LEARNING STYLES AND STRATEGIES OF DICTIONARY USE FOR TEACHING PORTUGUESE

ABSTRACT

This paper discusses, within the domain of learning styles, how so-called sensory preferences can guide strategies of dictionary use. It is based on previous literature that investigates sensory preferences, such as visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and tactile. The aim of the paper is to associate the main features of sensory preferences and their most common learning strategies to explicit guidelines that optimize dictionary use in teaching Portuguese for native or non-native speakers. The paper seeks to go beyond the consensus on the function and use of dictionaries, as attested in previous work, and argues that students and teachers should work outside their own ‘stylistic comfort zone’ and diversify strategies throughout the teaching and learning process. As a result, the paper presents guidelines for dictionary use that cover the choice of different formats (printed, electronic, and online dictionaries), searching methods that are consistent with each preference, and dictionary recommendations. In addition, the paper also highlights further applications of the Roadmap for evaluating dictionaries as an instrument to document lexicographic works that would be more consistent with certain aims of vocabulary and students’ learning styles.

Portuguese; teaching; dictionaries; vocabulary; learning styles; sensory preferences

RESUMO

Este artigo aborda, no contexto dos estilos de aprendizagem, como as preferências sensoriais podem orientar estratégias de uso de dicionários. Para a contextualização teórica, parte-se da literatura que investiga as quatro áreas primordiais de preferências sensoriais: visual, auditiva, cinestésica e tátil. O objetivo do trabalho é articular as características das preferências sensoriais e de suas estratégias de aprendizagem a diretrizes explícitas que otimizem o uso de dicionários no ensino de português tanto como língua materna (PLM) quanto como língua não materna (PLNM). Busca-se, assim, superar o consenso sobre a função e o uso dos dicionários atestado na literatura sobre o tema. O trabalho observa que aprendizes e professores podem sair do que se denomina ‘zona de conforto estilística’ e diversificar estratégias ao longo do processo de ensino e aprendizagem. Este trabalho apresenta como resultados diretrizes de uso de dicionários que contemplam a escolha da modalidade da obra (impressa, eletrônica, online ), a indicação de buscas mais consistentes com cada preferência e a sugestão de obras a serem adotadas. Além disso, o artigo aponta mais uma possibilidade de uso do Roteiro para avaliação de dicionários como forma de documentar quais obras lexicográficas seriam mais consistentes com os objetivos de ensino de vocabulário e com os estilos de aprendizagem dos estudantes.

português; ensino; dicionário; vocabulário; estilos de aprendizagem; preferências sensoriais

Introduction

This paper addresses, within the domain of learning styles, how sensory preferences (visual, auditory, kinesthetic, and tactile) ( OXFORD, 1990 , 2003 ), can guide strategies of dictionary use aimed at vocabulary teaching in classes of Portuguese as a native or non-native language. The justification for the present work is based on (i) the recognition of the dictionary as an important support in language learning ( BOULTON; DE COCK, 2016 ); (ii) the simultaneous and growing research interest on dictionary use in teaching and learning vocabulary ( CHEN, 2011 ); and (iii) the need to overcome a general consensus view on the function of the dictionary, prevalent even among professional language teachers ( MAIA-PIRES; VILARINHO, 2016 ).¹

Based on this rationale, the main objectives of this paper are: (i) to overcome a consensus view on the function and use of dictionaries; and (ii) to associate the features of learning styles with explicit and more general strategies to optimize the use of dictionaries in class, indicating (a) the most appropriate types of lexicographical resources (e.g., print, electronic, or online dictionaries), (b) the most consistent search types (and what resources are available to the user), and, finally, (c) recommendations of dictionaries to be adopted.

