DICTIONARIES:  A  BLESSING  OR  A  CURSE?  ADDRESSING  CLASSROOM-­‐LEVEL  QUESTIONS  ON  VOCABULARY  RETENTION  WITH  SLA  RESEARCH    Daniel  Hooper  English  Language  Institute,  Kanda  University  of  International  Studies    ABSTRACT    Despite  a  wealth  of  research  existing  on  the  effects  of  dictionary  use  relating  to  L2   vocabulary   acquisition   or   reading   comprehension,   findings   do   not   often  reach  the  English  Language  Teaching  (ELT)  classroom.  As  a  result,  teachers’  classroom  policies  on  dictionary  use,  be  it  the  degree  of  use  or  type  of  dictionary  permitted,   are   often   based   on   conjecture   or   “common   sense”   assumptions  rather   than   empirically-­‐grounded   knowledge.   This   short   literature   review   of  SLA  studies  focussing  on  dictionary  use  was  stimulated  by  a  question  from  a  conversational   school   teacher   seeking   information   regarding   if   or   how   his  students  should  be  using  dictionaries  in  class.  While  the  studies  examined  in  this  review  largely  support  the  role  of  dictionary  use  including  comprehension  and  vocabulary  acquisition,  they  also  highlight  best  practices  relating  to  how  dictionaries   should   be   best   used.   Learner   training   in   effective   dictionary   use  strategies  is  therefore  a  key  recommendation  for  classroom  practice.  
  INTRODUCTION    This  study  began  as  a  requirement  as  part  of  the  second  language  acquisition  (SLA)  module  in  my  MA  TESOL  course  in  2016.  I  was  tasked  with  writing  a  research  paper  on  an  area  of  interest  within   SLA   literature   that   would   have   some   link   to   the   educational   context   in   which   I   was  working.   When   this   was   announced   in   our   course   packet   at   the   start   of   the   semester,   I  admittedly  regarded  this  project  with  a  measure  of  cynicism.  It  was  hard  for  me,  isolated  within  the   bubble   of   eikaiwa   schools,   a   context   all   but   forgotten   in   the   corridors   of   academia  (Nagatomo,  2013;  Lowe,  2015),  to  imagine  what  practical  benefit  the  loftiness  of  SLA  research  could  offer  me  and  the  teachers  I  worked  with.  Serendipitously,  one  evening,  a  colleague  came  to  me  with  a  query  from  a  student,  “What  dictionary  should  I  be  using,  English-­‐only  or  bilingual?”  Therein  lay  the  impetus  for  this  project.  As  a  result  of  this  grassroots  pedagogical  need,  I  was  reassured   that   SLA   research   need   not   only   be   directed  towards   those  with   letters   after  their    2  name.  Rather,  it  has  the  potential  to  offer  peace  of  mind  for  those  teachers  who  may  have  been  largely  overlooked  in  academia  thus  far.  
  Extensive  debate  among  both  teachers  and  researchers  has  taken  place  regarding  the  role  of  dictionaries  in  language  learning  (Knight,  1994;  Luppescu  &  Day,  1993;  Zou,  Xie,  Wang,  Wong,  &  Wu,  2015).  The  prevalence  of  communicative  language  teaching  in  contemporary  classrooms  has  meant  that  some  teachers  have  de-­‐emphasized  or  even  abolished  dictionary  use  in  favour  of  having  students  attempt  to  infer  unknown  word  meanings  from  context.   However,  a  wide  range   of   studies   exist   that   provide   a   convincing   argument   for   dictionary   use   as   an   aid   to  vocabulary   noticing   and   acquisition   (Bruton,   2007;   Fraser,   1999;   Knight,   1994;   Laufer   &   Hill,  2000;  Luppescu  &  Day,  1993).  If  learners  are  given  training  on  how  to  use  dictionaries  effectively,  it  is  claimed  that  dictionaries  can  facilitate  deep  processing  of  lexical  items  and,  especially  in  the  case   of   lower-­‐proficiency   learners,   improve   their   performance   in   reading   and   writing   tasks  (Bruton,  2007;  Knight,  1994).    
