Translation Trainees’ Uses of and Attitudes towards Different Types of Dictionaries: A Case Study

The focus of most studies on dictionary users has been on foreign and second language learners, with seldom attention paid to translation trainees. Given that the dictionary is an indispensable tool used by translators and translators in the making alike, research in this regard is crucial to uncover the uses and attitudes of this group of dictionary users’ towards different forms of dictionaries. Revealing translation trainees’ practices facilitates the correction of wrong ones and helps in guiding students towards the efficient use of dictionaries. The ultimate goal is, thus, informing translation pedagogy. Hence, the present study aims at investigating translation trainees’ uses of dictionaries and their attitudes towards different types of dictionaries. The focus is on uncovering the uses and attitudes of Saudi undergraduate female translation trainees towards the different forms of dictionaries available for them today. The article in hand specifically reports on the quantitative phase of a two-phase, mixed-methods case study. A group of 95 undergraduate students answered a multi-item, online questionnaire, with the aim of revealing their dictionary uses and preferences. The results confirmed the participants’ preference for and heavy reliance on electronic dictionaries, due to their convenience, comprehensiveness, portability and being up-to-date. The results further indicated the participants’ preference for bilingual over monolingual dictionaries. Surprisingly, the results also showed that a high number of the respondents reported using Google Translate frequently. Despite these findings, the survey results revealed that the participants have good knowledge of and do in fact use a wide selection of bilingual and monolingual dictionaries, including paper and electronic ones.


INTRODUCTION
There has always been a need to reflect on improving the methods of dictionary use, particularly among translation trainees (Roberts, 1992). Despite the fact that investigating dictionary use is an urgent issue, this area has been relatively rarely looked into (Dziemianko & Lew, 2006). The results of research done on dictionary use are especially helpful for the design of dictionaries, however, the focus of such studies has been more on academic and educational contexts, language learners in specific, thus little is known about the dictionary uses and preferences of users beyond that group (Lew & De Schryver, 2014). Research into dictionary use, in general, "does not have a long history" (Nesi, 2014, p. 38), yet there has been an increase in the number of studies conducted in this realm of study over the previous three decades. Further, while large numbers of dictionary users have moved into using electronic dictionaries, studies carried out on users of these digital mediums have been rather scarce (Lew, 2013b). The problem is that without a strong foundation in the basics, the art of translation cannot to be achieved (Fujii, 2007). by the PACTE (Process in the Acquisition of Translation Competence and Evaluation) research group. Translation competence is defined as "the underlying knowledge system needed to translate" (PACTE Group, 2005, p.610). The consensus among researchers is that translation competence is made up of several sub-competences, however what these sub-competences are and their definitions is still under debate (Göpferich, 2009). According to the PACTE research group, translation competence, which is not necessarily possessed by all bilinguals, is characterized as being expert knowledge, and is mainly procedural knowledge, rather than declarative knowledge. It is procedural knowledge which distinguishes expert translators from their novice peers.
Translation competence is made up of several interrelated sub-competencies, with the strategic component being essential and central, as it is embodied in the procedural knowledge. The PACTE research group (2005) identifies five sub-competencies of the translation process, which include: bilingual sub-competence, extra-linguistic sub-competence, knowledge about translation sub-competence, strategic sub-competence and instrumental sub-competence. The translation process also activates a series of psycho-physiological mechanisms. The instrumental sub-competence, in particular, comprises of knowledge that is related to the use of documentation sources and information technologies applied to translation. It is under this component of translation competence where the skill of dictionary use comes into play. Improving the skill of dictionary use by students of translation is critical to facilitate the development of their translation competence in general.

LANGUAGE DICTIONARIES
Several classifications of dictionaries have been put forward by researchers in the field. De Schryver (2003), for instance, proposes a typology based on one major, rigid criterion, which is "the way in which dictionaries are accessed" (p. 147). When designing this typology, the aim was answering the question 'WHO accesses WHAT WHERE?' This led De Schryver to identify five main types of dictionaries, including: traditional paper dictionaries, handheld dictionaries, robust-machine dictionaries (e.g. CD-ROMs), intranet dictionaries and Internet dictionaries. This entails the existence of two broad groups of dictionaries: traditional paper dictionaries and electronic dictionaries, with its various forms.
From a review of relevant literature, Lew and De Schryver (2014) found that "the term 'electronic dictionary' has clearly prevailed over 'digital dictionary'" (p.344). Having said that, the term electronic dictionary is used in reference to "any reference material stored in electronic form that gives information about spelling, meaning, or use of words" (Nesi, 2000, p. 839). This, according to Nesi, includes "a spell-checker in a word-processing program, a device that scans and translates printed words, a glossary for on-line teaching materials, or an electronic version of a respected hard-copy dictionary" (2000, p.839). It is in fact the retrieval system associated with electronic dictionary use, Nesi clarifies, rather than the actual information content, is what distinguishes it from the consultation of the traditional hard-copy dictionary. The term electronic dictionary is sometimes abbreviated as e-dictionary and implies "a digital version of a traditional concept" (Lew & De Schryver, 2014, p.342). The definition of electronic dictionaries (henceforth e-dictionaries), put forward by Nesi (2000), is the one adopted in the present paper.
Another classification of dictionaries relates to monolingual versus bilingual dictionaries. The common belief is that the former type is far more superior than the latter in terms of usefulness as a language learning tool, yet research has revealed that learners in general prefer using bilingual dictionaries and some key findings demonstrate the advantages of this type of dictionaries (Nesi, 2014). The evolution of edictionaries has led to a vast amount of changes in students' uses and attitudes towards dictionaries. Furthermore, the development of technology has led to a slow decline in the use of paper dictionaries (Liu & Lin, 2011). In spite of the prevalence of e-dictionaries nowadays, the focus of previous research on dictionary use has been mainly on the use of paper dictionaries (Wolter, 2015). It is useful, before presenting previous studies on dictionary use, to shed light on paper and e-dictionaries along with the pros and cons of each type.

Paper vs. Electronic Dictionaries
Apparently, a major difference between electronic and paper dictionaries lies in the way information is accessed (Lew, 2013a). One justification for the superiority of e-dictionaries is that the way word entries are presented on the screen is more appealing and in fact less distracting when compared to the way headwords are presented in paper dictionaries (Dziemianko, 2010). Further, many of the skills required to search e-dictionaries are directly related to digital literacy, particularly ones on internet search strategies (Lew, 2013a). The potential of e-dictionaries nowadays is widely recognized by researchers, practitioners and learners alike. As Dziemianko (2013) clarifies, storing more data, readability, improved retrieval systems as well as immediate cross-referencing are among the advantages of e-dictionaries mentioned in the literature.
E-dictionaries, when compared to paper ones, are more dynamic and flexible. In terms of the information provided to users, paper dictionaries have "a linear, non-hierarchical microstructure", whereas e-dictionaries have "a layered, hierarchical inner access structure" (Dziemianko, 2013). Although e-dictionaries are regarded by some researchers as inferior in quality, others believe, Dziemianko states, that these multi-function e-dictionaries can easily surpass bulky paper dictionaries. Among the advantages of e-dictionaries is that their users need not to worry much about the alphabetical order, nor do they need to know about the IPA system. Rather, "learners need to acquire the skills to use these dictionary functions correctly, as they are not always obvious" (Nesi, 2000, p. 844).
Another major advantage of e-dictionaries, including dictionary apps, is that they can be easily updated as often as needed, and "all users can instantly benefit from the improved content or features right from the moment these become available" (Lew & De Schryver, 2014, p. 345). Research on paper versus electronic dictionary use, according to Lew and De Schryver, quite consistently shows that "the digital medium encourages more frequent consultation compared to traditional print dictionaries, and that such consultation is quicker" (p.347). Other advantages of the digital medium mentioned by Lew and De Schryver include hearing the pronunciation of new words, interconnectivity with other digital resources, and staying within the same medium when having to search different sources.
On the other hand, one advantage for paper dictionaries is that it is easy for the user to know what is there in the dictionary, whereas with electronic dictionaries it is not always the case. Knowing what resources are available, how to access them and use them effectively are among the problems of electronic dictionaries (Levy & Steel, 2014). Yet, one problem posed by paper dictionaries relates to locating the meanings of phrases, idioms and expressions, which "seriously limits the user-friendliness of paper dictionaries" (Lew, 2013a, p. 82).
The evolution of electronic dictionaries has led to a vast amount of changes in students' uses and attitudes towards dictionaries. Furthermore, the development of technology has led to a slow decline in the use of paper dictionaries (Liu & Lin, 2011). However, the focus of previous research on dictionary use has been mainly on the use of paper dictionaries (Wolter, 2015). From the above review of the pros and cons of both formats of dictionaries available for translator trainees, it is inevitable that the convenience and user-friendliness of e-dictionaries on one hand, and the reliability and tradition of paper dictionaries on the other hand pose many questions regarding the relative usefulness of these two dictionary formats (Dziemianko, 2013).