In order to do so, the following methodological steps were taken: (i) describing what learning styles are, considering the domain of sensory preferences ( OXFORD, 2003 ); (ii) comparing learning strategies associated with each one of these styles, based on literature review ( OXFORD, 1990 , 2003 ; WONG; NUNAN, 2011 ); (iii) establishing which lexical aspects are given a more prominent role by each strategy; and (iv) detailing proposals of dictionary use consistent with the evaluated styles and strategies.²

The paper is organized as follows. Section 1 defines what learning styles are, focusing on so-called sensory preferences. Section 2 discusses the learning strategies commonly associated with each learning style. Section 3 makes an explicit claim as to which lexical aspects can be linked to each learning style, in order to support the practice of teachers in training interested in vocabulary teaching. Section 4 proposes strategies of dictionary use, building on the discussion from previous sections. Section 5 discusses the importance of knowing the typology of lexicographical works based on Faulstich’s (2011) Roadmap. Finally, the last section concludes the paper and summarizes its main contributions to lexicographical studies and Portuguese teaching.

Learning styles and sensory preferences

According to Oxford (2003 , p. 2), “learning styles are general approaches [...] that students use in acquiring a new language or in learning any other subject”. These learning styles, which serve as guides of student behavior, can be shown to vary across different dimensions. For instance, personality types, desired degree of generality when it comes to learning, biological differences and sensory preferences ( OXFORD, 2003 ). The focus of this paper is on this last dimension, which encompasses “the physical, perceptual learning channels with which the student is most comfortable” ( OXFORD, 2003 , p. 3). These sensory preferences, to be further detailed, can be: visual, auditory, tactile (touch-oriented), or kinesthetic (movement-oriented).

An important feature of sensory preferences, pointed out by Oxford (2003) , is that they are not dichotomous, but function on a continuum. In other words, a visual preference does not preclude any other preference, and one person can manifest more than one sensory preference to different degrees. In what follows, sensory preferences are exemplified, with an indication of their basic physical and perceptual orientation.

1. (1)

   • Visual preference: vision, visual stimuli.

   • Auditory preference: hearing, sound stimuli

   • Tactile preference: touch, physical sensations.

   • Kinesthetic preference: movement, action.

These preferences represent what Oxford (2003 , p. 7) calls “stylistic comfort zones”. The term refers to instances in which students feel more confident and comfortable to learn. The author, however, highlights the need to go beyond this comfort zone and suggests that teachers explore a variety of activities guided by more than one preference.

Learning strategies

In addition to learning styles and their respective sensory preferences, learning strategies also play an important role in education. Learning strategies are the “steps taken by students to enhance their own learning” ( OXFORD, 1990 , p. 1). They can include actions, behaviors, or techniques that students adopt when learning a language or another subject ( OXFORD, 2003 ). For example, a student may spontaneously choose to watch a movie for practicing a language or retake a long list of exercises to study or review a particular topic. There are, obviously, more, and less effective strategies for learning—see Wong and Nunan (2011 , p. 150) for a list of generalizations.³ However, as Oxford (2003) points out, learning strategies are not inherently good or bad. In principle, strategies are neutral until we evaluate them in a particular contextual set up.

In her words, a strategy can be useful and positive when not only it suits a student’s learning style preference, but also makes “learning easier, faster, more enjoyable, more self-directed, more effective, and more transferable to new situations” ( OXFORD, 1990 , p. 8; cf. OXFORD, 2003 , p. 8-9).

Thus, when thinking of sensory preferences, as presented in (1), it is possible to link them to particular learning strategies, as exemplified below.⁴

1. (2)

   • Visual preference: reading, activities that require the interpretation of visual and graphic cues.

   • Auditory preference: oral instructions, sound stimuli, dialogues, and conversations.

   • Kinesthetic and tactile preferences: activities involving movement, role-playing, collage, flashcards, and interaction with tangible objects.

Relevant lexical aspects for each sensory preference

This section is intended to discuss which lexical aspects are favored by each sensory preference. Ultimately, the idea is to derive concrete strategies and guidelines of dictionary use. In what follows, these aspects are presented.

1. (3)

   • Visual preference: written word, graphic elements, morphology.

   • Auditory preference: spoken word, sound elements, phonology.

   • Kinesthetic and tactile preference: contextualized word, word in use, referential elements, semantics, and pragmatics.

At this point, we return to the issue of a consensus view on the function of a dictionary, based on Maia-Pires and Vilarinho (2016) . The authors conducted interviews with Humanities’ students at the University of Brasília (UnB) to assess their lexicographical knowledge and to establish their approach to dictionaries both as users and as language teachers. The authors noted some prevalent ideas, even among those involved in language teaching, regarding the function and the potential of dictionary use as a learning aid, namely:

1. (4)

   • dictionary as a reading aid;

   • dictionary as a resource to look up the meaning of a word (or, at most, to check its spelling);

   • dictionary as a resource presented in alphabetical order.

The authors, however, note that dictionaries do not “only list ‘words’, but provide different sorts of linguistic information, such as phonological, orthographic, morphological, syntactic, and semantic” ( MAIA-PIRES; VILARINHO, 2016 , p. 327). Moreover, dictionaries can be organized in different ways, not just alphabetically, but also in conceptual domains. The so-called analogical dictionary, for example, is “a lexicographical repertoire, onomasiological in nature, in which lexemes are organized in a systematic order, from ideas or concepts to lexical units” ( VILARINHO, 2017 , p. 105). Familiarity with different kinds of dictionaries is desirable for active and in-training teachers, as it allows them to diversify the use and types of dictionaries in class as a valuable teaching and learning aid.

The idea of evaluating which lexical aspects are more suitable to each preference is based on an observation made by Cerbin (2012) . The author suggests that teachers’ attention should shift from the student (and their respective learning style) to the content to be taught.

There are some ways to teach some subjects that are just better than others, despite the learning styles of individuals. If you’re thinking about teaching sculpture, I am not sure that long tracts of verbal descriptions of statues or of sculptures would be a particularly effective way for individuals to learn about works of art. Naturally, these are physical objects and you need to take a look at them, you might even need to handle them ( CERBIN, 2012 ).

With that in mind, the strategies to be described in the next section are premised on the idea that an adequate teaching strategy suits both the students’ own style and the particularities of the content to be taught.

Strategies of dictionary use

How to apply the aforementioned considerations about sensory preferences and learning strategies in favor of language learners? In this section, sensory preferences will be linked to explicit strategies of dictionary use in order to enhance and optimize vocabulary learning.

Visual preference and form prominence

Mota, Anibal and Lima (2008 , p. 311) note that “the ability to reflect on what morphemes make up words is related to the success of recognizing and comprehending words in reading and writing”. For the visual preference, then, the proposal is to work with the search of morphological units. Affixes, for instance, enable teachers to work with expressive, cultural, and linguistic elements, such as diminutive and augmentative formation. A few examples follow, showing how the study of a few morphemes and processes of derivational morphology enable the teacher to deal with concepts like “opposition”, “possibility”, among others ( HOUAISS, 2020 ).

1. (5) SAMPLE OF MORPHEMES AND RELATED CONCEPTS

   • des - / dis - “opposition”: contente-descontente/ content-discontent, leal-desleal/ loyal-disloyal.

   • - eiro , - eira / - er “denoting a person that performs a special action or activity”: pedra-pedreiro/ brick-bricklayer.

   • - vel /- able “modality”: lavar-lavável/ wash-washable, quebrar-quebrável/ break-breakable.

   • - ada/ -ing “nominalization”: correr-corrida/ run-running.

   • - izar / - iz “verbalization”: humano-humanizar/ human-humanize.

   • - inho , - ão/ DIM, AUG “diminutive, augmentative”: minuto-minutinho/ minute-minute.DIM, favor-favorzão/ favor-favor.AUG

Electronic dictionaries are the most suitable resources for the search of morphemic units. They usually have combined searching tools that enable users to look up words ending or starting with a particular affix.

Recommended resources to work with visual learners are the electronic and/or online versions of: Houaiss Dictionary, Aurélio Dictionary, Michaelis Brazilian Dictionary of Portuguese, Caldas Aulete Educational Dictionary of Portuguese, The Portuguese Language Portal ( Dictionary of Deverbal Nouns ⁵ ). This selection brings together well-established, solid, up-to-date, and widespread lexicographical references in Brazil. Regarding the Dictionary of Deverbal Nouns , in particular, it is important to mention that it is a European Portuguese reference, equally up-to-date, reliable and freely accessible.

Auditory preference and sound prominence

According to Mota, Anibal and Lima (2008 , p. 311), “morphological processing is strongly related to the semiographic principle, while phonological processing is strongly associated with the phonographic principle”. The graphic representation of sounds can be used as a teaching guide for auditory learners. Therefore, the suggestion for this group is to work with sound elements, such as word pronunciation, sound symbolism, rhymes, and other expressive elements of speech, such as interjections.

Online dictionaries are the most suitable resources for the search of sound elements because they have their own audio support for checking a word’s pronunciation, as exemplified below.

Figure 1
– Entry for racional ‘rational’, from the Pronunciation Dictionary

The green icon with the ‘play’ button signal and the sound waves is where the user should click to hear the pronunciation of the entry-word (in this case, the adjective racional ‘rational’). The gray icon with the microphone, in turn, enables the user to access the audio recording resources.

Recommended resources to work with auditory learners are: Pronunciation Dictionary and Rhyme Dictionary ⁷ . Both of them are reliable, up-to-date and freely accessible lexicographical references.

Kinesthetic and tactile preference and language in motion

According to Oxford (2003 , p. 4), “kinesthetic and tactile students like lots of movement and enjoy working with tangible objects, collages, and flashcards. Sitting at a desk for very long is not for them; they prefer to have frequent breaks and move around the room”. For these learners, the most adequate strategies are to work with language in motion, language use, concrete materials, and experiments of dictionary making, that is, “playing the lexicographer” for once. In these activities, teachers and students can create their own class vocabulary or glossary.

The more traditional, print dictionaries, as well as dictionary Apps are suitable tools for kinesthetic and tactile learners, as they enable students to engage with a physical object, by handling a book or a gadget. Analogical dictionaries, which expand the vocabulary based on various related concepts, are also appropriate and can be used to guide movement activities in the classroom. In addition, online and offline tools for creating vocabularies, infographics, games, and other types of interactive content allow teachers to materialize the lexicon for their kinesthetic and tactile students. The following figures illustrate some options.

Figure 2 shows the dictionary entry for the noun árvore ‘tree’ taken from the Aulete Analogical Dictionary . Note that this type of reference work is organized by conceptual categories and by entry-words ( VILARINHO, 2017 ). The category part is subdivided into different conceptual fields. The entry-words part, in turn, is in alphabetical order. Thus, in the entry for árvore ‘tree’, the user has access to other related entry-words. For instance, the word vegetal ‘vegetable’, which is in a hyperonymy relationship with ‘tree’, based on biological taxonomy. As for the word ascendência ‘ancestry’, it can also be said that it displays a hyperonymy relationship, but a metaphorical one, based on a general concept of family bond (e.g., a family tree). Finally, the word sombra ‘shadow’ alludes to a related notion (i.e., the idea that a tree casts a shadow). The structure of the entry (see Fig. 2 ) can serve as an inspiration for group activities, with plenty of moving around the classroom to deepen the understanding of different concepts related to a given entry-word.

Figure 2
– Entry for árvore ‘tree’, from Aulete Analogical Dictionary

Figure 3 illustrates a quiz from the creative tool Genially, in which students should guess words starting with each alphabet letter. This tool can be used to create word lists and vocabularies with a class (i.e., playing the lexicographer).

Figure 3
– Quiz sample from Genially

Recommended resources to work with kinesthetic and tactile learners are the following dictionary apps: Digital Aurelio, Small Houaiss Dictionary, and Dicio ¹⁰ , in addition to creative tools like Genially, used to produce interactive content and class materials. This selection brings together reliable, solid lexicographical references, while also incorporating recent and innovative tools.

Roadmap for evaluating dictionaries

Originally published in 1998 as a ‘Roadmap for evaluating general language dictionaries, scientific and technical dictionaries and glossaries’, this tool was conceived as “a method to enable the assessment of dictionaries of different types in an organized and systematic way” ( FAULSTICH, 2011 , p. 1). Indeed, the Roadmap has been validated over the years as a valuable tool for lexicographers and scholars. It has been particularly useful for arranging lexicographic information and offering dictionary experts and users a summary of the content from different reference works. Thus, the tool provides a means to document and deepen our knowledge about the main features of a lexicographical work.

For the purposes of this paper, the Roadmap serves as a guiding reference for language professionals to map the potential of different reference works to be adopted in the classroom. Thus, the original Roadmap from Faulstich (2011) has been adapted with this purpose in mind, as exemplified below. Table 1 shows the Roadmap for the online version of the Houaiss Dictionary .¹¹

Chart 1
– Adaptation of Faulstichs’s (2011) Roadmap for evaluating dictionaries

ROADMAP FOR EVALUATING GENERAL LANGUAGE DICTIONARIES Title: Big Houaiss Dictionary Author: Antonio Houaiss Publisher: Objetiva, available at Portal UOL Edition: not applicable Date: 2012 Place of publication: not applicable Volume(s): not applicable Epigraph: 1. About the author’s presentation of the work 1.1. Is there is an introduction clearly stating: a) the objectives of the dictionary? Yes, partially b) the dictionary’s audience? The presentation refers to “users”, implying that this is general public. c) how to use and consult the dictionary? There is only an indication on where the entry-word should be inserted: “Type here”. d) a list of bibliographical references from which the corpus was taken. The dictionary brings dating and bibliography sources. 1.2. Is there a list of the bibliography consulted by the author? There is a list of bibliographical references. 2. About the work’s general presentation 2.1. Is there a preface signed by a recognized expert in the field? No. 2.2. Is the typeface suitable for the user’s age group? Yes. 2.3. Illustrations, imagens, if any, are suitable to the informational microstructure of the dictionary? Not applicable. 2.4. Is the use of boldface, italics, and other typographic techniques for emphasis visually balanced? Yes. 2.5. Is the entry-words list in alphabetical order? Systematic order? Not applicable, since this is an online dictionary. But the result list, when bringing more than one entry-word, is sorted in alphabetical order. 2.6. Is the dictionary monolingual? Bilingual? Monolingual. 2.7. Does the dictionary’s format allow one to easily handle it? Yes. 2.8. Is the dictionary also available in digital support? Yes. 2.9. Is the paper and printing high quality and durable? Not applicable. 2.10. Is the system of abbreviation and symbols appropriately used in the dictionary? Yes. 2.11. Is the dictionary widely known and publicized? Yes. 3. About the content 3.1. Do entries exhaustively cover oral and written language, including neologisms, derived words, etc.? Yes. 3.2. Are there entries from specialized languages and areas of expertise? Yes. 3.3. Do entries inform: a) grammatical category? Yes. b) gender? Yes. c) synonymy? Yes. d) entry-words’ variant(s)? Yes. e) definition’s variant(s)? Yes. f) criteria to distinguish homonymy from polysemy? What would they be? It is implied that the criterion to distinguish homonymy from polysemy is etymological kinship. g) language usage marks? How are they classified? The dictionary informs the use if a particular word is from a specialized or technical field, if it is colloquial, pejorative, among other classifications. h) indication of specialized area or sub-area? Yes. i) context? (Example or Literary Excerpt?) Yes, both. j) equivalent(s)? Yes. k) word formation rules? Yes. l) pronunciation? No. m) origin and etymology? Yes. n) syllabic division? No. o) scientific nomenclature? Yes. p) useful cross-references between concepts? Yes. q) sources? No. r) notes? No. 3.4. Does the definition consist of a single declarative statement? Yes. 3.5. Does the definition take into account the user’s speech level? Not applicable. 4. About the publication 4.1. Is it recommended to edit and publish this reference work? Yes. 4.2. What are the main spots to publicize this reference work? The Internet.

Source:Faulstich (2011)

This Roadmap can be used as a guide for teachers who wish to diversify the use of dictionaries in class. Based on it, one can map lexicographic works and their main features, bearing in mind the relevant issue of sensory preferences and the lexical aspects favored by each strategy. Teachers can also use the Roadmap as a valuable tool for exchanging experiences about which resources are more suitable to work with a given vocabulary feature (form, sound, meaning, use, etc.). Based on Table 1, for example, we conclude that the Big Dictionary Houaiss would not be the most suitable for auditory learners. However, it would be attractive to visual learners, as it is graphically adequate, addresses issues of word formation and allows users to search for morphemic units.

