What lexical information do L2 learners select in a CALL dictionary and how does it affect word retention?

By B. Laufer. Language Learning & Technology, 2000

360 citations recorded by the source corpus.

This study investigated the relationship between what people looked up about new words when different kinds of information were available and how well they remembered those words. Dictionary information was incorporated into a computer-assisted language learning (CALL) program comprised of text, highlighted low-frequency words, and access to different lexical information about these words (explanation in English, translation into the first language, sound, root, and extra information) . Participants were English as a Foreign Language college students in Hong Kong and Israel. Twelve low-frequency words were examined for incidental learning. Students were asked to read on-screen text and understand it so they could take a comprehension test. They could look up unknown words in the CALL dictionary. After task completion, students were unexpectedly tested on meaning recall of target words. Researchers investigated possible connections between retention and lookup behavior (type of information selected and number of lookups per word) . Overall, different students had different lookup preferences. The use of multiple dictionary information reinforced retention. Results highlight the importance of providing different lookup options catering to varying lookup preferences in paper or CALL dictionaries when assigning tasks involving reading comprehension and understanding of unfamiliar words. (Contains 42 references.) (SM) Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. What Lexical Information Do L2 Learners Select in a CALL Dictionary and How Does It Affect Word Retention? Batia Laufer Monica Hill In: "Language Learning & Technology" v3 n2 (January 2000): 58-76 PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS BEEN GRANTED BY

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Developmental and Educational Psychology, Language and Linguistics

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5c648f35e16820077e2da550d54d0f4107f1e824

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

In Developmental and Educational Psychology

In Language and Linguistics

Citations in the corpus

A framework for developing EFL reading vocabulary (2005, methodology): “Although more empirical research is needed to further examine their effectiveness, electronic dictionaries are easier and more convenient to use than printed dictionaries (Chun and Plass, 1996; Hulstijn, Hollander, and Greidanus, 1996; Laufer and Hill, 2000), and some are packaged with grammar and u”
Effects of Input Elaboration on Vocabulary Acquisition Through Reading by Korean Learners of English as a Foreign Language (2006, background): “• As with Laufer and Hill (2000) and Lomicka (1998), information technology can be harnessed to provide an electronic or online version of an elaborated and enhanced reading text.”
Principles guiding vocabulary learning through extensive reading (2015, background): “Dictionary look-up results in vocabulary learning (Bruton, 2007; Hulstijn, Hollander, & Greidanus, 1996; Knight, 1994; Laufer & Hill, 2000; Peters, 2007).”
Linking Research and Practice: Effective Strategies for Teaching Vocabulary in the ESL Classroom. (2010, background): “Lee and Muncie (2006) showed that a post-reading composition task helped ESL students improve the productive use of higher-level target vocabulary. Newton (1995) pointed out that students made more vocabulary gains when engaging in communicative tasks that demanded interactions than when negotiating”
Scaffolding English Language Learners and Struggling Readers in a Universal Literacy Environment with Embedded Strategy Instruction and Vocabulary Support (2007, background): “Laufer and Hill (2000) made the point that digital environments must track students’ online activities, noting, “If a study does not provide log files which record what learners are doing during the reading task, there is no evidence that they in- 81 F IG U R E 1 Sc re en ca pt ur e of U ni ve…”
Incidental and intentional learning (2008, neutral): “…& Trompetter, 1998), glossing and/or inferencing (Cobb, 1997; Cobb & Horst, 2001); Hulstijn, 1992; Hulstijn, Hollander & Greidanus, 1996; Kost, Foss, & Lenzini Jr., 1999; Watanabe, 1997), and dictionary use (Fischer, 1994; Hulstijn, Hollander & Greidanus, 1996; Knight, 1994; Laufer & Hill, 2000).”
INCIDENTAL L2 VOCABULARY ACQUISITION FROM AND WHILE READING (2015, result): “This is in line with studies suggesting that drawing learners’ attention to words, for instance by highlighting words in the text (e.g., with color, bold, italics), could improve vocabulary gains Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition from Reading 125 (e.g., Laufer & Hill, 2000 ).”