Studies on Dictionary Use
Levy and Steel (2014) investigated the types, modes and occasions of electronic dictionary use among language learners at an Australian university, specifically in settings where these learners were free to act independently. The aim of this study was to uncover students' perceptions of the aspects that make electronic dictionaries helpful to them, in terms of both functionality and usability. This large-scale study looked into why and how dictionaries were accessed and used. Usability, according to Levy and Steel refers to "the experience of using an electronic dictionary," whereas functionality is concerned with "intentional actions and decisions" on behalf of the dictionary makers (2015, pp. 179-180). The results of this study revealed that both online dictionaries and mobile apps are highly rated by language learners. The online dictionary, in particular, was on top of the list of technologies used by these language learners. Data collected from this study further indicated that for dictionaries, whether paper or online, issues of look-up time and easeof-use are fundamental considerations from the dictionary user's point of view. Issues concerned with portability and convenience across time and location also emerged as major themes reported by the participants of this study.
Another recent study conducted by Sabbah and Alsalem (2018) surveyed 50 female, undergraduate students doing their BAs in translation at a private university in Saudi Arabia. The study aimed at investigating translation students' knowledge, attitude and uses of different kinds of online dictionaries and terminology databases. The researchers aimed at finding out the extent to which the sample were aware of the existence of online resources that can be of help to translation trainees. The results of this study revealed that the majority of students where the survey was conducted use dictionary apps as well as online dictionaries, rather than traditional paper dictionaries. The participants were asked about the features which would make a dictionary helpful to them. On top of the students' lists was "providing several meanings of the entered word," then giving the synonyms followed by providing parts of speech. The majority of participants reported using both monolingual and bilingual dictionaries. However, around 18% of the sample said they use only bilingual dictionaries. Almaany is an online dictionary considered by the participants of this study to be the number one source which they find most helpful when undertaking a translation task and they recommend it to their fellow translator trainees. The second most popular online dictionary mentioned by the participants was Cambridge.
Other online dictionaries the students prefer using included: Oxford Dictionary, Reverso, Glosbe, the Free Dictionary, Alqamoos, and Word Reference.
Alhaisoni (2016) also conducted a study that aimed at investigating the perceptions of EFL teachers and preparatory year students of dictionary use. A number of 99 EFL teachers and 3993 students were invited to take part in the questionnaire. From the same group of students, 40 students were further invited to participate in follow-up interviews. The survey results indicated that the majority of students prefer using bilingual dictionaries to other types of dictionaries. Further, students reported using online dictionaries as well as Google Translate more often than paper dictionaries. When asked about their reasons for consulting the dictionary, checking the meaning was on top of the students' lists.