Final remarks

This paper addressed learning styles and discussed how so-called sensory preferences (visual, auditory, kinesthetic and tactile) can guide strategies of dictionary use in the context of Portuguese teaching as a native or as a non-native language, based on Oxford (1990 , 2003 ). The paper had two main objectives: (i) to overcome a consensus view on the function and use of dictionaries; and (ii) to associate the features of learning styles with explicit and more general strategies to optimize the use of dictionaries in language teaching, indicating (a) the most appropriate types of lexicographical resources (e.g., print, electronic, or online dictionaries), (b) the most consistent search types (and what resources are available to the user), and, finally, (c) references of dictionaries to be adopted.

As for the first objective, the main contributions of this paper are schematized below.

1. (6) ON THE FUNCTION AND USE OF DICTIONARIES

   • dictionary not only as a reading aid, but also as a valuable aid for written and oral expression.

   • dictionary as a resource that enables users to search not only for the meaning (or spelling) of a word, but also for a wide range of linguistic information such as pronunciation, morphemic units, rhymes, synonyms, antonyms, etymology, use, among others.

   • dictionary as a resource sorted alphabetically, but also by related concepts.

With respect to the second objective, the main contributions of this paper are summarized below.

1. (7) on strategies of dictionary use

   • the most suitable dictionaries based on their type and format: this paper explored the potential of printed, digital and online resources as optimal solutions to deliver content to visual, auditory and kinesthetic/tactile learners.

   • the most consistent search techniques and resources available to the user: the paper discussed the search for morphemic units, sound elements (with emphasis on available audio resources), and related concepts (analogical dictionary).

   • recommendations of dictionaries: this paper offered a list of resources for each sensory preference. This is an open list, which can be further expanded by teachers involved in Portuguese teaching in different modalities.

Based on these objectives, the current work discussed the importance of knowing the main features of different lexicographical resources. To this point, it proposed an application of Faulstich’s (2011) Roadmap for evaluating general language dictionaries, scientific and technical dictionaries and glossaries. The aim of this proposal has been to map in detail different lexicographical resources and assess their potential as a vocabulary teaching tool.

Finally, the underlying idea of this mapping is to encourage students and teachers to leave their “stylistic comfort zones” ( OXFORD, 1990 , 2003 ). This paper, therefore, advocates that teachers incorporate different strategies of dictionary use that benefit more than one learning style to enhance vocabulary teaching.

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to the handling editor of Alfa, Luciane de Paula, the two anonymous reviewers for suggestions, to the audience of the III Jornada Mundial sobre o Ensino e Aprendizado de Português (2020) for questions and comments, and to my colleague Michelle Vilarinho for her academic support. All errors are mine.

REFERÊNCIAS

• BOULTON, A.; DE COCK, S. Dictionaries as aids for language learning. In: HANKS, P.; DE SCHRYVER, GM. (ed.). International Handbook of Modern Lexis and Lexicography. Berlin: Springer, 2016. p. 1-17.
• CERBIN, B. A conversation on learning styles with Dr. Bill Cerbin. Entrevista. Podcast. 2012. Disponível em: http://archive.org/embed/AConversationOnLearningStylesWithDr.BillCerbin Acesso em: 10 dez. 2020.
  » http://archive.org/embed/AConversationOnLearningStylesWithDr.BillCerbin
• CHEN, Y. Dictionary use and vocabulary learning in the context of reading. International Journal of Lexicography, Oxford, v. 25, n. 2, p. 216-247, dez. 2011. Disponível em: https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/25/2/216/1019991 Acesso em: 1 out. 2020.
  » https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/25/2/216/1019991
• FAULSTICH, E. Avaliação de dicionários: uma proposta metodológica. Brasília: Universidade de Brasília, 2011. Manuscrito.
• FERREIRA, A. B. H. Dicionário Aurélio da língua portuguesa. 5. ed. Curitiba: Positivo, 2010. Versão eletrônica.
• HOUAISS, A. Dicionário Houaiss da língua portuguesa. Rio de Janeiro: Objetiva, 2020. Versão eletrônica.
• HOUAISS, A. Pequeno Dicionário Houaiss da língua portuguesa. São Paulo: Moderna, 2015.
• MAIA-PIRES, F.; VILARINHO, M. O dicionário e as práticas pedagógicas. Revista GTLex, Uberlândia, v. 1, n. 2, p. 326-344, 2016. Disponível em: http://dx.doi.org/10.14393/Lex2-v1n2a2016-6 Acesso em: 1 out. 2020.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.14393/Lex2-v1n2a2016-6
• MICHAELIS. Michaelis Dicionário Brasileiro da Língua Portuguesa. São Paulo: A&H Software Ltda., 2013. Versão eletrônica 3.1.1.
• MOTA, M. M. P. E. D.; ANIBAL, L.; LIMA, S. A morfologia derivacional contribui para a leitura e escrita no português? Psicologia: Reflexão e crítica, Porto Alegre, v. 21, n. 2, p. 311-318, 2008. Disponível em: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0102-79722008000200017 Acesso em: 11 mar. 2022.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0102-79722008000200017
• OXFORD, R. L. Language learning styles and strategies: an overview. In: GALA, 1., 2003, Utrecht. Proceedings [...]. Utrecht, 2003. p. 1-25.
• OXFORD, R. L. Language learning strategies: what every teacher should know. Tuscaloosa: Heinle & Heinle Publishers, 1990.
• VILARINHO, M. A Metodologia para elaboração de dicionário analógico de língua portuguesa. Alfa, São Paulo, v. 61, n. 1, p. 105-131, mar. 2017. Disponível em: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1981-5794-1704-5 Acesso em: 2 fev. 2021.
  » http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1981-5794-1704-5
• WONG, L. L. C.; NUNAN, D. The learning styles and strategies of effective language learners. System, Oxford, v.39, n.2, p. 144-163, 2011.

• 1
  With respect to (iii), this general view is that the dictionary is a reading aid, a guide to know the meaning of a word (or, at most, its spelling), and a resource sorted alphabetically. But the typology of dictionaries is rich, and it is desirable that language teachers know more about it.
• 2
  This paper does not delimit a specific student audience. Rather, it employs terms like “student of Portuguese as a native language” and “student of Portuguese as a non-native language” in a broad, idealized way. For this reason, the recommendation of dictionaries and strategies also has large scope and appears in the form of teacher guidelines. Bilingual work references and/or references aimed at teaching Portuguese to a specific audience are omitted. All recommendations are of monolingual Portuguese dictionaries which are applicable to both audiences. As a consequence, the guidelines are more general and can be adapted by teachers accordingly.
• 3
  The authors show that authority-oriented strategies (e.g., being told about their mistakes, support from the instructor to produce sentences in a target-language) are less effective than communication-oriented strategies (e.g., conversational practices, observing real-life speech interactions).
• 4
  In (2), the kinesthetic and tactile categories are grouped together, following Oxford (2003) . This is only a reflection of how close these two categories are and eases the exposition.
• 5
  Available at: http://www.portaldalinguaportuguesa.org/?action=derdict . Access on: 11 mar. 2022.
• 6
  Available at: https://pt.howtopronounce.com/ . Access on: 11 mar. 2022.
• 7
  Available at: https://www.rhymit.com/pt . Access on: 11 mar. 2022.
• 8
  Available at: https://www.aulete.com.br/analogico . Access on: 11 Mar. 2022.
• 9
  Available at: https://www.genial.ly/ . Access on: 11 Mar. 2022.
• 10
  Available at: https://www.dicio.com.br/ . Access on: 11 Mar. 2022.
• 11
  For the sake of thoroughness, changes to the original version of the Roadmap are indicated as follows. The original title read ‘Roadmap for evaluating general language dictionaries, scientific and technical dictionaries and glossaries’. In the adapted version, the mention of terminological repertoires was omitted, to focus exclusively on general language. The topics were rearranged. The original topic from the Epigraph: ‘1. About the author’ was omitted, since this information is not as relevant for the purposes of this paper.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  25 May 2022
• Date of issue
  2022

History

• Received
  17 Feb 2021
• Accepted
  01 Apr 2021