are said to induce and which is believed to result

Downloaded from http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ondokuz Mayis University on November 1, 2014

in poor retention of new words, was not corroborated by the present experi-
ment. Admittedly, consultation time was not measured, but it was evident that
the electronic dictionary group needed less time to complete the tasks than the
paper dictionary group. Besides, it should be remembered that the subjects in
the study were successfully prevented from exploratory dictionary browsing or
enjoying various lookup options, in case it might enhance vocabulary acquisi-
tion (Guillot and Kenning 1994: 65, Nesi 1999: 64, Roby 1991: 125).12
Importantly, the same information was offered by both dictionary versions
in the study. It thus appears that electronic dictionaries can be better learning
tools due to their form alone, rather than the ease of multiple searches which
they create or the multiplicity of information which they provide. The subjects’
preference for either dictionary form cannot suggest an explanation, either, as
revealed by the results of the questionnaire. However, the findings from the
study can support Laufer and Hill’s (2000: 72) postulate that what matters to
word retention is greater attention during the lookup process. Yet, it is possible
that the greater attention does not have to be associated with a larger effort, or
time, put into dictionary search or the analysis of the information found.
Instead, it appears that the visual impact created by the electronic dictionary
and the prominent position of a headword on the computer screen can attract
more attention than a printed page, as evidenced by the better retention scores
obtained by the electronic dictionary group in the study.13 It is possible that the
form of presentation on the computer screen, possibly more captivating and
less distracting than the view of headwords on a page in a paper dictionary,
accounts for the superiority of electronic dictionaries over paper ones in the
process of remembering the meaning of new words and learning collocations.
Nonetheless, the memorability of electronic dictionary entries may be sur-
prising inasmuch as paper dictionary entries are no doubt more demanding of
dictionary users. In the electronic version of COBUILD, one entry is shown on
the screen at a time. Besides, each sense in a polysemous entry begins in a new
line and is clearly separated from the preceding (and following) senses.14
Unfortunately, relevant information is much more difficult to find on a printed
page. For one thing, the headword needs to be located in the macrostructure;
the relevant entry must be spotted on one of many pages crammed with entries
266 Anna Dziemianko

for other headwords. For another, in a polysemous microstructure, a sense

number does not start on a new line. Nonetheless, in keeping with the
Involvement Load Hypothesis, the greater difficulty with extracting informa-
tion from a paper dictionary should increase the chances of successful reten-
tion, once the information has been found. However, as shown above, this was
not the case in the present study. In fact, the better retention results obtained in
the electronic dictionary group imply that the ease of look-up and the saliency
of an entry on the computer screen are more beneficial to the learning process
than the effort put into the extraction of relevant information from a paper
dictionary. Maybe, in reality, dictionary users grow daunted by the demanding

Downloaded from http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ondokuz Mayis University on November 1, 2014

consultation of a paper dictionary and get distracted, or even annoyed, by the
information irrelevant to the task in hand, which they cannot fail to see on a
printed page. By contrast, the ease of accessing the needed information with he
help of the electronic dictionary and the prominence of an entry on the screen
might mean that the information is read with undivided attention, or at least
with less attention devoted to, if not wasted on, the search itself.
Overall, it is believed that the present study may suggest an answer to Tono’s
(2000: 855) empirical question whether searching words by means of electronic
tools is really advantageous to the learning process. Its optimistic results are in
line with the positive findings of Knight (1994) as well as Lyman-Hager et al.
(1993), although it should be borne in mind that the studies largely differ from
the present investigation in design.15 Moreover, the results should be seen
against the background of Peters’s (2007: 54) study, where she claims ‘that it
is not the type of dictionary, paper or electronic, but the type of task that
determines the level of word processing’. In fact, she focused on words relevant
and irrelevant to a comprehension task, and it is the level of processing them
that, in her view, proves to be decisive for retention scores.16 In the investiga-
tion reported in the present paper, however, all the target items were relevant to
the tasks imposed on the subjects. While it might be tempting to say that, under
such conditions, it is indeed only dictionary form that affects retention, it
transpires that the type of task (i.e. productive vs. receptive) is not indifferent
to the learning process, either. As shown above, recalling meaning is easier than
learning collocations, but the electronic dictionary stimulates both much more
than the paper dictionary.17
Overall, in the light of the present study, electronic dictionaries are worth
recommending to language learners and teachers. The latter should take full
advantage of the potential of such dictionaries as tools enhancing vocabulary
acquisition and encourage their extensive use in the classroom.
Unfortunately, the study is not free from limitations. Its results are based on
the responses of a relatively small sample. The process of consultation was not
monitored with the help of log files, but the subjects were only supervised
during the test. Even though tracing the look-up process as such was not the
aim of the research, it is obvious that only the use of more elaborate
 Paper or Electronic 267

monitoring systems could provide more details. Besides, it is by no means a

foregone conclusion that similar results could be obtained in other receptive
and productive tasks, such as active recognition and passive recognition
(Nation 2001: 359-360). It is not known, either, if the use of another dictionary
in paper and electronic form would yield comparable effects. While it appears
unlikely that some design features unique to COBUILD6 could account for the
obtained results, the question needs an empirical answer.18 Also, the results
which hold true for a monolingual learners’ dictionary do not have to apply to
bilingual or bilingualized dictionaries. Hence, great caution is needed when
making any generalizations on the basis of the experiment. Likewise, it

Downloaded from http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ondokuz Mayis University on November 1, 2014

would be over-optimistic to assume that the form of the test itself could not
have affected the results. A test in an electronic form would no doubt be less
distracting for students in the electronic dictionary group, which, in turn, might
have implications for learning.19 Finally, it might be worthwhile to look into
retention scores even after a longer period of time, since, in Laufer and Hill’s
(2000: 72) words, ‘learning in real life requires retention of information long
after the task performance’. Researching long-term retention would be inter-
esting especially in view of the fact that the study must have suffered from the
Hawthorne effect, largely inherent in experimentation. Although the subjects
were not informed in advance of the retention test, nor were they instructed to
learn the target words, phrases and structures for further purposes, the mere
fact that their performance was studied and some interest was shown in their
results might have encouraged them to do their best. While the unintended
Hawthorne effect was in all likelihood comparable with that in any other
experiments where the effects of learning vocabulary were unexpectedly
tested, it might be advisable to look into the role of dictionary form in vocab-
ulary retention under less tight and controlled conditions. Thus, it remains to
be hoped that new research in the field will throw more light on the actual
usefulness of the electronic medium to dictionary users.

Notes
1
In the words of Hulstijn and Laufer (2001: 545), retention depends on ‘who has set
the task, whether the new word has to be searched, and whether it has to be compared,
or combined with other words’. Involvement is thus seen as a motivational-cognitive
construct which combines three factors: need, search and evaluation (Laufer and
Hulstijn 2001: 15).
2
In Nesi’s (2000b) study, OALDCE5 (1995 paper, 1997 CD-ROM) was used.
3
In the case of in cahoots with, in, but not with, was missing from the sentence. See
Appendix A, where a test sample is given. The choice of the phrases for the tasks reflects
a growing interest in multiword units and responds to the need for research into enhan-
cing the retention of collocations and formulaic sequences (Peters 2007: 55).
4
As the authors explain, the ability to supply the word meaning is passive (recep-
tive) knowledge, whereas the ability to supply the word form represents active
268 Anna Dziemianko
(productive) knowledge (Laufer and Goldstein 2004: 406). In particular, providing the
meaning of a given word, or retrieval of meaning, is called passive recall, while supply-
ing an L2 word form, or retrieval of form, is seen as active recall. Also, recall should be
distinguished from recognition, which takes place when the required form or meaning
does not have to be provided by the learner, but only chosen from a set of options
(Nation 2001: 359). Since even partial knowledge may then suffice to make the right
choice, meaning or form recall is considered a more advanced degree of knowledge than
recognition (Laufer and Goldstein 2004: 408).
5
To illustrate, the information supplied by the entry for creek in COBUILD6 on
paper and on the Internet is shown in Appendix B, which includes a scan of the relevant
dictionary page and a screenshot. It should be stressed that the actual paper dictionary
was used in the experiment, rather than booklets or entries compiled on its basis.

Downloaded from http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ondokuz Mayis University on November 1, 2014

6
Log files were not used in the study. Yet, as the experiment was conducted in small
groups of 5 students at most, effective supervision was feasible.
7
However, the results of the pretest gave no grounds for ruling out all answers of a
subject provided in the test, since no student supplied more than 2 correct responses in
the pretest.
8
It is also interesting to note that in the productive task, the cases where a subject’s
response in the pretest was correct, but in the test – incorrect, were over twice as
frequent in the paper dictionary group as in the electronic dictionary group (PD
Group: 3.21% vs. ED Group: 1.37% of all cases). In the receptive task, there were
no such instances in the electronic dictionary group, while the process occurred in less
than 1 percent of all cases in the paper dictionary group. Overall, however, it can be
concluded that the electronic dictionary was less misleading than the paper version.
9
The task, in contrast to dictionary form, is a repeated measures (within-group)
factor since each subject had to cope with both reception and production in the test
proper as well as with active and passive recall in the delayed retention test. By contrast,
a subject was assigned to work with either the paper dictionary or the electronic dic-
tionary, rather than both of them at a time. Thus, dictionary form is a between-group
factor.
10
In the table, three asterisks ( ) indicate homogeneous groups of means, i.e.,
those which are not significantly different from each other. In other words, all
means connected in one column by ( ) are not different from each other (alpha-
level=0.05). The percentages which are shown in the last four rows of the table,
devoted to the interaction effect, do not perfectly correspond to those shown in
Table 1 because they are mean percentages, averaged over test items for each dictionary
condition.
11
Interestingly enough, the subjects using electronic dictionaries were as successful in
active recall as those consulting paper dictionaries were in passive recall.
12
See, however, the dissenting voices cited in the introduction.
13
A similar explanation was suggested by Laufer (2000: 852), who compared paper
gloss conditions with those of an electronic dictionary.
14
See Appendix B.
15
In Knight’s study, the subjects had to read a text on line with or without access to
an online dictionary, while in the study by Lyman-Hager et al. (1993), as already
pointed out in the introduction, the subjects had to read either a paper-based or an
online test with paper and electronic glosses, respectively.
16
In her words, ‘the lower retention scores of the minus-relevant target words should
not be attributed to the electronic dictionary but to the fact that these words were not
 Paper or Electronic 269
processed as elaborately as the plus-relevant target words’ (Peters 2007: 54).
Nonetheless, the author stresses that she did not aim to compare the roles of paper
and electronic dictionaries in learning vocabulary.
17
It should also be noted that the pretest, in which the subjects were focused on the
target items and collocations, might have fueled the learning process. Yet, the boost
might have increased retention scores, but is unlikely to have affected the role of dic-
tionary form in this respect. Importantly, the research was not meant to give an insight
into incidental vocabulary learning, which would exclude the pretest from the design.
18
In particular, it might be interesting to investigate the usefulness of an electronic
dictionary where the entry for a looked up word does not appear alone on the computer
screen, but is shown in a sequence of entries, as is the case, for example, in OALDCE7
on CD-ROM.

Downloaded from http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ondokuz Mayis University on November 1, 2014

19
See the discussion in Aust, Kelly and Roby (1993: 64).

References
A. Dictionaries
Sinclair, J. (ed.) 2008. Collins COBUILD Advanced Dictionary. (Sixth Edition.) Boston:
Heinle Cengage Learning, Glasgow: Harper Collins Publishers. (COBUILD6) http://
www.myCOBUILD.com.

B. Other literature
Aust, R., Kelley, M. J. and Roby, W. B. 1993. ‘The Use of Hyper-Reference and
Conventional Dictionaries.’ Educational Technology Research and Development, 41:
63–73.
Chung, D. and Plass, J. L. 1996. ‘Facilitating Reading Comprehension with
Multimedia.’ System, 24: 503–519.
Davis, J. N. and Lyman-Hager, M. A. 1997. ‘Computers in L2 Reading: Student
Performance, Student Attitudes.’ Foreign Language Annals, 30: 58–72.
Guillot, M-N. and Kenning, M-M. 1994. ‘Electronic Monolingual Dictionaries as
Language Learning Aids: A Case Study.’ Computers in Education, 23: 63–73.
Hulstijn, J. H. and Laufer, B. 2001. ‘Some Empirical Evidence for the Involvement Load
Hypothesis in Vocabulary Acquisition.’ Language Learning, 51: 539–558.
James-Catalano, C. N. 1996. ‘The Virtual Wordsmith.’ Internet World 7: 30–31. 15
November 2008. http://www.internetworld.com/1996/06/cyberlib.html.
Knight, S. 1994. ‘Dictionary Use While Reading: The Effects on Comprehension and
Vocabulary Acquisition for Students of Different Verbal Abilities.’ The Modern
Language Journal, 78: 285–299.
Komuro, Y., Shitara-Matsuo, Y., Ishii, Y., Uchida, S., Kawamura, A. and Kanazashi, T.
2006. ‘An Analysis of the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English,
Seventh Edition, with Special Reference to the CD-ROM.’ Lexicon, 36: 55–146.
Laufer, B. 2000. ‘Electronic Dictionaries and Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition: Does
Technology Make a Difference?’ in U. Heid, S. Evert, E. Lehmann and C. Rohrer
(eds), Proceedings of the Ninth Euralex International Congress, EURALEX 2000.
Stuttgart: Universität Stuttgart, 849–854.
Laufer, B. and Goldstein, Z. 2004. ‘Testing Vocabulary Knowledge: Size, Strength and
Computer Adaptiveness.’ Language Learning, 54: 399–436.
Laufer, B. and Hill, M. 2000. ‘What Lexical Information do L2 Learners Select in a
CALL Dictionary and How Does It Affect Word Retention?.’ Language Learning and
Technology, 3: 58–76.
270 Anna Dziemianko
Laufer, B. and Hulstijn, J. H. 2001. ‘Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition in a Second
Language: The Construct of Task-Induced Involvement.’ Applied Linguistics, 22:
1–26.
Lyman-Hager, M. A., Davis, J., Burnett, J. and Chennault, R. 1993. ‘Une Vie de Boy:
Interactive Reading in French.’ in F. Borchardt and E. Johnson (eds), Proceedings of
the CALICO‘93 Annual Symposium on ‘Assessment’. Durham, NC: Duke University,
93–97.
Nation, I. S. P. 2001. Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Nesi, H. 1999. ‘A User’s Guide to Electronic Dictionaries for Language Learners.’
International Journal of Lexicography, 12: 56–66.
Nesi, H. 2000a. ‘Electronic Dictionaries in Second Language Vocabulary

