Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-6c7dr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-11T09:46:42.986Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of the effectiveness of EFL students’ use of dictionaries and an online corpus for the enhancement of revision skills

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 August 2015

Charles M. Mueller  and
Natalia D. Jacobsen
Charles M. Mueller
Affiliation:
Fuji Women’s University, Japan (email: mueller@fujijoshi.ac.jp)
Natalia D. Jacobsen
Affiliation:
George Washington University, United States (email: natalia@gwu.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Qualitative research focusing primarily on advanced-proficiency second language (L2) learners suggests that online corpora can function as useful reference tools for language learners, especially when addressing phraseological issues. However, the feasibility and effectiveness of online corpus consultation for learners at a basic level of L2 proficiency have been relatively unexplored. The current study of Japanese-L1 (first language) learners in an EFL (English as a foreign language) context (N=117) addresses these gaps in research. A preliminary investigation (Experiment 1) examined EFL learners (n=78) as they used the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA: Davies, 2008–) to revise essays. Experiment 2 (n=39) used a within-subjects comparison to determine whether participants attained greater accuracy in supplying the missing word in a gap-fill test when using an electronic dictionary or COCA. The survey results from the two experiments revealed that participants generally found using an online corpus difficult. In Experiment 2, a paired-samples t-test showed that participants, at an alpha of p=.05 two-tailed, were marginally better able to answer test questions when using the online corpus than they were when using an electronic dictionary, p=0.030. The implications of the study within the context of previous research are discussed along with pedagogical recommendations and possible avenues for future research.

Keywords

corpuscorpus consultationCOCAerror correctionrevisioncollocations

Information

Type
Regular papers
Information
ReCALL , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , January 2016 , pp. 3 - 21
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © European Association for Computer Assisted Language Learning 2015 

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Ädel, A. (2010) Using corpora to teach academic writing: Challenges for the direct approach. In M.-C. Campoy, B. Bellés Fortuño and M.-L. Gea-Valor (eds.), Corpus-based approaches to English language teaching (pp. 39–55). London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Aston, G. (2001) Learning with corpora: An overview. In G. Aston (ed.), Learning with corpora. Houston, TX: Athelstan, 7–45.Google Scholar
Bachman, L. F. (1990) Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Boulton, A. (2008) Looking for empirical evidence of data-driven learning at lower levels. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszcyk (ed.), Corpus linguistics, computer tools, and applications: State of the art. Frankfurt: Peter Lang, 581–598.Google Scholar
Boulton, A. (2009) Testing the limits of data-driven learning: Language proficiency and training. ReCALL, 21(1): 37–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition). (2007) Distributed by Oxford University Computing Services on behalf of the BNC Consortium. Retreived from http://www.natcorp.ox.ac.uk/.Google Scholar
Bunting, J. D. (2013) An investigation of language teachers’ explorations of the use of corpus tools in the English for Academic Purposes (EAP) class. (Doctoral dissertation). Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database. (UMI No. 3591056).Google Scholar
Chambers, A. and O’Sullivan, Í. (2004) Corpus consultation and advanced learners’ skills in French. ReCALL, 16(1): 158–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, J.-Y. (2014) The use of general and specialized corpora as reference sources for academic English writing: A case study. ReCALL, 26(2): 243–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M. (2008–) The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 450 million words, 1990–present. Available online at http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/Google Scholar
Gaskell, D. and Cobb, T. (2004) Can learners use concordance feedback for writing errors? System, 32(3): 301–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geluso, J. and Yamaguchi, A. (2014) Discovering formulaic language through data-driven learning: Student attitudes and efficacy. ReCALL, 26(2): 225–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilmore, A. (2008) Using online corpora to develop students’ writing skills. ELT Journal, 63(4): 363–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Granger, S., Dagneaux, E., Meunier, F. and Paquot, M. (eds.). (2009) International corpus of learner English, Version 2. Louvain-la-Neuve: Presses Universitaires de Louvain.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
Kennedy, C. and Miceli, T. (2010) Corpus-assisted creative writing: Introducing intermediate Italian learners to a corpus as a reference resource. Language Learning & Technology, 14(1): 28–44.Google Scholar
Koo, K. (2006) Effects of using corpora and online reference tools on foreign language writing: A study of Korean learners of English as a second language. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA.Google Scholar
Laufer, B. and Ravenhorst-Kalovski, G. C. (2010) Lexical threshold revisited: Lexical text coverage, learners’ vocabulary size and reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 22(1): 15–30.Google Scholar
Nation, P. and Beglar, D. (2007) A vocabulary size test. The Language Teacher, 31(7): 9–12.Google Scholar
O’Sullivan, Í. (2007) Enhancing a process-oriented approach to literacy and language learning: The role of corpus consultation literacy. ReCALL, 19(3): 269–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Sullivan, Í. and Chambers, A. (2006) Learners’ writing skills in French: Corpus consultation and learner evaluation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(1): 49–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Park, K. (2012) Learner-corpus interaction: A locus of microgenesis in corpus-assisted L2 writing. Applied Linguistics, 33(4): 361–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simpson, R. C., Briggs, S. L., Ovens, J. and Swales, J. M. (2002) The Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan.Google Scholar
Stubbs, M. (1995) Collocations and semantic profiles: On the cause of the trouble with quantitative studies. Functions of Language, 2(1): 23–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swain, M. (1995) Three functions of output in second language learning. In G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer (eds.), Principle and practice in applied linguistics: Studies in honor of H. G. Widdowson. Oxford: Oxford University, 125–144.Google Scholar
Thornbury, S. (2002) How to teach vocabulary. Essex: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Todd, R. W. (2001) Induction from self-selected concordances and self-correction. System, 29(1): 91–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tono, Y., Satake, Y. and Miura, A. (2014) The effects of using corpora on revision tasks in L2 writing with coded error feedback. ReCALL, 26(2): 147–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Viana, V. (2010) Authentic English through the computer: corpora in the ESOL writing classroom. In S. Kasten (ed.), Effective second language writing. Alexandria, VA: TESOL, 163–168.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H. G. (1990) Aspects of language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.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 attitudes toward corpus use in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4): 257–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar