ENG111 Sample Annotated Bibliography: Barbieri, F. & Eckhardt, S. E. B. (2007). Applying corpus-based findings to form-focused instruction: the case of reported speech. Language Teaching Research, 11(3), 319-346. This article looked at the differences in L2 textbooks when teaching English as a spoken language and register differences in reported speech. The primary finding was that there are real register differences in real language that textbooks do not address. From their research, Barbieri and Eckhardt developed 10 principles that should inform the design and selection of L2 materials and instruction of speech: ● Reported speech, indirect reported speech, and written works have different registers and should be talked as separate constructions. ● Indirect reported speech should be taught using real examples – i.e. newspaper articles. ● Direct reported speech should be taught in the context of casual conversation, highlighting the register difference. ● Indirect reported speech has more than “say” and “tell” – show other function words like “announce, report, agree, claim, warn, etc.” ● In indirect speech, different constructions dealing with tense exist, and should be taught – i.e. past-past, past-present, present-present ● In written speech, show grammatical patterns of different tense combinations. ● Show in conversation the use of “be like” and “Go”. ● Talk about discourse-pragmatics functions for be like, go, and be all. ● Talk about situation factors in verbal speech (informality, casualness) – vs. more formal settings (i.e. a meeting) ● Talk about socio-linguistics and age influence in word choice. Main findings: ● Corpus use in this setting to analyze speech in direct and indirect settings can help explain register differences in verbal vs. written language and moreover in reported speech in direct (talking to one another) and indirect (quotes in a newspaper) settings. ● Corpus use can raise awareness of how and when language structures are used and can improve their production and use of these structures. Conrad, S. (2000). Will corpus linguistics revolutionize grammar teaching in the 21st century? TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 548-560. Early millennial paper talking about corpus linguistics. Her main argument was the corpus linguistics should change how ESL/EFL grammar is taught. Three changes prompted by corpus-based studies: 1. Monolithic descriptions will be replaced by register-specific descriptions. Corpus shows that grammar patterns differ based on variety of English and by purpose and situation. 2. Teaching of grammar will become more integrated with teaching of vocabulary. How words are used in speech vs. writing -- that/to complement clauses, know, say, think grammatical clauses --- how / when things are used and with what are easily demonstrated in a corpus system. 3. Emphasis will shift from structural accuracy to appropriate conditions of when to use alternative grammatical constructions. Using this system helps move away from the argument of “that just doesn’t sound quite right”. Using a corpus, the teacher can analyze factors and describe them with use of different structures to show what is most appropriate / common. Conrad advocates that teachers-in-training are an important audience to introduce concordancing to because they will be the new generation of ESL teachers who can then introduce it to their students. They can design their own corpus investigations and design their materials based on their findings. This is not just about frequency data presentation. Functional analysis of rate forms and analyses of students’ needs also should play a role in how corpora are used. The success of this method will be dependent upon if teachers will be willing to deviate from traditional grammar teaching. Quotes: “Corpus linguistics leads to a description of grammar that is consistent with native speaker use, accounts for variation in a systematic way, and is useful for English language teachers and students” (p. 558). “Incorporating this view of grammar into teaching will require a concerted effort of the part of researchers, material writers, and teachers, but it is a logical, realistic, and beneficial outcome of corpus linguistics (p. 558). Gaskell, D. & Cobb, T. (2004). Can learners use concordance feedback for writing errors? System, 32(3), 301-319. o Research study (University of Quebec) o Study works from assumption that concordancing will provide feedback to sentence level written grammar errors o Requires teachers to make links to corpora electronically in students papers to show them correct usage o Describes how this was used in their study and then presents their study results o 20 participants, qualitative and written analysis of writing samples (empirical?) Findings: o 20 of 20 found process useful o students fixed errors and some had a tendency not to repeat error, others continued to repeat errors. o In the study, some errors ‘increased’ o some used corpora independently outside of the links to mistakes Issues with the study: o only 4 weeks long and very short training period o no long term results generalization: “Concordancing is not so much a trick way of giving learners error feedback, as an attempt to compress and parse the linguistic universe itself so that learners can make sense of it. It is not so much the latest idea in feedback as the last idea in feedback” (p. 317). Granger, S. (2003). The international corpus of learner English: A new resource for foreign language learning and teaching and second language acquisition research. TESOL Quarterly, 37(3), 538-546. o Article, not really ‘research based’ o Advocates for the use of