    As  previously  mentioned,  this  article  and  review  of  literature  was  stimulated  by  a  question  posed  by  an  instructor  working  in  a  private  English  conversation  (eikaiwa)  school  in  Japan.  Although  eikaiwa  schools  are  primarily  focused  on  providing  English  conversation  practice,  there  is  often  a  huge  range  in  the  courses  offered  by  these  institutions  in  terms  of  teaching  style  and  student  learning  goals  (Makino,  2016).  The  instructor  expressed  uncertainty  over  the  role  of  dictionaries  in  his  classroom  during  reading  and  writing  exercises  from  a  set  textbook  and  asked  if  I  would  find  him  some  answers  from  the  SLA  literature  as  part  of  my  MA  TESOL  studies.  A  year  later,  this   topic   reappeared   on   my   radar   once   more   due   to   the   inescapable   presence   of   electronic  dictionaries  and  online  dictionary  apps  in  my  university  classes.  It  is  hoped  that  this  article  will  act  as  a  bridge  between  the  teaching  and  research  spheres  and  that  in  combination  with  ground-­‐level   pedagogical   decision-­‐making   on   the  instructor’s   part,   empirical   findings   from  academic  research  can  inform  and  develop  classroom  practice  in  both  eikaiwa  and  university  settings.  
  LITERATURE  REVIEW    Language  learners   often   rely  on   dictionaries  both  in   and  out   of  the   classroom,   with   teachers  attempting  to  encourage  students  to  curtail  dictionary  use  in  favour  of  inferring  word  meaning  from  context  (Knight,  1994;  Prichard,  2008;  Tang,  1997;  Zou  et  al.,  2015).  A  study  by  Tang  (1997)  on   electronic   dictionary   use   reported   claims   from   teachers   that   looking   up   words   in   the  dictionary   causes  anti-­‐social  behaviour   in   the  classroom,   encourages   overreliance  on  a   single  source  of   information,   distracts   the   students,  and   discourages   students  from   moving  beyond  word-­‐level   analysis   (i.e.   neglecting   sentence-­‐   and   text-­‐level).   Another   criticism   levelled   at  dictionary  use  is  that  it  greatly  increases  the  time  learners  require  to  complete  a  task.  This  is  due  to  the  fact  that  searching  for  and  selecting  an  appropriate  word  definition  can  be  extremely  time    3  consuming  if  done  on  multiple  occasions  (Knight,  1994;  Luppescu  &  Day,  1993;  Prichard,  2008).  
Although  some  of  these  concerns  may  have  stemmed  from  legitimate  pedagogical  issues,  there  is  also  a  sense  that  in  some  cases  resistance  to  dictionary  use  from  language  teachers  is  derived  from  conjecture  rather  than  empirical  evidence  (Fraser,  1999;  Knight,  1994;  Prichard,  2008).       Over   the   last   30   years,   in   fact,   several   studies   have   provided   support   for   the   argument   that  selective  use  of  dictionaries  is  beneficial  to  language  learners.  An  early  study  by  Knight  (1994)  of  university  Spanish  students  showed  that  lower-­‐proficiency  students  utilizing  a  dictionary  during  a  reading  activity  learned  more  words  than  those  who  did  not.  In  fact,  it  was  found  that  use  of  the  dictionary  actually  allowed  the  lower-­‐proficiency  students  to  learn  a  similar  amount  of  new  words   as  the   higher-­‐proficiency   group   (51%   to   55%   respectively).  Furthermore,   although  the  higher-­‐proficiency   group   did   not   exhibit   a   dramatic   difference   in   reading   proficiency   scores  between   the   dictionary   and   no-­‐dictionary   groups   (80.33   to   67.83),   the   lower-­‐proficiency  dictionary   group   displayed   markedly  higher  scores  (67.70)  compared   with   their   no-­‐dictionary  equivalents   (46.70).   Knight   concluded   that   lower-­‐proficiency   students   are   often   at   a  disadvantage  when  asked  to  guess  unknown  words  from  the  context  as  they  are  more  reliant  on  vocabulary  knowledge  than  higher-­‐proficiency  learners  and,  as  a  result,  should  be  encouraged  to  take  advantage  of  their  dictionaries  in  class.  
