Teacher-Training in Dictionary Use:

Voices from Korean Teachers of English

Susanna Bae
Coventry University, U.K.
susannabae@gmail.com

1. Introduction
There is a general agreement in the field of pedagogical lexicography that “the improvement
of dictionary use and the improvement of dictionaries should go hand in hand (Whitcutt 1986:
121).” The sophistication of dictionaries and the education of users are apparently a mutual
process, and it seems clear that consulting dictionaries does not guarantee success, unless the
user is equipped with particular skills and knowledge about using dictionaries. As Carduner
(2003: 71) rightly points out, “even the best dictionaries will be useful only to the extent that
the learner knows how to use them effectively.” As for the teachability of dictionary using
skills, there are some research findings which support the claim that learners do benefit from
the deliberate teaching of the dictionary reference skills (Bishop 2001; Carduner 2003; Chi
2003; Lew and Galas 2008), justifying the need to teaching these skills in formal settings.
The status of dictionaries as tools for language learning and communication has long been
recognised by the majority of language learners across the world. Especially in countries
where English is not a daily medium of communication, learners tend to rely heavily on them.
Surveys conducted in South Korea confirm that using bilingual dictionaries is the strategy
that students most frequently resort to when they are confronted with lexical problems (Park
2001; Lee and Min 2006; Lee 2007; Han 2008).
However, this widespread use of the dictionary is not overtly appreciated in the language
classroom. In Oh (2006)‟s study which explored Korean English teachers‟ dictionary use and
instruction, less than 5% of the teachers have ever received any kind of instruction on
dictionary use themselves, and only a small percentage of them make plans for the teaching
of dictionary use for their students. Moreover, the time constraints imposed by their curricula
make language teachers reluctant to spare the time to teach dictionary using skills, even
though they may acknowledge that such skills are necessary to their students (Chi 2003). In
short, in spite of the status of the dictionary as an indispensable learning and communication
aid, in the English language classroom due attention has not been paid to effective strategies
for dictionary use. As a result, most of the questions that Béjoint (1989: 212) raised about the
teaching of dictionary use—“what to teach to whom and when and how” —still remain only
partially answered.
This study is an attempt to seek an effective way of teaching dictionary reference skills for
language learning, and proposes integrating the teaching of dictionary skills into teacher-
training programs. This paper reports on an intensive training course in dictionary use for
English language teachers which I designed and offered at a teacher training institute in South
Korea. In the following sections, the rationale for recruiting Korean teachers of English as a
trainee group and the principles underlying the training course are presented. This is followed
by a brief description of the syllabus and the teaching methods adopted for the course. The
paper ends with some evaluative comments relating to the feedback I received from the
trainees, and some suggestions for future improvements to the course.
2. Participants: Korean teachers of English
The case presented in this report is a training course in dictionary use for teachers of English
which I designed and offered in 2011 at a government-approved teacher training institute in
Korea. Usually the participants in research into dictionary use are university students; other
groups of learners, such as young learners, learners of English for specific purposes, or
teachers of English, tend to be involved less frequently in dictionary user research (Béjoint
2010). More attention to these other groups of users is called for in lexicographic research. In
fact, as Hartmann (2001) noted, English teachers have a very particular place in lexicography:
they are a special user group in their own right and, at the same time, they can take an active
part as mediators between lexicographers and students.
This is especially true for teachers who are non-native speakers of English because of their
dual identity as both learners and teachers. Although these teachers have generally attained
relatively high levels of English proficiency, they still see themselves as learners of English.
They may have accumulated considerable experience with dictionaries during their studies,
but they still often feel insecure about their dictionary-using skills. In fact they are not
extremely different from their pupils in this respect: both parties have rarely received any
kind of instruction and guidance regarding the use of dictionaries.
However, the teachers will not be the sole beneficiaries of the training they receive,
because once they have equipped themselves with appropriate knowledge they can bridge the
gap between dictionaries and students. Considering that they interact with their pupils every
day, we can assume that the impact of training will be passed on from teacher to pupil. It is
quite strongly felt among dictionary researchers (Battenburg 1991; Béjoint 1989; Chi 2003;
Hartmann 2001) that the teaching of dictionary reference skills is most effective when
integrated into everyday classroom teaching. By raising awareness among teachers, the
training can encourage them to give their students suitable guidance whenever they consider
a certain reference skill has particular relevance to a linguistic item being taught. In this way,
integration in its truest sense can be realised in a more sustainable way through everyday
teaching practice; and teachers will not only teach the subject matter, but will also give their
students support and guidance on how to learn. This may be particularly true when it comes
to the choice and use of dictionaries, as students are likely to be guided by their teachers‟
dictionary choices. In Nishimura‟s (2002) survey, students‟ choice of dictionary purchase was
found to be most greatly influenced by their teachers‟ or schools‟ recommendation.
The participants in my study were 22 primary and 26 secondary school teachers of English
who were undertaking a five month intensive in-service training program. The program
consisted of content courses, skills courses in speaking and writing, practicums and micro-
teaching workshops; the dictionary reference skills course was one of the content courses.
The number of years they had been in service and their proficiency in English varied to some
degree; and while all the middle- and high-school teachers only taught English, the primary
school teachers taught a range of other subjects too; thus their degree of specialization also
varied. However the participants all had a great deal in common: their native language was
Korean; they had received all their formal education in Korea; and they all taught English in
Korean public schools.
The 48 teachers were divided into four groups according to their proficiency levels: Class
One for upper-intermediate secondary school teachers, Class Two for lower-intermediate
secondary school teachers, Class Three for upper-intermediate primary school teachers, and
Class Four for lower-intermediate primary school teachers. Although the course was
originally designed as a five-week content course with one three-hour session per week,
comprising 15 hours of intensive training in total, two among the four groups were only
available for four weeks of training because of the school holidays. Thus it was decided that
all the course content should be covered in four weeks.

3. Dictionary reference skills for teachers of English

„Dictionary reference skills‟ generally refer to the skills needed to better exploit dictionaries
for language learning and communication purposes (Nesi 2003), but so far there has been no
definite answer to the question of exactly which reference skills are involved in dictionary
consultation. Reference skills can be identified by analysing the typical structure of
dictionary entries and the typical linguistic situations that lead to the consultation of
dictionaries. It appears that most dictionary instructions in workbook form follow this
principle.
This analytic approach should however be complemented by endeavours to find out what
users actually do when they use dictionaries—their typical behaviours, patterns of use, or
misuse, etc. Inventories of dictionary using skills produced by Nesi (1999), Rundell (1999)
and Scholfield (1982 and 1999) are good examples of contemplative analyses of dictionary
information, complemented by what has been found in user research. Among them, the
taxonomy found in Nesi (1999) can be regarded as the most exhaustive. As can be seen in
Table 1, it includes reference skills not only during, but also before, and after consultation
(such as “knowledge about the types of dictionaries,” “deciding dictionary consultation is
necessary,” “recording and memorizing information found in a dictionary,” etc.), and it also
encompasses meta-lexicographic issues such as “evaluating and comparing dictionaries.”
However, the inventory is an attempt to list all the skills which may possibly be included in
a dictionary reference skills course, without telling us which should have priority when
teaching specific learner groups. The selection of the course content requires both an analysis
of the skills of the target group, and, at the same time, an analysis of their training needs.
There may be other ways of finding a particular user‟s training needs, but we could look into
their perceived needs by directly asking them what they want to know about dictionaries and
what areas of difficulty they experience when they use dictionaries.
Classifying dictionary reference skills is likely to be a never-ending process, particularly as
dictionaries in electronic forms are becoming dominant. The growing sophistication of
various forms of electronic dictionaries makes it necessary to continue to add new functions
and subsequent search techniques to existing specifications of dictionary reference skills.
Pastor and Alcina (2010) attempts to systematically classify all the search techniques
available in electronic dictionaries, and shows that learners nowadays are exposed to an even
wider range of search choices (i.e. advanced thematic searches, semantic searches, advanced
spelling searches, approximate pronunciation searches, etc.). These are designed to facilitate
dictionary consultation, but in reality might confuse users even more than before. On the
other hand, some of the skills which were regarded as crucial in the past may be losing their
importance as user interfaces improve.
Table 1: Classification of Dictionary Reference Skills (Nesi 2003)

Stage Specification of reference skills at each stage

Stage 1 1 Knowing what types of dictionary exist, and choosing which dictionary/ies to
Before Study consult and/or buy
2 Knowing what kinds of information are found in dictionaries and other types of
reference works
Stage 2 3 Deciding whether dictionary consultation is necessary
Before 4 Deciding what to look up
dictionary 5 Deciding on the appropriate form of the look-up item
consultation 6 Deciding which dictionary is most likely to satisfy the purpose of the consultation
7 Contextual guessing of the meaning of the look-up item
8 Identifying the word class of the look-up item
Stage 3 9 Understanding the structure of the dictionary
Locating entry 10 Understanding alphabetization and letter distribution
information 11 Understanding grapho-phonemic correspondence (and the lack of it)
12 Understanding the use of wildcards in electronic dictionary searches
13 Choosing amongst homonyms
14 Finding derived forms
15 Finding multi-word units
16 Understanding the cross-referencing system in print dictionaries, and
hyperlinking in electronic dictionaries
Stage 4 17 Distinguishing the component parts of the entry
Interpreting 18 Distinguishing relevant from irrelevant information
entry 19 Finding information about the spelling of words
information 20 Understanding typographical conventions and the use of symbols, numbered
superscripts, punctuation
21 Interpreting IPA and pronunciation information
22 Interpreting etymological information
23 Interpreting morphological and syntactic information
24 Interpreting the definition or translation
25 Interpreting information about collocations
26 Interpreting information about idiomatic and figurative use
27 Deriving information from examples
28 Interpreting restrictive labels
29 Referring to additional dictionary information (in front matter, appendices,
hypertext links)
30 Verifying and applying look-up information
Stage 5 31 Sifting entry information
Recording 32 Deciding how to record entry information
entry 33 Compiling a vocabulary notebook or file of index cards
information 34 Using the notebook section of an electronic dictionary
Stage 6 35 Knowing what people use dictionaries for
Understanding 36 Knowing lexicographical terminology
lexicographical 37 Understanding principles and processes of dictionary compilation
issues 38 Recognising different defining and translating styles
39 Comparing entries
40 Dictionary criticism and evaluation

Consequently, I decided to construct a teaching syllabus combining those skills that have
been found important in the literature and those the target participants were most curious
about. I took the inventory of dictionary reference skills in Nesi (1999) as a basis, and
excluded some of the skills the teachers deemed less relevant or too basic. Some of the skills,
such as “understanding alphabetization,” “finding information about the spelling,” or
“Interpreting IPA,” etc. were already well understood to the target group.
 As a next step, I conducted a brief survey in two of the four classes about their familiarity
with some of the search functions available in electronic dictionaries. It was found that, while
they claimed to use some widely available techniques such as “history / record” “voice
pronunciation” and “tool bar/minimal display,” some other advanced search facilities such as
the Boolean search, wildcards and the so-called “thematic search” were totally unfamiliar to
the majority of the teachers. As can be seen in Table 2, only three out of 24 respondents had
ever used wildcard operators, and only seven or less had experience with Boolean and
advanced search functions. From their feedback after the brief questionnaire, I could also
confirm that they were willing to learn how to use these functions in the course.

Table 2: Teachers’ Familiarity with Search Functions in Electronic Dictionaries.

I use the following functions when looking up words: often occasionally never
1) BOOLEAN search operators (combining separate keywords 1 6 17
using AND, OR, NOT or using “ “ and +, etc.)
2) Wildcards operators (using * or ? to search for partially known 2 1 21
headwords)
3) History functions (to automatically record looked-up words for 5 7 12
revision)
4) Voice pronunciation (listening to, instead of decoding IPA 9 9 6
symbols, for pronunciation information)
5) Advanced search (e.g. thematic search, semantic search, or 2 4 18
multimedia search)
6) Tool-bar-, pop-up- or mini-dictionary functions 4 9 11
7) Cross-reference by hyperlinking 3 9 12

The teachers were then asked to write down any questions related to dictionaries, to clarify
any kind of confusion about dictionary use. As can be seen in Table 3, the teachers were most
curious about dictionary choice, evaluation, and their effects in language learning (i.e. Stage 1
and Stage 6 skills according to Nesi‟s taxonomy). For example, the most frequently asked
questions were relating to the choice of dictionaries (e.g. “which dictionaries are the most
suitable for me and for my students?”; “I would like to know which picture dictionary is the
most suitable for my elementary students,” etc.). This may reflect the ever growing
difficulties users experience when choosing among hundreds of different dictionaries
available. Such kinds of knowledge and skills across dictionaries seem to have been given
less emphasis than skill areas within dictionaries in the majority of dictionary workbooks and
instructions, as Stark (1990) has pointed out.
The second most frequent category of questions related to the use of different types of
dictionaries and their effect on vocabulary learning (“Do I need to encourage our students to
use English-English dictionaries more often even if they don’t understand the language well?”
“Is it okay to allow my students to use on-line dictionaries or pocket electronic dictionaries?
Are they as helpful as paper dictionaries?”, etc.). Although the primary function of
dictionaries lies in their distinctive nature as an immediate reference tool (Cowie 1987; Tarp
2008), the teachers‟ enquiries clearly tell us that they are equally concerned about identifying
which dictionaries can help for their vocabulary learning. Dictionary use for vocabulary
learning has been somewhat neglected in user research. The table below summarizes the
teachers‟ questions.
Table 3: Teachers’ questions about dictionary use (excerpts)

Stage Questions from the teachers

Stage 1  Which types of dictionaries are most effective for my students’ learning: bilingual, or
Before Study monolingual English dictionaries?
 How can I better recommend the most suitable dictionaries for different levels of
students?
 Do I need to encourage our students to use English-English dictionaries more often
even though they don’t understand the language well?
 Is it worth teaching how to use the Internet dictionaries? Is it okay to allow my
students to use on-line dictionaries or pocket electronic dictionaries? Are they as
helpful as paper dictionaries?
 Is there any dictionary which presents and explains the subtle differences between
synonyms?
 Which dictionaries are the most useful for me and for my students?
 How can I make the most of thesauri?
 I want to know about different types of dictionaries and how to exploit them.
 I would like to know which picture dictionary is the most suitable for my elementary
students. There are too many in the market, and I am confused.
 What is the right time to teach dictionary skills to my students?
Stage 2  Do students need to look up every time when they come across unknown words, or
Before dictionary is it okay to skip? How much do we need to consult dictionaries?
consultation  Sometimes it seems that dictionaries make the problem worse. I want to know the
wise use of them.
 Is contextual guessing as effective as looking up words and checking their
meanings? How can I guide my students on this matter?
Stage 3 N-A
Locating entry
information
Stage 4  How can I pick up the “right sense” among many other senses more effectively in a
Interpreting entry polysemous entry? It is very confusing!
information  Do I need to teach them how to interpret IPA symbols? Is there any good reason to
teach them?

Stage 5  Do I need to memorize all the senses of a polysemous word? It seems like too
Recording entry much. But I am not sure if I need to know all the senses to improve my English.
information
Stage 6  Why is it that bilingual dictionaries locally published in Korea are not revised and the
Understanding errors not corrected?
lexicographical  Are those bilingual dictionaries credible?
issues  Is it true that some of the headwords in a dictionary are obsolete or don’t exist? How
can I tell it?
 How do we know the frequency of the headwords in a dictionary?
 Do Korean dictionaries contain authentic examples of usage? Can I safely excerpt
them in my teaching materials?
 Do dictionaries contain authentic use of English?
 What are the criteria of a good dictionary? How can I compare similar dictionaries?

This brief survey clearly indicated which areas of skills I should focus on in this course. The
teachers may have successfully acquired most of reference skills through accumulated
experiences of dictionary use in the process of attaining their current level of English
proficiency. However knowledge and skills relating to the choice, evaluation, and
understanding of different types of dictionaries may be particularly difficult to learn by
themselves. Thus the four-week syllabus was adjusted so as to reflect the teachers‟ training
needs expressed in the brief survey and questionnaire.
4. Course syllabus and procedure
Within the four-week time framework, the course covered the following areas:
1) Awareness-raising about the roles and functions of dictionaries: the teachers were
introduced to the most typical false notions about dictionaries which I found in many
English learning materials in the market and in knowledge exchange forums on the
Internet portals. They were also introduced to typical patterns of misuse by average
dictionary users found in the literature. The teachers expressed their opinions on issues
such as “mono- vs. bilingual dictionaries”, “the thicker the better” and “pros and cons of
using electronic dictionaries,” and they were introduced to findings from research in
lexicography relating to these issues. They also explored classifications of dictionary
reference skills and discussed which skills were most relevant to their students.
2) Understanding the types, functions, and structures of dictionaries: in this session, the
teachers learned the mega-, macro-, and micro-structures of dictionaries. They look
closely into what is contained in the Oxford English-Korean Dictionary in book form.
They also learned dictionary conventions and their meanings (grammar codes, typefaces,
punctuation and abbreviations in dictionaries). They compared entries from different
learners‟ dictionaries for different users and discussed ways to select the most
appropriate dictionaries for particular user levels.
3) Using various types of learners‟ dictionaries for production: in this session, the teachers
had opportunities to undertake language activities using Oxford Collocations Dictionary,
Longman Essential Activator, Oxford Learner’s Thesaurus, Oxford Picture Dictionary,
and Macmillan Phrasal Verbs Plus. Four to five sets of language activities were given
for each of the dictionaries so as to familiarise the teachers with their structures and
functions.
4) Using electronic dictionaries: in this last session, the teachers undertook language
activities using dictionaries on CD-ROMs. Four learners‟ dictionaries on CD-ROM
(Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English,
Collins COBUILD Dictionary, and Macmillan English Dictionary) were used.
Dictionaries available on Internet portals and some specialized on-line dictionaries were
also introduced. Through language activities using the electronic dictionaries, the
teachers explored various kinds of search techniques.
There was no given textbook for this course. The course materials were designed by the
researcher, and the teachers were provided with the dictionaries during the course. For the
sessions with learner dictionaries for production, every group of three teachers was given one
set of dictionaries and did the group work. The sessions with electronic dictionaries and
dictionaries on CD-ROM were offered in a computer lab, where each of the teachers had a
desktop computer with the dictionaries on CD-ROM installed.