the corpus: “The International Corpus of Learner English” o Defines corpus linguistics as starting in the 1950’s o Corpus is made up of EFL student writing samples of advanced level interlanguage writing – all students from Europe, written in English o 3,640 essays, 2.5 million words Value of this article comes because it explains how ESL/EFL teachers can use the corpus: o material design o syllabus design o language testing o classroom methodology “The ICLE data can be used alongside other data types of a more experimental nature to give SLA theories a more solid empirical foundation, in particular as regards to questions of L1 transfer” (p. 544). “The ICLE can help produce more learner-aware pedagogical material designed for advanced EFL learners in general or focused on the needs of one national learner population” (p. 544). Levine, A. & Reves, T. (1998). Interplay between reading tasks, reader variables, and unknown word processing. TESL-EJ, 3(2), EJ579809. Research questions: 1. To what extent are the readers’ word treatment strategies task-dependent? 2. To what extent are word treatment strategies dependent on the reader’s profile? Methods: 42 participants, using experiments, filling in surveys, self-reported observations, and summary work. Important detail: for comprehension strategy they had 3 categories of words: words they didn’t need to know, words they could guess the meaning of based on the context, and words that had to look up b/c they didn’t know and needed it for comprehension. Findings: The strategy the participants used were dependent on the task, as well (to a lesser extent) as their background. Those with more experience, were more apt to guess correctly then use a dictionary to verify meaning. Liu, D., & Jiang, P. (2009). Using a corpus-based lexicogrammatical approach to grammar instruction in EFL and ESL contexts. The Modern Language Journal, 93(1), 61-78. ● University of Alabama and Nanchang University (China) ● Research study on corpus use in ESL and EFL settings (2 ESL, 1 EFL) ● Quantitative study (survey at end of class) – no pre- and post-, just end of experience eval. Main findings: ● The study found several positive effects of using corpora in the settings with students: o Improved command of lexicogrammar o Increased crucial understanding of grammar o Enhanced discovery learning skills ● Students found corpus use daunting. (the process of using it freaked them out) ● Variables existed amongst the three settings: o How learners used the approach (likely teachers taught it differently) o Course content varied o Student learning styles (cultural based) o Learning settings were different Overall findings: 1. educators need to know how to use corpus linguistic / corpora in the learning ESL/EFL setting 2. educators need to understand the challenges and variables present for students in using corpora. 3. Some found the tools of the corpora limiting (I think it was just the corpora they were using. Flaws in this study: o Classes from US and China were not comparable with content taught o ESL and EFL are not necessarily comparable settings o No interviews or qualitative data was collected o Use of technology in the classroom was not addressed (was it harder for the Chinese students in China vs. US). Did all students have access to technology all of the time? Ease of use of technology? Same corpora? Yoon, H, & Hirvela, A. (2004). ESL student attitudes toward corpus use in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 257-283. Yoon and Hirvela (Ohio State University) studied the use of corpora in two L2 writing classes, specifically looking at learners’ actual use and their attitudes towards its usage. The focus was on students’ perceptions of the strengths and weaknesses of corpora as a L2 learning tool. Main finding: Students perceived corpus approach as beneficial to the development of their L2 writing skills and that it increased their confidence towards L2 writing. May be more beneficial to earlier staged learners (beginning / intermediate) so that they can integrate the approach and rely less on their extensive knowledge of the target language… Study details: ● Mixed methods ● Used two writing classes: an intermediate L2 and an advanced L2 writing group ● 22 participants, 15 male, 7 female, most from East Asia (China, Korea) ● Used survey with 22, then interview with 5 participants Survey results: Quant: ● The tools (corpus) were used differently in the two classes – intermediate used it as part of the activities, the advanced used it more independently ● Students reported it was most useful for learning the usage of vocabulary and phrases, gave vocabulary additional meaning, students believed it improved their writing skills, students did not necessarily link it to reading improvement in their self-assessment ● Students found it relatively easy to learn how to use the system, and declared it useful ● Students reported that they would use it in other courses ● Students thought that this concept should be introduced to students in their home countries as well as in ESL settings. ● Student difficulties included: it was neither difficult nor easy to use, it took a lot of time for intermediate students to analyze the data, but intermediate students saw more benefit that the advanced students (self-perception) ● This study reported that computer accessibility may not be as serious of an issue for students to use corpora as reported in other studies. Qual: ● Student with negative attitude shifted in interview to more positive on the experience ● It was helpful for learning “actual patterns” of word usage ● Took a good deal of time ● Was more beneficial than a dictionary