    A  study  by  Laufer  and  Hill  (2000)  that  investigated  the  effects  of  electronic  dictionary  usage  on  incidental  vocabulary  learning  also  found  that  dictionary  use  had  a  positive  effect  on  vocabulary  retention.  This  study  featured  two  participant  groups,  one  in  Israel  and  one  in  Hong  Kong,  which  were  administered  a   reading   task   with   twelve   unknown  target   words  highlighted   in  the  text.  
Students’  dictionary  look-­‐up  patterns  were  recorded  during  the  task  via  the  electronic  dictionary  software  and  an  unexpected  retention  test  was  given  upon  completion  of  the  task.  This  study  found  that  the  students  in  the  Israeli  group  successfully  remembered  33.3%  of  the  words  and  the  Hong   Kong   group   remembered   62%.   These   figures   far   exceeded   the   findings   from   previous  studies   on   word   retention   following   dictionary   use,   such   as   Knight   (1994),   who   found   20%  retention,  and  Hulstijn,  Hollander,  and  Greidanus  (1996),  who  observed  25%.  However,  it  should  be  noted  that  Laufer  and  Hill’s  study  design  varied  in  several  ways  from  these  older  studies.  On  the  basis  of  empirical  research  in  SLA  (Hulstijn  et  al.,  1996;  Knight,  1994;  Luppescu  &  Day,  1993,  Laufer  &  Hill,  2000)  there  is  some  consensus  that  dictionaries  can  indeed  serve  a  positive  role  in  the  retention  of  lexis  and  the  scaffolding  of  reading  tasks.     
  
  
  
  
  
  
Effective  Dictionary  Use  While  the  aforementioned  resistance  from  language  teachers  to  dictionary  use  may  still  remain  in  many  ELT  contexts,  a  sizeable  amount  of  research  has  chosen  to  focus  on  not  only  if,  but  also  how   learners   should   utilize   their   dictionaries.   It   has   been   widely   recognised   that   language  learners  often  lack  even  rudimentary  skills  or  strategies  for  effective  dictionary  usage  (Chi,  1998;    4  Fraser,   1999;   Prichard,   2008;   Tang,   1997).   Literature   on   the   utilization   of   dictionaries   in   the  classroom  predominantly  claims  there  is  a  need  for  teachers  to  set  aside  time  to  train  learners  on  efficient  look-­‐up  strategies  and  familiarize  them  with  the  varied  grammatical,  phonetic,  and  idiomatic  information  found  in  many  modern  dictionaries  (Chi,  1998;  Fraser,  1999;  Laufer  &  Hill,  2000;  Prichard,  2008;  Tang,  1997).     
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
A  key  theoretical  basis  that  lies  behind  many  recommendations  for  effective  dictionary  usage  is  Craik  and  Lockhart’s  (1972)  levels  of  processing  depth  theory.  This  theory  argues  that  the  chance  of  a  new  piece  of  information  being  stored  in  long-­‐term  memory  is  governed  by  the  shallowness  or  depth  with  which  it  is  processed.  Relating  to  dictionary  use,  this  means  that  the  deeper  and  more   varied   students’   analysis   of   a   dictionary   item   is,   the   greater   the   chances   that   it   will   be  retained   long-­‐term   for   future   use.   Students   should   therefore   investigate   the   grammatical,  phonetic,  or  pragmatic  information  of  a  word,  as  well  as  any  example  sentences,  audio  or  visuals  (in  an  electronic  dictionary)  in  order  to  increase  the  possibility  of  retention  (Laufer  &  Hill,  2000).  
Speaking  the  word  aloud,  or  writing  it  with  an  example  sentence  into  a  vocabulary  notebook,  would   also   deepen   processing,   but   this   also   needs   to   be   weighed   against   practical   (time)  considerations  in  a  classroom  setting.  
    Laufer    and   Hulstijn's   (2001)   involvement   load   hypothesis   offers   further   theoretical   support  regarding   the   potential   benefits   of   selective   dictionary   use   for   L2   vocabulary   retention.   The  involvement  load  hypothesis  consists  of  three  central  assumptions:    1.   Retention   of   lexis   when   processed   incidentally   is   dependent   on   need,   search,   and  evaluation  (together  defined  as  involvement)  within  a  task.  