5. Teachers’ feedback on the course

The feedback for the course was very positive. The teachers‟ enthusiasm was particularly
strongly expressed for the third and fourth sessions where they explored and practised with
using dictionaries productively, and learnt about CD-ROM dictionaries. Some teachers
expressed their amazement at discovering the wealth of dictionary functions:
  I explored these dictionaries. Eureka!! I felt like Columbus just when he discovered
the new world.
 I found the session about dictionaries on CD-ROM the most useful. I did not know
they have such a lot of useful functions—it was like I found a whole new world! I
will make use of it later when I get back to school.
 I was amazed at the beauty of CD-ROM dictionaries. I think I will use them more
often.
The raised awareness about dictionaries through the course was also found to be helpful for
the development of the teachers as expert users of English. The following are excerpts from
the teachers‟ feedback after the course:
 Through the course, I really had great information about using dictionaries. Now I
feel I should be a good dictionary user myself to better teach English to my students.
 I used to use the dictionary without thinking seriously, and now I realized the
dictionary is a useful tool to improve my language and also helpful for my teaching.
 I was nearly shocked seeing various and useful functions of dictionaries. I regretted
my toil in the past—I mean as a student, if I had known dictionaries much earlier and
used them more wisely, my English could have been much better. I will surely teach
how to use dictionaries to my students.
 When I use English-Korean dictionaries, I used to feel guilty because I heard so
many times that using bilingual dictionaries is no good for language learning. But
now I understand it is not always true. I can now use the English-Korean dictionary
with more confidence.
 This was a unique opportunity that I could only have in this program. I would never
expect to look into the world of dictionaries in this depth.
The teachers also suggested areas for improvement as well. The biggest weakness of the
current training course was found to lie in the lack of connection between what the teachers
have learned and how they can pass on this knowledge. Remaining questions from the
teachers after the course were related to teaching of dictionary reference skills in their own
classroom:
 Connections between real class and dictionary use might be a little difficult to make.
I need more study for it.
 How can I introduce my students to the appropriate use of dictionaries?
 I think the teachers will be happier if this class provides them with practical
materials or topics that can be used and recycled in real classroom.
The teachers‟ feedback pinpoints the dual nature of teacher-training programs in general.
Even though the course originally set out to improve the teachers‟ own knowledge and skills,
it would have been better to also consider how the teachers would be able to apply these in
their everyday teaching practice. In fact, teacher-training might be a rare opportunity for
researchers in lexicography to tap into the pedagogical insights and experiences of the
teachers concerning ways of teaching reference skills. The course could better serve this
purpose by including more opportunities for teacher trainees to freely exchange ideas about
the teaching of reference skills.
Of course this kind of intensive training has inherent limitations. According to Béjoint
(1989: 211), skills can better be learned when teaching is “spread over a whole period of
language teaching rather than concentrated in a few classes.” The training course I conducted
took a rather different direction. In fact it was more like a special dictionary workshop rather
than an integrated skills course. Since the improvement of skills is realized through
continuous practice and experience on the part of the user, we may need more time for the
clear purpose and outcome of the training to be fully understood by the teacher-trainees.

6. Conclusion
In this report, the case of a training course in dictionary use for Korean teachers of English
was presented, and the rationale behind constructing the course content and procedure was
briefly introduced. From the survey and the teachers‟ feedback, it was found that the teachers
were largely as uninformed as their students and wanted clearer guidance about dictionary
use. Although the course was conducted in a rather unusual manner, as an isolated intensive
content course, the enthusiasm and appreciation among the teachers was a clear indication of
the potential of teacher training in dictionary use.

References

1. Dictionaries

Collins COBUILD English Dictionary for Advanced Learners. 5th ed. [Print and CD-ROM].
Glasgow: HarperCollins Publishers. 2006.
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. 4th ed. [Print and CD-ROM]. Essex: Pearson
Education Ltd. 2005.
Longman Essential Activator. 2nd ed. Essex: Pearson Education Ltd. 2002.
Macmillan English Dictionary for Advanced Learners. 2nd ed. [Print and CD-ROM]. Oxford:
Macmillan Education. 2007.
Macmillan Phrasal Verbs Plus. Oxford: Macmillan Education. 2005.
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 7th ed. [Print]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2005.
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary. 8th ed. [CD-ROM]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2010.
Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary English-Korean. Seoul: Oxford University Press.
2008.
Oxford Collocations Dictionary for Students of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2002.
Oxford Learner’s Thesaurus. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2008.
Oxford Picture Dictionary: English-Korean. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2008.

2. Other References

Battenburg, J. D. (1991). English Monolingual Learners’ Dictionaries: A User-oriented

Study. Tubingen: Niemeyer.
Béjoint, H. (1989). “The teaching of dictionary use: present state and future tasks”. In.
Hausmann, F. J; Reichmann, O; Wiegand, H.E. and Zgusta, L. (eds.), Dictionaries: An
International Encyclopedia of Lexicography. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 208-215.
Béjoint, H. (2010). The Lexicography of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bishop, G. (2001). “Using quality and accuracy ratings to quantify the value added of a
dictionary skills training course”. Language Learning Journal 24. 62-69.
Carduner, J. (2003). “Productive dictionary skills training: What do language learners find
useful?” Language Learning Journal 28. 70-76.
Chi, M. L. A. (2003). An Empirical Study of the Efficacy of Integrating the Teaching of
Dictionary Use into a Tertiary English Curriculum in Hong Kong. Hong Kong:
Language Centre, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology.
Cowie, A. (Ed.). (1987). The Dictionary and the Language Learner. Tubingen: Max
Niemeyer Verlag.
Han, M. S. (2008). Korean EFL Learners’ Use of Dictionaries: Their Beliefs, Lookup
Strategies, and Uses. [Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation]. University of Soongsil,
Seoul.
Hartmann, R. R. K. (2001). Teaching and Researching Lexicography. Essex: Longman.
Lee, S., & Min, M. (2006). “A study on Korean high school students‟ use of vocabulary
learning strategies”. English Teaching 61(2). 115-137.
Lew, R. & Galas, K. (2008). “Can dictionary skills be taught? The effectiveness of
lexicographic training for primary-school-level polish learners of English”. In Bernal, E.
and DeCesaris, J. (eds.), Proceedings of the XIII EURALEX International Congress.
Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu: Fabra. 1273-1285.
Nesi, H. (1999). “The specification of dictionary reference skills in higher education”. In
Hartmann, R. R. K. (ed.), Dictionaries in Language Learning. Recommendations,
National Reports and Thematic Reports from the Thematic Network Project in the Area
of Languages, Sub-project 9: Dictionaries. Berlin: Free Universtiy/FLC/TNP. 53-67.
Nesi, H. & Haill, R. (2002). “A study of dictionary use by international students at a British
university”. International Journal of Lexicography 15(4). 277-305.
Nishimura, T. (2002). “Japanese learners‟ problems in using English-Japanese dictionaries”.
In Gottlieb, H., Mogensen, J. E., and Zettersten, A. (eds.), Symposium on lexicography X.
Tubingen: Niemeyer. 243-251.
Oh, H. J. (2006). “Korean English teachers‟ use of English dictionaries and instruction on
their use”. Foreign Languages Education 13(3). 419-443.
Park, J. E. (2001). “Korean EFL learners‟ vocabulary learning strategies”. English Teaching
56(4). 3-30.
Pastor, V. and Alcina, A. (2010). “Search techniques in electronic dictionaries: A
classification for translators”. International Journal of Lexicography 23(3). 307-354.
Rundell, M. (1999). “Dictionary use in production”. International Journal of Lexicography
12(1). 35-53.
Scholfield, P. J. (1982). “Using the English dictionary for comprehension”. TESOL Quarterly
16. 185-194.
Scholfield, P. J. (1999). “Dictionary use in reception”. International Journal of Lexicography
12(1). 13-34.
Tarp, S. (2008). Lexicography in the Borderland between Knowledge and Non-knowledge:
General Lexicographical Theory with Particular Focus on Learner’s Lexicography.
Tubingen: Niemeyer.
Whitcut, J. (1986). “The training of dictionary users”. In Ilson, R. (ed.), Lexicography: An
Emerging Profession. Manchester: Manchester University Press. 111-121.