METHODOLOGY
Dictionary user research generally aims at investigating the way users interact with dictionaries in order to make such interaction more efficient, effective and faster (Lew & De Schryver, 2014). Research into dictionary use is usually characterized by studies that are small-scale, rather than large-scale ones (Nesi, 2014). Similarly, this quantitative, small-scale study used a multi-item questionnaire to gather data on the respondents' uses of and attitudes towards different kinds of dictionaries. It is part of a two-phase, mixed-methods study where both quantitative and qualitative datasets were gathered. From the target cohort, 95 students completed the multi-item, online questionnaire.

Participants
The participants were 95 female, undergraduate students enrolled at the Department of English Language and Translation at King Saud University in Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia. They were surveyed about their dictionary uses and preferences. Students at the English Language and Translation Department, at the time the data was collected, studied ten levels and started taking translation courses at level 6. The participants of the present study were all completing a level eight Translation course in the second semester of the academic year 2017/2018. The survey responses revealed that more than half of the participants have already taken up to seven translation courses, both written and oral ones. Nesi and Haill (2002) state that most of the research in the realm of dictionary use have used questionnaires or interviews to elicit data. In line with other studies in the field, this study has used a questionnaire to uncover the general patterns of dictionary use as well as attitudes towards different types of dictionaries. The questionnaire items were put together as a result of a review of the literature available on dictionary use by language learners (e.g. De Schryver, 2003; Levy & Steel, 2014;Alhaisoni, 2016;Sabbah & Alsalem, 2018). The questionnaire items were built around two main themes: one is the students' dictionary uses while the other theme is the students' attitudes towards the different kinds of dictionaries available for their use.

Instruments & Data Analysis
The Google form questionnaire was sent to students and completed online. 95 students of the cohort completed the questionnaire. The data collected through the questionnaire were analyzed descriptively. Descriptive analysis of the results fulfills the purpose of this study, as it provides a simple and clear interpretation of the data. In fact, descriptive analysis fulfills the aim of providing the reader with a clear idea of the participants' general uses of dictionaries and it also helps illustrate the attitudes of translation trainees towards different kinds of dictionaries.
Based on what has been mentioned above, this study aimed at answering the following research question: What are the Saudi, female undergraduate translation students' uses of and attitudes towards different forms of dictionaries?

Results
The findings of this study will be presented mainly in two sets: first, students' uses of dictionaries; second, students' attitudes towards different types of dictionaries.

Students' uses of dictionaries
Figure 1 above demonstrates that when asked about the frequency of using the dictionary, in general, around 90% of the respondents agreed that they use the dictionary frequently. This is not a surprising finding, with the sample being translation trainees, as the dictionary is an indispensable tool for any translator in the making. According to Figure 2 above, 80% of the respondents agree that they use paper dictionaries only in exams. This entails that only 20% of the students in this study use paper dictionaries in other settings, including class work and homework. Figure 3 above shows that nearly 60% of the respondents agree that they use paper dictionaries only when they need a specialized dictionary. This entails that around 40% of the sample also use general paper dictionaries or they may not be using paper dictionaries at all. Figure 4 above shows that 90% of the respondents agree that they use dictionary apps more than any other form of dictionaries. This finding provides insight into the specific type of electronic dictionaries the sample students frequently use.
As shown in Figure 5 above, around 75% of the participants agree that they use Google Translate frequently. This finding is quite surprising, as translation trainees are often advised against the use of machine translation.
According to Figure 6 above, more than 80% of the participants agree that they use bilingual dictionaries more often than monolingual dictionaries. This finding could be justified, given that the sample are translation trainees.  When asked about the electronic dictionaries they use most frequently, the participants reported using Google Translate, Almaany, Reverso Context, Word Reference, as well as the Arabic Dict. Box application. The students also reported using many monolingual dictionaries, including Merriam Webster, The Free Dictionary, Oxford, Longman and Cambridge.
As for paper dictionaries, the students depended mainly on Almawrid, Almurshid, and Oxford along with a number of specialized dictionaries, such as the Dictionary of Islamic Terms, and Hitti Medical Dictionary. The last two are requirements for their Islamic and medical translation courses, respectively. Figure 7 above shows the various uses of dictionaries reported by the participants. According to the figure, the majority of respondents (i.e. almost 95%) agree that they use the dictionary to check meanings in English. More than 80% of them use dictionaries to check Arabic translations, while around 75% use dictionaries to check spelling. Further, nearly half of the participants use dictionaries to check examples. Around a third of the respondents use the dictionary to check parts of speech, collocations and pronunciations. Some students mentioned other uses of the dictionary, including whether the word is American English or British English, synonyms and the use of the word in context.

Students' attitudes towards dictionaries
The results of this survey indicate that around 70% of the respondents do not prefer using monolingual dictionaries.
This corroborates the finding shown in Figure 6 above which illustrated that the majority of the participants agree that they use bilingual dictionaries more often than monolingual dictionaries. Further, all the participants believe that e-dictionaries are easier and faster to use than paper dictionaries, that quick and easy access to dictionaries is very important to them and that using electronic dictionaries saves time. A very small number of participants do not agree to the point that electronic dictionaries are easier to use than paper ones. This might be due to their inadequacy in terms of digital skills.
Moreover, around 90% of the participants prefer electronic dictionaries because they are always available. More than 80% of the students prefer electronic dictionaries because they are more convenient than paper dictionaries. This particular finding corroborates the finding related to the ease of using electronic dictionaries. Also, all participants prefer electronic dictionaries because they help them look up words faster, and nearly all of them prefer electronic dictionaries because they are up-to-date.
Furthermore, almost 75% of the participants prefer electronic dictionaries because they offer more information. This might entail that the remaining participants are not aware of how to make maximum use of electronic dictionaries. To sum up, the results indicate that the participants of this study prefer electronic dictionaries because they are easier and more convenient to use than paper ones, they save time, they offer more information and are always available and up-to-date.

DISCUSSION & IMPLICATIONS
Despite the common belief that monolingual dictionaries are superior to bilingual ones in terms of language learning usefulness, a number of surveys have revealed the general preference of learners to using bilingual dictionaries (Nesi, 2014). This finding supports the results of the present study, which demonstrated that 80% of the participants use bilingual dictionaries more often than monolingual ones and that 70% of them do not prefer using monolingual dictionaries. The fact that the participants prefer bilingual dictionaries is not surprising with the sample being translation trainees, as the nature of the tasks they undertake justifies the need for using bilingual dictionaries. Yet, they still need to refer to monolingual dictionaries, particularly in cases where the bilingual dictionary does not provide them with suitable equivalents. However, despite the participants' preference for bilingual dictionaries, the knowledge they have of monolingual, electronic dictionaries seems to be thorough, for the dictionaries they reported using included Oxford, Longman and Cambridge, which are among the Big Five dictionaries listed by Lew (2011). These two results taken together indicate that, similar to participants in other studies (e.g. Sabbah & Alsalem, 2018;Alhaisoni, 2016), the participants do use both bilingual and monolingual dictionaries, despite the fact that they prefer using bilingual ones. Reality demonstrates that electronic dictionaries offer a huge amount of content located in the same place, while a learner might need to consult several references when using paper dictionaries (Levy & Steel, 2014). Thus, students' preference for electronic dictionaries is rather understandable.
The outcomes of this study further indicate that the participants prefer using electronic dictionaries because they are easier and more convenient to use than paper ones, they save time, they offer more information and are always available and up-to-date. In fact, the single items all participants seemed to agree to had to do with the pros of using electronic dictionaries. This result is supported by the literature on electronic dictionaries which indicates that the most frequent word collocating with electronic dictionaries is advantage, "where that advantage is perceived in comparison with paper dictionaries" (De Schryver, 2003, p. 152). In fact, research indicates that quick and easy access to dictionary items has always been high on the list of priorities of dictionary users (Levy & Steel, 2014). Some of the advantages of electronic dictionaries from the point of view of their users, to name but a few, are the rapid access to large amounts of lexicographical data, being cheap, if not free, being liberated from alphabetical order, the optimization of cross-referencing, and last but not least, being dynamic and up-to-date (De Schryver, 2003). On the other hand, one advantage of paper dictionaries mentioned by De Schryver is that of offline access. This single advantage can be found in dictionary apps which are most likely available offline.
Another finding supported by the literature (Levy & Steel, 2014;Sabbah & Alsalem, 2018) is that the majority of students in this study agree that they use dictionary apps more than any other form of dictionaries. Nesi (2014) states that the sales of traditional paper dictionaries have fallen dramatically with the advent of free online dictionaries. Lew (2013c) further states that "studies often find digital dictionaries to be used more than their paper predecessors" (p. 18). Thus, it is not surprising to find that students prefer using online dictionaries to paper ones. Levy and Steel (2014) also explain that there is a general, global trend witnessed by a departure from traditional paper dictionaries, which is also confirmed by the results of this study. These are all justifiable results, since e-dictionaries are more convenient to use when compared to traditional paper dictionaries. Dictionary apps are particularly convenient as most do not require internet connection, and thus can be used anytime and anywhere. These advantages are directly related to the participants' responses regarding electronic dictionaries being up-to-date and more comprehensive than paper ones.
Among the skills that are no longer required for electronic dictionary users are familiarity with the alphabetical order as well as searching for inflected forms (Lew, 2013a). The same is also true when it comes to looking up multi-word expressions such as phrases and idioms. When idioms are taken as an example, one has to figure out the key word under which the idiom is located in a paper dictionary, which is a difficulty that leads to limiting their user friendliness (Lew, 2013a). The absence of skills required to look up such information resulted in ease and speedy use of electronic dictionaries, which were among the reasons given by the participants for their preference for e-dictionaries. Roberts (1992) stated that very few translation students are aware of dictionaries other than the general bilingual and general monolingual dictionaries. This is contrary to the situation of the participants in this study, as they apparently make use of many kinds of general and specialized dictionaries, both bilingual and monolingual ones. WordReference, which has been mentioned by the participants, is in fact "one of the most frequently used online dictionaries" (Levy & Steel, 2014, p. 181). A number of features make this website particularly popular, including providing language pairs, thus allowing for translations, along with being free and having language forums. It also has a free app that can be downloaded to smart phones. Further, similar to the results reached by Alhaisoni (2016), participants of this study reported using Google Translate frequently. This particular finding should be taken with precaution, as translation trainers are always expected to advise their trainees on the quality and accuracy of translations Google Translate produces. Translation trainees should be regularly reminded of the fact that Google Translate can never substitute a professional translator, due to its limitations.
The results presented above, particularly the new generation's preference for electronic dictionaries, constitutes an additional burden on the shoulders of translation trainers. With the vast number of electronic dictionaries available out there, students are at the risk of "getting lost in the riches" unless properly guided (Lew, 2011, p.247). A dictionary being comprehensive does not ensure the learners' efficient use of it. Roberts (1992) explains that "the more information is packed into dictionaries, the greater the dilemma of these students, for they are unable to find what they need in the mass of information provided" (p.52). This situation holds true for any type of dictionary, be it paper or electronic. The large number of electronic dictionaries available today poses a great challenge for teachers as well, as they might be left behind in the digital revolution, and hence dictionary users who are learning the tricks of the trade are left to find their own way. Therefore, translation trainers are strongly advised to keep abreast with the latest advances in electronic dictionaries which consequently enables them to provide their students with training opportunities during class time on using these technologies efficiently. In other words, translation instructors are encouraged to familiarize themselves with the variety of electronic dictionaries available, do their best to identify the good ones and then guide their students accordingly. This necessitates that part of the classroom time should be devoted to guiding students on the proper and efficient use of electronic dictionaries. One thing that makes teaching electronic dictionary reference skills easier for translation trainers is that "dictionary users seem to be bringing in habits from search engine use into the context of online dictionaries" (Lew, 2013a, p. 82).
Further, translation trainers should find suitable ways to incorporate the use of electronic dictionaries in exams. Since students reported that they relied heavily on electronic dictionaries when carrying out their daily translation tasks, as well as their preference for electronic dictionaries in general, thus going back to paper dictionaries during exams poses major problems for these students. This is actually seen in reality, for students who are used to consulting e-dictionaries tend to struggle in exams with basic skills required for looking up a word in paper dictionaries, such as alphabetical order. This is because the main difference between electronic dictionary reference skills and those of paper ones relates to the search for and access to lexicographic information. On the other hand, skills that concern the actual dictionary content show great overlap between paper and electronic dictionaries (Lew, 2013a). If the use of paper dictionaries in exams is to continue, then the task of translation instructors is to make sure that their trainees possess good access skills, as successful dictionary use depends partly on the users' good dictionary reference skills (Lew, 2013a). Research in the field demonstrates that dictionary skills can be taught effectively, thus devoting classroom time to teaching such reference skills will undoubtedly pay off eventually.

CONCLUSION
This study investigated the uses and preferences of female, undergraduate, translation students at King Saud University towards different types of dictionaries. The survey results indicated that the participants prefer and use bilingual dictionaries more frequently than monolingual ones. Further, the findings revealed that the respondents prefer using e-dictionaries rather than paper ones because they are more convenient, portable, comprehensive and up-to-date. The results also showed that the participants mainly use paper dictionaries in exams and when they are in need of specialized dictionaries. Despite being a single-site study with a rather small sample, the results of this study can provide useful guidance for translator trainers in terms of uses and preferences regarding different dictionary types.
Consulting a dictionary is, undoubtedly, an essential stage in the translation process. Students need to know how and when to consult dictionaries efficiently and the right dictionaries to refer to in order to carry out the translation tasks successfully. The types of dictionaries to be used by translators, getting the most out of them and using them efficiently by translation trainees are all integral parts of translation pedagogy. Thus, providing students with guidance on their uses of dictionaries and helping them to get the most out of the dictionaries they have available is likely to facilitate the development of their instrumental sub-competence, which will ultimately lead to an improvement in their translation competence in general. The move to e-dictionaries is rather a global phenomenon. This move is in fact yielding change in the skills required to make efficient use of these dictionaries. Some skills associated with the traditional paper dictionary are becoming outdated, and the focus today should be largely on teaching translation trainees the skills relevant to search techniques required for using e-dictionaries (Lew, 2013c). Yet, one major concern is finding an appropriate context to teach these new e-dictionary skills. Using an online platform which integrates e-dictionary skills and is embedded in the curriculum is rather promising (Lew, 2013c). However, dictionary use is rather "a two-way game," the dictionary and its user and this two-way game "proceeds smoothly only if both perform well" (Lew, 2013a, p.79). This places a burden on the shoulders of translation trainers which are expected to equip their trainees with the tricks of the trade.
To conclude, an area worth further investigation is the skills that are related to e-dictionary use. Research in the field demonstrates that "designers of electronic dictionaries find themselves in a void when it comes to user studies specifically addressing this dictionary format" (Lew, 2013b, p. 343). Research in this regard is expected to inform decisions that are relevant to the way lexicographic data are presented as well as the design of dictionary interface (Lew & De Schryver, 2014). Further, one question posed by the results of this study is: Is it time to move translation training classes to computer labs? And would that have a positive impact on translation trainees? This is another area of investigation worth looking into in future research.