2.   Words  processed  with  a  higher  involvement  load  will  be  retained  better  than  those  with  a  lower  involvement  load  (with  all  other  factors  being  equal).  
3.   Teacher/researcher-­‐designed  tasks  with  a  higher  involvement  load  will  be  more  effective  for  vocabulary  retention  than  those  with  a  lower  involvement  load  (with  all  other  factors  being  equal)  (Laufer  &  Hulstijn,  2001,  pp.  14-­‐18).    
  If  we  apply  the  involvement  load  hypothesis  to  dictionary  use,  it  suggests  that  dictionary  use  when   encountering   unknown   words   provides   at   least   the   conditions   for   the   search   and  evaluation  criteria  necessary  for  a  higher  involvement  load.  When  learners  notice  an  unknown  word,  the  search  criteria  is  fulfilled  when  students  utilize  their  dictionary  to  find  the  definition  and   thus   establish   the   form-­‐meaning   connection.   Finally,   once   the   dictionary   definition   has  been  found,  the  evaluation  criteria  is  fulfilled  as  learners  investigate  grammatical,  phonetic,  or  pragmatic  information  in  the  word  entry.  Additionally,  for  polysemous  words,  learners  need  to  check  each  word  entry  and  judiciously  select  which  word  sense  is  acceptable  for  their  purposes.  
The   need   element   is   provided   if   the   word   being   looked   up   is   necessary   for   productive  communication  of  meaning  or  receptive  comprehension  of  meaning.  Selective  dictionary  use,    5  where   learners   consult   dictionaries   to   discover   the   definitions   of   words   necessary   for  communication/comprehension,  fulfils  the  three  criteria  Laufer  and  Hulstijn  state  are  necessary  for   involvement.   It   can   be   argued,   therefore,   that   principled   dictionary   use   in   the   language  classroom  will  contribute  to  learners'  retention  of  new  lexical  items.    
  As   for   the   promotion   of   what   we   mean   by   principled   dictionary   use,   the   usage   habits   of  advanced   language   students   can   act   as   a   guide   for   learners   when   examining   what   entails  effective  dictionary  strategies.  Prichard  (2008),  in  a  study  of  intermediate  to  advanced  Japanese  university   students’   dictionary   use,   found   that   these   students   often   examined   each   sense   or  entry  of  a  polysemous  word  and  checked  example  sentences  in  order  to  ensure  they  made  the  most  appropriate  word  selection.  They  also  focused  on  high-­‐frequency  words  that  would  allow  them  to  reach  a  comprehension  threshold  (roughly  95-­‐98%  text  coverage)  while  relying  on  other  strategies   for   lower-­‐frequency   or   technical   words.   Fraser   (1999)   also   found   that   the   most  effective  strategy  that  Francophone  English  for  Academic  Purposes  learners  utilized  in  terms  of  reading   comprehension   and   vocabulary   learning   was   a   combination   of   inferencing   meaning  followed  by  consulting  a  dictionary.  These  studies  support  the  idea  that  strategic  dictionary  use  can   contribute   to   vocabulary   learning   by   raising   attention   to   form-­‐meaning   connections,  stimulating   rehearsal   of   words   for   long-­‐term   storage,   and   encouraging   elaboration   of  associations  with  other  knowledge  (Fraser,  1999).     
  
  
  
  
  
Frequency  of  Dictionary  Use  A  further  consideration  aside  from  how  learners  consult  dictionaries  is  how  often  or  when  they  consult  them.  Selective  dictionary  use,  focusing  only  on  words  that  are  highly  relevant  for  task  completion  or  words  that  are  important  to  the  main  point  of  a  passage,  should  be  encouraged  in  order   to   prevent   overly   time-­‐consuming   and   inefficient   look-­‐up  practices  (Prichard,  2008).  
Furthermore,   it   has   been   noted   that   dictionary   use   benefits   learners   less   as   they   grow   in  proficiency   as   they   develop   a   solid   base   of   high-­‐frequency   words   and   become   more   able   to  accurately  infer  word  meaning  through  context.  Lower  proficiency  learners  are  encouraged  to  consult  the  dictionary  in  order  to  bring  them  up  to  a  95%  level  of  text  coverage  and,  from  there,  guess  any  additional  unknown  lexis  from  context  (Prichard,  2008).  
    Learners  and  teachers  may  also  have  to  weigh  up  the  potential  drawbacks  or  benefits  of  the  type  of  dictionary  that  they  use.  Laufer  and  Hadar  (1997)  found  that  bilingualized  dictionaries  that  contained  both  L1  and  L2  information  were  more  effective  for  vocabulary  retention  than  their  traditional   monolingual   or   bilingual   counterparts.   However,   the   study   also   stated   that   the  effectiveness  of  each  type  of  dictionary  was  highly  dependent  on  the  proficiency  of  the  learner  and  as  a  result,  the  individual  learner  should  be  taken  into  account  when  making  any  decision  over   dictionary   selection.   A   further   issue   for   consideration   is   whether   paper   or   electronic  dictionaries   are   more   beneficial   for   classroom   use.   Although   electronic   dictionaries   allow    6  students  to  look  up  words  more  quickly  and  are  therefore  less  time-­‐consuming  and  disruptive  to  the  communicatively-­‐oriented  classroom,  Zou  et  al.  (2015)  found  that  paper-­‐based  dictionaries  facilitated  greater  word   retention   than   their  electronic  counterparts.   The   study   hypothesized  that   the  paper-­‐based  dictionaries   took   more  time   to   find  and  interpret   word  definitions,  and  therefore   stimulated   deeper   processing  and  a  higher  involvement  load  in   line   with  Craik  and  Lockhart's  (1972)  and  Laufer  and  Hulstijn's  (2001)  aforementioned  theories  (Zou  et  al.,  2015).  
Despite  these  findings,  however,  electronic  dictionaries  offer  learners  a  wide  range  of  benefits  such  as  visual/video  elaboration  of  definitions,  the  inclusion  of  supplementary  slang/idiomatic  dictionaries,  the  ability  for  students  to  perform  fast  bi-­‐directional  (L1-­‐L2/L2-­‐L1)  searches,  and  audio-­‐phonetic  information.  
  CONCLUSION    This   literature   review   was   originally   motivated   by   a   question   from   an   eikaiwa   instructor  regarding   the   viability   of   dictionary   use   for   beginner   language   learners.   Having   examined   a  range  of  studies  focusing  largely  on  the  retention  of  vocabulary  items  and  the  development  of  reading  comprehension,  it  is  clear  that  dictionary  consultation  does  indeed  have  a  place  in  the  language  classroom,  particularly  in  the  case  of  lower-­‐proficiency  learners.  However,  there  are  some  caveats  to  this  statement.    
1.   Dictionary   consultation   should   be   selective,   focusing   only   on   useful,   high-­‐frequency  vocabulary   or   lexis   that   is   highly   relevant   to   understanding   of   reading   passages   or  comprehension  tasks.  Consulting  dictionaries  for  every  unknown  word,  especially  low-­‐
frequency  items,  should  be  avoided  due  to  the  practice  being  extremely  time-­‐consuming  and  inefficient  for  word  retention.    
2.   Teachers   are   advised   to   set   aside  time   to  train   students   in  effective   dictionary  usage,  such  as  checking  for  grammatical  or  phonetic  information,  examining  polysemous  word  meanings   and   example   sentences,   and   attempting   to   infer   unknown   word   meanings  from  context  before  confirming  their  guesses  through  dictionary  definitions.    
  These  strategies  will  allow  learners  to  get  a  deeper  and  more  accurate  sense  of  word  meaning  and   use   while,   at   the   same   time,   ensuring   dictionary   usage   does   not   become   a   disruptive  presence  in  a  communicative  classroom.  
  Whether  in  the  casual  eikaiwa  classroom  or  more  formalized  higher  education  contexts,  it  is  vital  that   teachers   are   informed   in   dictionary   usage   by   empirical   research   findings   rather   than  conjecture.  Furthermore,  due  to  the  current  ubiquitous  presence  of  easy  online  and  electronic  dictionary  access  via  smartphones  in  every  adult  ELT  setting  in  Japan,  instructing  students  in  effective,  principled  dictionary  use  may  prove  to  be  a  valuable  use  of  time  for  language  teachers.  
Although  largely  situated  in  the  university  classroom,  the  studies  cited  in  this  article  offer  solid,    7  tested  ground  upon  which  educators  from  a  wide  variety  of  contexts  beyond  the  ivory  tower  can  develop  their  practice.    
  REFERENCES    Bruton,  A.  (2007).  Vocabulary  learning  from  dictionary  referencing  and  language  feedback  in  EFL  translational  writing.  Language  Teaching  Research,  11(4),  413–431.  
  Chi,  M.  (1998).  Teaching  dictionary  skills  in  the  classroom,  in  T.  Fontenelle,  P.  Hiligsmann,  A.  
Michiels,  A.  Moulin,  &  Theissen,  S.  (eds.),  EURALEX  ’98  Actes/Proceedings.  Liege:  Université  Départements  d’Anglais  et  de  Néerlandais,  565–577.  
  Craik,  F.  I.  M.,  &  Lockhart,  R.  S.  (1972).  Levels  of  processing:  A  framework  for  memory  research.  Journal  of  Verbal  Learning  and  Verbal  Behavior,  11(6),  671–684.  
  Fraser,  C.  (1999).  The  role  of  consulting  a  dictionary  in  reading  and  vocabulary  learning.  The  Canadian  Journal  of  Applied  Linguistics,  2(1-­‐2),  73–89.  
  Hulstijn,  J.  H.,  Hollander,  M.,  &  Greidanus,  T.  (1996).  Incidental  vocabulary  learning  by  advanced  foreign  language  students:  The  influence  of  marginal  glosses,  dictionary  use  and  reoccurrence  of  unknown  words.  The  Modern  Language  Journal,  80,  327–339.  
  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.  
  Laufer,  B.,  &  Hadar,  L.  (1997).  Assessing  the  effectiveness  of  monolingual,  bilingual,  and  "bilingualised"  dictionaries  in  the  comprehension  and  the  production  of  new  words.  The  Modern  Language  Journal,  81,  189–196.  
  Laufer,  B.,  &  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.  
  Laufer,  B.,  &  Hulstijn,  J.  H.  (2001).  Incidental  vocabulary  acquisition  in  a  second  language:  The  construct  of  task-­‐induced  involvement.  Applied  Linguistics,  22,  1–26.  
  Lowe,  R.  J.  (2015)  Cram  schools  in  Japan:  The  need  for  research.  The  Language  Teacher,  39(1),  26-­‐31.  
  

  

8  

Luppescu,  S.,  &  Day,  R.  R.  (1993).  Reading,  dictionaries,  and  vocabulary  learning.  Language  Learning,  43,  263–287.  
  Makino,  M.  (2016).  A  taxonomy  of  eikaiwa  schools.  JALT  School  Owners  SIG  Newsletter,  3,  4-­‐11.  
  Nagatomo,  D.  H.  (2013)  The  advantages  and  disadvantages  faced  by  housewife  English  teachers  in  the  cottage  industry  eikaiwa  business.  The  Language  Teacher  37  (1),  3-­‐7.  
  Prichard,  C.  (2008).  Evaluating  L2  readers’  vocabulary  strategies  and  dictionary  use.  Reading  in  a  Foreign  Language,  20(2),  216–231.  
  Tang,  G.  M.  (1997).  Pocket  electronic  dictionaries  for  second  language  learning:  Help  or  hindrance?  TESL  Canada  Journal,  15,  39–57.  
  Zou,  D.,  Xie,  H.,  Wang,  F.  L.,  Wong,  T.  L.,  &  Wu,  Q.  (2015).  Investigating  the  effectiveness  of  the  uses  of  electronic  and  paper-­‐based  dictionaries  in  promoting  incidental  word  learning.  In  S.  K.  S.  
Cheung,  L.  F.  Kwok,  H.  Yang,  J.  Fong,  &  R.  Kwan  (Eds.),  Hybrid  learning:  Innovation  in  educational  practices:  8th  International  Conference,  ICHL  2015,  Wuhan,  China,  July  27-­‐29,  2015,  proceedings  (pp.  59–69).  Switzerland:  Springer  International  Publishing.  

  9