The Effects of Using a Bilingualized Dictionary on EFL Learners’ Vocabulary
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dictionaries have been integrated into vocabulary activities in different classrooms within the context of learning English as a foreign language (EFL). This study investigates the effects of using bilingualized dictionaries on EFL learners’ vocabulary. A mixed-method design that comprises a vocabulary exercise in a pretest, posttest and delayed posttest protocol in addition to interviews was employed with participants from the State of Kuwait. Participants included 52 female students, from which six students agreed to participate in semi-structured interviews to reflect on their experience of learning vocabulary. The results showed that a bilingualized dictionary significantly improved students’ vocabulary at both posttests, though the improvement decreased from the first posttest to the delayed posttest. The results could be interpreted according to the involvement load hypothesis (ILH; Laufer & Hulstijn, 2001), which is founded on three pillars: need, search and evaluation. Participants’ views and reflection on the process of learning vocabulary, particularly when using the bilingualized dictionary, combined with the findings of quantitative tests, could inform vocabulary teaching in the EFL context.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".