| Abstract: |
This article compares the efficacy of the electronic dictionary with that of the print dictionary in helping learners differentiate senses of polysemous words in dictionaries. An adaptation of the mixed methodology proposed by Johnson and Christensen (2004), the research design in this article encompasses a qualitative phase and a quantitative phase in the overall research study along the dimensions of time order and paradigm emphasis. The element of 'comparison' is included resulting in a design of four paired comparison groups: (1) Group "e-pre" and Group "p-pre", (2) Group "e" and Group "p", (3) Group "e-without" and Group "e-with", and (4) Group "e-withoutLowMed" and Group "e-withLowMed". Findings show that the electronic dictionary is effective in helping Low to Medium Proficient students (Group "e-LowMed") in the electronic group after deliberate dictionary training in navigation and windows switching. This is indicated by improved scores regarding time taken (efficacy rate) and a significant correlation between actual efficacy and self-perceived efficacy. The results imply that dictionary users need to be given dictionary training based on specific problems they face. As a whole, however, the print dictionary group has higher efficacy than the electronic group but there was no discernible trend in the relationship between its actual efficacy and the self-perceived efficacy for both groups. This suggests that subjects' perceived efficacy beliefs are not good predictors of their performances. |