Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T17:31:35.940Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of using corpora on revision tasks in L2 writing with coded error feedback

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2014

Yukio Tono ,
Yoshiho Satake  and
Aika Miura
Yukio Tono
Affiliation:
Tokyo University of Foreign Studies, Japan (email: [email protected])
Yoshiho Satake
Affiliation:
Aoyama Gakuin University, Japan (email: [email protected])
Aika Miura
Affiliation:
Tokyo Keizai University, Japan (email: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study reports on the results of classroom research investigating the effects of corpus use in the process of revising compositions in English as a foreign language. Our primary aim was to investigate the relationship between the information extracted from corpus data and how that information actually helped in revising different types of errors in the essays. In ‘data-driven learning’, previous research has often failed to provide rigorous criteria for choosing the words or phrases suitable for correction with corpus data. By investigating the above relationship, this study aims to clarify what should be corrected by looking at corpus data. 93 undergraduate students from two universities in Tokyo wrote a short essay in 20 minutes without a dictionary, and the instructors gave coded error feedback for two lexical or grammatical errors. They deliberately selected one error which should be appropriate for checking against corpus data and one that was more likely to be corrected without using any reference resource. Three weeks later, a short hands-on instruction of the corpus query tool was given, followed by revision activities in which the participants were instructed to revise their first drafts, with or without the tool depending on the codes given to each error. 188 errors were automatically classified into three different categories (omission, addition and misformation) using natural language processing techniques. All words and phrases tagged for errors were further annotated for part-of-speech (POS) information. The results show that there was a significant difference in the accuracy rate among the three error types when the students consulted the corpus: omission and addition errors were easily identified and corrected, whereas misformation errors were low in correction accuracy. This reveals that certain errors are more suitable for checking against corpus data than others.