Downloaded from http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ondokuz Mayis University on November 1, 2014

Comprehension and Acquisition: The State of The Art.’ in U. Heid, S. Evert,
E. Lehmann and C. Rohrer (eds), Proceedings of the Ninth Euralex International
Congress, EURALEX 2000. Stuttgart: Universität Stuttgart, 839–847.
Nesi, H. 2000b. ‘On Screen or in Print? Students’ Use of a Learner’s Dictionary on CD-
ROM and in Book Form.’ in P. Howarth and R. Herington (eds), EAP Learning
Technologies. Leeds: University Press, 106–114.
Peters, E. 2007. ‘Manipulating L2 Learners’ Online Dictionary Use and Its Effect on L2
Word Retention.’ Language Learning and Technology, 11: 36–58.
Roby, W. B. 1991. Glosses and Dictionaries in Paper and Computer Formats as Adjunct
Aids to the Reading of Spanish Texts by University Students. Ph.D. Thesis, University
of Kansas.
Sharpe, P. 1995. ‘Electronic Dictionaries with Particular Reference to the Design of an
Electronic Bilingual Dictionary for English-Speaking Learners of Japanese.’
International Journal of Lexicography, 8: 39–54.
Taylor, A. and Chan, A. 1994. ‘Pocket Electronic Dictionaries and Their Use.’
in W. Martin, W. Meijs, M. Moerland, E. ten Pas, P. van Sterkenburg and
P. Vossen (eds), Euralex 1994 Proceedings: Papers Submitted to the 6th EURALEX
International Congress on Lexicography in Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Amsterdam:
Euralex, 598–605.
Tono, Y. 2000. ‘On the Effects of Different Types of Electronic Dictionary Interfaces on
L2 Learners’ Reference Behaviour in Productive/Receptive Tasks.’ in U. Heid,
S. Evert, E. Lehmann and C. Rohrer (eds), Proceedings of the Ninth Euralex
International Congress, EURALEX 2000. Stuttgart: Universität Stuttgart, 855–861.
Weschler, R. and Pitts, C. 2000. ‘An Experiment Using Electronic Dictionaries with
EFL Students.’ The Internet TESL Journal 6. 29 October 2008. http://www.iteslj.org/
Articles/Weschler-ElectroDict.html.
 Paper or Electronic 271

Appendix A.Test sample

I. Explain (either in Polish or in English) the meaning of the following words/phrases:

(1) Backgammon
(2) Booby prize
(3) Clampdown

II. Complete the sentences with the right prepositions:

Downloaded from http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ondokuz Mayis University on November 1, 2014

(1) Hadn’t you better have your tape recorder repaired seeing that it is . . .
the blink again?
(2) There is a big scandal as it has been made public that the head of the
company worked . . . cahoots with a gang of criminals.
(3) Her behaviour is strange at times. She will cry day and night whenever
she is . . . the creek but she won’t do much to improve the situation by
herself.
 Downloaded from http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ondokuz Mayis University on November 1, 2014
Appendix B. Sample dictionary entries (paper and electronic)
Anna Dziemianko
272
 Downloaded from http://ijl.oxfordjournals.org/ at Ondokuz Mayis University on November 1, 2014
273
Paper or Electronic