Type
Research Article
Information
ReCALL , Volume 26 , Issue 2: Researching uses of corpora for language teaching and learning , May 2014 , pp. 147 - 162
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bernardini, S. (2000) Systematising serendipity: Proposals for concordancing large corpora with language learners. In: Burnard, L. and McEnery, T. (eds.), Rethinking language pedagogy from a corpus perspective. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 225–234.Google Scholar
Bernardini, S. (2004) Corpora in the classroom: An overview and some reflections on future developments. In: Sinclair, J. (ed.), How to use corpora in language teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 15–36.Google Scholar
Boulton, A. (2008) Looking for empirical evidence of data-driven learning at lower Levels. In: Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, B. (ed.), Corpus linguistics, computer tools, and applications: State of the art. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 581–598.Google Scholar
Boulton, A. (2009a) Data-driven learning: Reasonable fears and rational reassurance. Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 35(1): 81–106.Google Scholar
Boulton, A. (2009b) Testing the limits of data-driven learning: Language proficiency and training. ReCALL, 21(1): 37–54.Google Scholar
Boulton, A. (2012) Corpus consultation for ESP: A review of empirical research. In: Boulton, A., Carter-Thomas, S. and Rowley-Jolivet, E. (eds.), Corpus-informed research and learning in ESP: Issues and applications. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 261–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, D. (2007) Language learner motivation and the role of choice in ESP listening engagement. ASp, 51–52: 159–177.Google Scholar
Chambers, A. and O’Sullivan, Í. (2004) Corpus consultation and advanced learners’ writing skills in French. ReCALL, 16(1): 158–172.Google Scholar
Chujo, K., Utiyama, M. and Nishigaki, C. (2007) Towards building a usable corpus collection for the ELT classroom. In: Hidalgo, E., Quereda, L. and Santana, J. (eds.), Corpora in the foreign language classroom. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 47–69.Google Scholar
Ferris, D. R. (2002) Treatment of error in second language student writing. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, L. (2010) Using corpora for writing instruction. In: O’Keeffe, A. and McCarthy, M. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics. London: Routledge, 444–457.Google Scholar
Gaskell, D. and Cobb, T. (2004) Can learners use concordance feedback for writing errors? System, 32(3): 301–319.Google Scholar
Granger, S. and Meunier, F. (2008) Phraseology in language learning and teaching: Where to from here? In: Meunier, F. and Granger, S. (eds.), Phraseology in foreign language learning and teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 247–252.Google Scholar
Hahne, A. (2001) What’s different in second-language processing? Evidence from event-related brain potentials. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 30(3): 251–266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Johns, T. (1984) From printout to handout: Grammar and vocabulary teaching in the context of data-driven learning. In: Odlin, T. (ed.) Perspectives on pedagogical grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 293–313.Google Scholar
Johns, T. (1986) Micro-concord: A language learner’s research tool. System, 14(2): 151–162.Google Scholar
Johns, T. (1991) Should you be persuaded: Two examples of data-driven learning. In: Johns, T. and King, P. (eds.), Classroom concordancing. English Language Research Journal, 4: 1–16.Google Scholar
Kennedy, C. and Miceli, T. (2001) An evaluation of intermediate students’ approaches to corpus investigation. Language Learning & Technology, 5(3): 77–90.Google Scholar
Kosem, I. (2008) User-friendly corpus tools for language teaching and learning. In: Frankenberg-Garcia (ed.), Proceedings of the 8 thTeaching and Language Corpora conference. Lisbon: ISLA, 183–192.Google Scholar
Lee, D. and Swales, J. (2006) A corpus-based EAP course for NNS doctoral students: Moving from available specialized corpora to self-compiled corpora. English for Specific Purposes, 25: 56–75.Google Scholar
Mukherjee, J. (2004) Bridging the gap between applied corpus linguistics and the reality of English language teaching in Germany. In: Connor, U. and Upton, T. (eds.), Applied corpus linguistics: A multi-dimensional perspective. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 239–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Keeffe, A. and Farr, F. (2003) Using language corpora in initial teacher training: Pedagogic issues and practical application. TESOL Quarterly, 37(3): 389–418.Google Scholar
Osborne, J. (2004) Top-down and bottom-up approaches to corpora in language teaching. In: Connor, U. and Upton, T. (eds.), Applied corpus linguistics: A multi-dimensional perspective. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 251–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perani, D., Paulesu, E., Galles, N. S., Dupoux, E., Dehaene, S., Bettinardi, V., Cappa, S. F., Fazio, F. and Mehler, J. (1998) The bilingual brain: Proficiency and age of acquisition of the second language. Brain, 121(10): 1841–1852.Google Scholar
Pérez-Paredes, P. (2010) Corpus linguistics and language education in perspective: appropriation and the possibilities scenario. In: Harris, T. and Moreno Jaén, M. (eds.), Corpus linguistics in language teaching. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Pérez-Paredes, P., Sánchez-Tornel, M. and Alcarez Calero, J. M. (2012) Learners’ search patterns during corpus-based focus-on-form activities. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 17(4): 482–515.Google Scholar
Pérez-Paredes, P., Sánchez-Tornel, M., Alcarez Calero, J. M. and Aguado Jiménez, P. (2011) Tracking learners’ actual uses of corpora: Guided vs non-guided corpus consultation. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24(3): 233–253.Google Scholar
Rossi, S., Gugler, M. F., Friederici, A. D. and Hahne, A. (2006) The impact of proficiency on syntactic second-language processing of German and Italian: Evidence from event-related potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18(12): 2030–2048.Google Scholar
Todd, R. W. (2001) Induction from self-selected concordances and self-correction. System, 29(1): 91–102.Google Scholar
Tono, Y. and Mochizuki, H. (2009) Toward automatic error identification in learner corpora: A DP matching approach. Paper presented at Corpus Linguistics 2009, Liverpool, UK.Google Scholar
Wilson, J., Hartley, A., Sharoff, S. and Stephenson, P. (2010) Advanced corpus solutions for humanities researchers. Proceedings of PACLIC 24. Sendai: Tohoku University, 769–778.Google Scholar
Yoon, H. (2008) More than a linguistic reference: The influence of corpus technology on L2 academic writing. Language Learning & Technology, 12(2): 31–48.Google Scholar
Yoon, H. and Hirvela, A. (2004) ESL student attitude toward corpus use in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13: 257–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar