Mestrado
Educação Multimédia
TESE
Connecting Corpora to Learner Style
To what extent is the effectiveness of an online corpus-based approach to
grammar learning dependent on whether students prefer to learn
grammar deductively or inductively?
Jonathan Lewis
Faculdade de Ciências, Universidade do Porto, Portugal
Orientador: Professor Doutor Duarte Costa Pereira
1
Table Of Contents
Page
List of Figures……………………………………………………………………........4
List of Tables……………………………………………………………………..…...5
Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………........6
Abstract……………………………………………………………………………..…7
Resumo……………………………………………………………………………..…9
Chapter 1: Introduction………………………………………………………….11
Chapter 2: Theoretical Perspectives: A Review of the Literature…….......19
2.1.1
2.1.2
2.2.1
2.2.2
2.2.3
2.2.4
2.2.5
2.2.6
2.2.7
2.2.8
2.2.9
2.2.10
2.2.11
2.3.1
2.3.2
2.3.3
2.3.4
2.3.5
2.3.6
2.3.7
2.3.8
2.3.9
2.3.10
2.3.11
2.3.12
2.3.13
Section 1: Developments in notions of grammar and
approaches to grammar learning………….............................................20
Historical framework……………………………………………….….20
Deductive versus Inductive Approaches to Grammar Learning…….…26
Section 2: Developments in Corpora and Concordancing………...….. 30
What is a corpus?.....................................................................................30
What is a concordancer?..........................................................................31
Concordancing software…………………………………………….….32
Types of corpora………………………………………………………..33
Applications of corpora………………………………….……………..34
Advantages of using corpora in language learning………………….…35
Disadvantages of using corpora in language learning……………….…35
Applications of corpora in language learning: for the teacher………... 36
Applications of corpora in language learning: for the learner………....38
Lack of Research……………………………………………………….41
Online Applications of Corpora………………………………………. 43
Section 3: Developments in Learning Style theory…………………….45
Overview of factors involved in second language learning……….……45
Language Aptitude……………………………………………………...46
Cognitive Style and Learning Style……………………………….…….48
Gregorc……………………………………………………………….....51
Kolb……………………………………………………………………..53
Willing…………………………………………………………………..54
Skehan…………………………………………………………………..56
Myers-Briggs……………………………………………………………57
Felder-Silverman………………………………………………………..58
McCarthy………………………………………………………………..59
Gardner………………………………………………………………….60
Practical Application of Learning Style Theory……….………………..60
Learning Style Theory Applied to CALL………………………….……62
Chapter 3: The Experiment………………………………………..……………..63
3.1
3.2
3.3
Background………………………………………………………….......64
Aims……………………………………………………………………..65
Initial Experiment……………………………………………………….66
2
3.4
3.4.1
3.4.2
3.4.3
3.5
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12
The Target Language……………………………………………………67
Linking Adverbials……………………………………………………...68
Subordinators……………………………………………………………69
Prepositions……………………………………………….……………..71
Method………………………………………………………………….72
The Concordancer………………………………………………………72
The Subjects…………………………………………………………….73
The Questionnaire………………………………………………………74
The Pre-test……………………………………………………………...75
The Inductive Lesson…………………………………………………...76
The Deductive Lesson…………………………………………………..89
The Post-test…………………………………………………………….89
Chapter 4: Results…………………………………………………………………90
4.1
4.2
4.2.1
4.2.2
4.2.3
4.3
Post-test results………………………………………………………….91
Statistical Analysis……………………………………………………...93
Correlations……………………………………………………………..93
Regression………………………………………………………………94
T-Test…………………………………………………………………...96
Post-project Questionnaire……………………………………………...97
Chapter 5: Conclusions………………………………………………...………...101
5.1
5.2
Conclusions…………………………………………………………….101
Future research…………………………………………………………105
Bibliography………………………………………………………………………….107
Appendix 1
Appendix 2
Appendix 3
Appendix 4
Appendix 5
Appendix 6
Learning Style Questionnaire………………………………………….113
Pre-test....................................................................................................115
Inductive Approach printed handout…………………………………..117
Deductive Approach printed handout………………………………….123
Post-test………………………………………………………………...129
Post-project Questionnaire……………………………………………..131
3
List of Figures
page
Fig. 1 Screenshot of concordance lines drawn from the Compleat Lexical Tutor’s
Online Concordancer ………………………………………………………………..13
Fig 2
Diagram identifying the key factors or variables which are believed to
be essential to second language learning and suggesting probable ways
in which the sets of different variables may interact…………………………………45
Fig. 3
Results of Learning Style questionnaire…………………………………….…….....75
Fig. 4 Average totals scored in the pre-test by each of the four groups
(learning style / approach)………………………………………………...…..76
.
Fig. 5
Screenshot of ‘Set Up’ page from Inductive Mode……………….……………...….77
Fig. 6
Screenshot of BNC Concordancer Interface………………………………………....78
Fig. 7
Box of linkers to classify, from Exercise 1 of the Inductive Approach…………..….79
Fig. 8
Screenshot of chart from Ex.1 of the Inductive Approach, containing code
of grammar items to enter into the concordancer………………………………….…80
Fig. 9
Screenshot of concordances for ‘during’…………………………………………..…81
Fig 10. Screenshot of Interface for Exercise 2 of the Inductive approach, made using
Hot Potatoes software………………………………………………………………...82
Fig 11. Screenshot of Interface for Ex. 4 of the Inductive approach, made using
Hot Potatoes………………………………………………………………………,,…83
Fig 12. Box of linkers from Exercise 5 of the Inductive Approach…………………………..84
Fig. 13 Screenshot of chart from Ex.5 of the Inductive Approach, containing codes of
grammar items to enter into the concordancer……………………………………..…85
Fig. 14 Screenshot of concordances for ‘Still’ as a conjunct………….……………………...86
Fig. 15 Screenshot of completed chart for Ex.5 and table of codes for Ex.6…………………86
Fig.16 Screenshot of concordances for ‘though’ as a conjunct ……………………………..87
Fig. 17 Screenshot of interface for Ex. 7, made using Hot Potatoes software………………..88
Fig. 18 Screenshot of interface for Ex. 8, made using Hot Potatoes software………………..88
Fig. 19 Screenshot of information about conjuncts from Ex. 1 of the deductive mode……...89
Fig. 20 Chart showing the average scores obtained by each group in the post-test
compared to those in the pre-test……………………………………………...……....91
4
Fig. 21 Charts showing to what extent the post-test scores obtained by students in
each group were higher than the pre-test………………………………...…….……..91
Fig. 22 Charts showing results of Qu. How easy was the concordancer tool to use?...............98
Fig. 23 Charts showing results of Qu. How useful did you find the concordancer
as a means of studying grammar?..................................................................................98
Fig. 24 Charts showing results of Qu. How easy was it for you to identify patterns
of grammar and work out ‘rules’ using the concordancer tool?....................................99
Fig. 25 Charts showing results of Qu. Would you have also liked to have the grammar
rules given to you in a more traditional and straight-forward way? ………………….99
Fig. 26 Charts showing results of Qu. Would you like to study grammar in this way
again in the future? …………………………………………………………………..100
List of Tables
Table 1. Linkers studied in the virtual lesson…………………………………………………67
Table. 2 Completed chart from Exercise 1 of the Inductive Approach………….……………79
Table 3. Chart to be completed in Exercise 5 of the Inductive Approach…………………….84
Table 4: SPSS Correlations table showing strength of relationship between
pre/post test results and matching learner style/approach……………………………93
Table 5: SPSS Model Summary table showing results of simple linear regression analysis.…94
Table 6: SMSS ANOVA, or F-Test, table, showing analysis of variation between
the means in each group………………………………………………………...……95
Table 7: SPSS Coefficients table showing estimated regression coefficients…………………95
Table 8: SPSS T-Test table showing the descriptive statistics for the two groups,
that where learner style matches approach and that where it does not……………….96
Table 9: SPSS Independent Samples Test……………………………………………………..96
5
Acknowledgements
I wish to offer thanks to the following people for their help and assistance:
To begin with, to my ‘orientador’ Professor Doutor Duarte Costa Pereira, who provided
much needed orientation at the outset of the project and guidance whenever it was
needed.
Secondly, to Professora Doutora Belinda Maia at FLUP, who also gave much needed
advice and guidance in the initial stages and the loan of several key books to kick-start
the research.
Thirdly, to Professora Doutora Susan Howcroft at the Universidade de Aveiro, whose
advice and input I greatly appreciated.
Special thanks must be extended also to my great friend and colleague Mestre Alan
Dawber for whose loan of his own master’s thesis I will be forever grateful.
Thanks also to the library staff at FLUP who were very helpful whenever I needed to
borrow or buy books for the research.
Finally, I wish also to thank all the students who participated so willingly in this project
and without whose help it would not have been possible.
6
Abstract
This thesis describes a research project carried out at the Faculdade de Letras da
Universidade do Porto (FLUP) which focused on applying an inductive corpus-based
approach to grammar learning; specifically, to the study of the differences between
concessive connectors such as even so, even though and despite.
The project took inspiration from Tim John’s ideas about ‘Data Driven Learning’
(1994) and his belief that hands-on concordancing allows the learner to interact with the
corpora data and thereby discover rules and patterns in the language for himself.
The experiment, carried out on 56 third year students of English at FLUP, aimed to
find out whether advanced learners’ preferred way of studying grammar - the extent to
which they employ a deductive or inductive learning style (Felder, 1995) - would
influence how successfully they assimilated the target language using a corpus-based,
guided-discovery approach.
After completing a questionnaire to determine their learning style, the subjects were
divided into two groups; those favouring a more traditional, explicit rule-based
approach to grammar learning, and those who showed a greater tendency to induce rules
from natural contexts. Each of these groups was then subdivided such that half studied
the target language with the aid of corpora and were encouraged to work out rules for
themselves by analysing concordances, while the other half studied the same grammar
items via a purely deductive approach.
A website was set up to provide all the instructions and additional practice exercises
for both modes of instruction. The inductive version used a concordancer program
linked to the BNC.
All the subjects did the same pre- and post-test as well as a post-experiment
questionnaire in order to yield both quantitative and qualitative data.
7
After statistical analysis had been performed, results revealed that there was a
‘significant’ link between students’ learning style and the approach they followed. In
the groups where learning style matched the approach, subjects generally did better in
the post-test than in the pre-test, while in the groups where there was a mismatch
between style and approach the opposite was true.
The study thus raises questions about how effective hands-on concordancing is for
many students, and shows that teachers need to tailor computer-based methods of
instruction according to their students’ preferred way of learning as well as provide the
necessary training if concordancing is to be used as a tool to facilitate grammar study.
8
Resumo
Esta tese descreve um projecto de pesquisa levado a cabo pela Faculdade de
Letras da Universidade do Porto (FLUP) que se focou na aplicação base de uma
vertente indutiva usando os corpora na aprendizagem gramatical; especificamente no
estudo das diferenças entre adjuntos, conjunções e preposições concessivas como even
so, even though e despite.
Este projecto foi inspirado nas ideias de Tim Johns (1994) sobre ‘Data Driven
Learning’ e na sua crença de que o uso interactivo dos corpora permite que o aluno
interaja com as concordâncias e que desta forma descubra por si mesmo regras e
padrões na gramática da língua em aprendizagem.
A experiência levada a cabo com 56 alunos do 3º ano de Inglês da FLUP, teve
como objectivo perceber como as preferências na forma de estudo da gramática por
alunos mais avançados – empregando um estilo dedutivo ou um estilo indutivo (Felder,
1995) - iria influenciar o seu sucesso na assimilação da gramática em aprendizagem
usando como base uma aproximação indutiva guiada.
Após completar um questionário para determinação do seu estilo de
aprendizagem, os alunos foram divididos em dois grupos; os que favoreciam o estilo
tradicional de aprendizagem, baseado numa aproximação baseada em regras, e os que
mostraram uma maior tendência para induzir as regras a partir do seu contexto natural.
Cada um destes grupos foi então subdividido de forma a que metade estudasse a
gramática com a vertente corpórea e fossem encorajados a identificar as regras por si
mesmos pela análise de concordâncias, enquanto que a outra metade estudava os
mesmos itens gramaticais pela via puramente dedutiva.
Foi providenciado um site para fornecimento de todos os prefácios e exercícios
práticos adicionais para ambos os grupos. O grupo que usou a via indutiva, teve ainda
acesso a um programa com ligação à BNC.
9
Todos os alunos foram submetidos aos mesmos exames, anteriores e posteriores
à experiência, bem como ao mesmo questionário após a experiência, de forma a serem
obtidos resultados com informação quantitativa e qualificativa.
Após ser efectuada uma análise estatística, os resultados revelaram uma ligação
significativa entre o estilo de estudo dos alunos e a via de aprendizagem por eles
seguida. Nos grupos onde o estilo de estudo se completava com a via seguida, os alunos
na sua generalidade tiveram melhores resultados no teste apresentado após a experiência
do que no teste previamente apresentado, enquanto que os grupos onde não havia
concordância entre o estilo e a via o resultado foi inverso.
Desta forma, o estudo levanta questões sobre a eficácia para muitos alunos da
vertente interactiva usando os corpora e revela a necessidade dos professores talharem
métodos-base computorizados de instruções, de acordo com as preferências da forma da
aprendizagem dos seus alunos, bem como providenciar a formação necessária se o uso
de concordâncias for para ser utilizada como ferramenta para facilitação do estudo
gramatical.
10
Chapter 1: Introduction
This chapter serves to introduce the two key areas of study in this thesis,
namely concordancing as a tool to aid language learning and learning style
as a key factor in determining how best to adapt methodology to suit
individual learner preferences. This leads to a definition of the problem
followed by a brief description of the structure and contents of the thesis.
11
Here now in the 21st century, everyday language use is so tied to technology that
language learning through technology has become a fact of life with important
implications for language teachers.
Writing about communicative competence in the new century, Rassool (quoted in
Chapelle, 2001) points out:
In a world increasingly driven by (a) the need for innovation through research and
development, (b) the multileveled changes brought about in our everyday lives as a result
of the nature and speed of technological developments, (c) the volume and range of
information available, and its open accessibility, (d) the multimodal features of electronic
text as well as (e) its interactive nature, we require significantly more than just the ability
to read and write in a functional way. (Rassool, 1999)
Therefore, language teachers are becoming increasingly aware of the need to grasp the
nature of the evolving multimedia-based tasks which learners can engage in to aid the
language learning process. Such activities range from the many Computer Assisted
Language Learning (CALL) exercises available both on and offline, to the harnessing of
the Internet itself as a means of practising the skills of reading and listening; from the
application of email and weblogs for the purpose of developing writing skills, to the use
of specific electronic tools such as online dictionaries and translators.
One electronic tool in particular which has seen considerable development over the past
two decades is the concordancer. Put simply, it enables the user to access a corpus of
texts (plural, corpora) that is, a database of texts held in electronic form on a computer
or on the web in order to carry out acts of linguistic research. Using a concordancer, one
can search for individual instances of the use of a specific word or phrase, by keying in
the desired word/expression in much the same way as with a regular search engine.
Most concordancing programs will then search the corpus and any instances of the
selected word found therein will be presented as a list of lines, known as concordances,
often with the keyword in the middle, as shown in the screenshot below.
12
Fig. 1 Screenshot of concordance lines drawn from the Compleat Lexical Tutor’s Online
Concordancer.
Concordancing tools were first developed in the field of corpus linguistics, where they
were used to conduct research into how language actually works in reality in order to
facilitate the compiling of new dictionaries and grammars with examples taken directly
from the corpora.
However, in the early 1980s, with the advent of cheap microcomputers, language
teachers, many of whom were already involved in the world of CALL, realised how
concordancing could benefit language learners, and began developing computer-assisted
concordancer activities. It was argued, by Higgins and Johns in particular (1984), that
such activities empowered the learner to investigate questions of vocabulary use and
grammatical collocation on their own. For example, the screenshot above shows a
selection of concordances for depend revealing that this verb frequently collocates with
the preposition on and upon (and not in as many students might have supposed). A
student studying this data can also see which adverbs are commonly associated with the
pattern depend...on e.g. heavily, importantly and largely.
13
Nowadays, concordancers are a common tool of the linguist’s trade, especially used by
translators. Language teachers and learners are also using them, though many have yet
to appreciate fully the benefits offered by the interactive, student-centred nature of
corpus-based study.
There are various reasons that explain this reluctance on the part of teachers to use
corpora. Firstly, until recently the technology available in schools and universities
lacked the computer power to handle any sizeable corpus. Secondly, teachers have felt
that corpora analysis could be a source of overload and confusion for learners rather
than enlightenment, given the rather unfriendly appearance of a page of concordance
lines. Lastly, the academic nature of the language found in many of the texts held within
corpora has been seen as something that might put students off analysing the data to
work out patterns of use.
However, the tide appears to be turning. Concordancing interfaces have become more
user-friendly allowing the user to refine the search more effectively and select a
particular corpus reflecting a specific style or genre of language. Materials writers are
also beginning to compile the kind of language corpora which are more appropriate for
students’ needs, with highly academic texts removed.
The idea of hands-on concordance activities for learners is a natural extension of trends
in applied linguistics, with increased emphasis on task-based learning (Prabhu, 1987).
Moreover, student concordancing seems a clear application of constructivist ideas about
learning (Bednar, Cunningham, Duffy, and Perry, 1991), whereby learners are
characterized as "scientists," in this case linguists or lexicographers, using modified
scientific research tools to handle raw rather than pre-encoded data. In addition, the
analogy between searching a corpus with a concordance and browsing the Internet with
a search engine is of topical relevance to students.
In the literature, corpus and concordance are regularly described as the most
promising current idea, for example Leech and Candlin (1986); Clarke (1992);
Hanson-Smith (1993). Leech (1997) announces that at the turn of the century it
14
seems evident that something like a ‘corpus revolution’ is changing dramatically
the way that language is taught, even if the effects of these changes are felt
gradually. Concordancing is the centrefold idea in a paradigm-shift within CALL
from computer as "magister" to computer as "pedagogue" (Higgins, 1988), from
a tutor-dominated, process-control model of language instruction, to an
"information resource" model, where the learner is free to explore the language
for himself, leaving the instructor in the role of providing tools and resources for
doing so.
English language teachers at the Faculdade de Letras, Universidade do Porto have been
using concordancers to help students study grammar, particularly in the 3rd and 4th year
of their course when they deal with text grammar and features of text cohesion.
The present study focuses on one such application of concordancing to the
study of the differing grammatical properties of a variety of linkers, particularly
those expressing concession e.g. however, although and despite.
The study looks specifically at how students’ post-test results following an
online lesson using a concordancer may be attributed to their preferred learning
styles, specifically whether they favour a deductive or inductive approach to
grammar study.
One of the most significant developments in second language acquisition theory has
come from research on individual differences, notably the contributions made by Brown
(1994) and Skehan (1989, 1998). A large number of learning style models can be found
in the literature (detailed in Chapter 2.3), most of which fall into general categories such
as information processing, personality patterns, and social interaction.
15
All learners have individual attributes relating to their learning processes. Some people
may rely heavily on visual presentation; others may prefer spoken language; still others
may respond better to hands-on activities. It is evident that people learn differently and
at different paces because of their biological and psychological differences (Reiff 1992).
Language teachers, just like all other educators, have to bear in mind that people differ
consistently from each other in their preferences, whether emotional or environmental,
and in the way they process information. This awareness should necessarily impact on
their own teaching methods.
According to Brown (1994), when students’ learning styles are matched with
appropriate approaches in teaching, then their motivation, performances, and
achievements will increase and be enhanced. Bedford (2004) likewise points out that
matching or mismatching students' learning styles with instructional techniques affects
learning significantly. Felder and Henriques (1995) also state that ‘mismatches often
occur between the learning styles of students in a language class and the teaching style
of the instructor with unfortunate effects on the quality of the students’ learning and
their attitude toward the class and the subject.’
In his own model of learning style, Felder (1988) classifies students into various
categories (detailed in Chapter 2.3.9), including inductive learners (who prefer
presentations that proceed from the specific to the general) and deductive learners (who
prefer presentations that go from the general to the specific).
This distinction is particularly important for language teachers to be aware of, especially
in their consideration of how to present grammar. Traditionally, grammar teaching has
followed a deductive approach with rules being given explicitly, followed by practice
activities. However, in recent years, following the ideas of Krashen (1982) about the
difference between ‘acquisition’ and ‘learning’ (detailed in Chapter 2.1), and no doubt
influenced also by the research into learner differences, more inductive means of
presenting grammar have gained favour. Students are now often encouraged to explore
the language via pre-selected texts or lists of examples demonstrating a particular
language pattern, and discover the rules by themselves.
16
This brings us back to the issue of concordancers in language learning. The use of
concordancing is very much an inductive approach to language study since corpus data
provide the opportunity for the learner to infer rules and work out patterns of use.
As CALL developed in the 1980s, researchers looked at the role of individual learner
differences on the effectiveness of different instructional approaches. Investigating
learning style and task variables in CALL, Abraham (1985) found that fieldindependent (i.e. more analytic) learners performed better on post-tests when they had
used a deductive, rule-based approach to presentation and field-dependent (i.e. more
holistic) learners performed better after using a more inductive approach. However,
similar studies to measure the impact of learning style on the effectiveness of corpusbased approaches, as opposed to more traditional deductive approaches, are lacking in
the literature.
The present study is therefore an attempt to shed some light on this area. The problem it
addresses can be defined as: to what extent is the effectiveness of an online corpusbased approach to grammar learning dependent on whether students prefer to learn
grammar deductively or inductively?
Chapter 2 presents theoretical perspectives on the various topic areas involved in this
thesis so as to provide an appropriate background framework for the experiment.
This review of the literature begins with a summary of the developments in notions of
grammar and approaches to grammar learning and how these have been influenced by
current theories about language and language learning. In particular, this section serves
to demonstrate the extent to which different language learning methodologies have been
deductive or inductive in their approaches to grammar.
There follows a summary of developments in corpora and concordancing, beginning
with a general overview of the uses of corpora in linguistic research and then focusing
on how concordancing has been applied to language learning. Advantages and
disadvantages of corpus-based EFL activities are examined and applications for both
teachers and learners are reviewed. Finally, there is a look at current online applications.
17
Chapter 2 concludes with a summary of developments in theories regarding individual
differences, beginning with a brief look at language aptitude before then focusing on
learning style theory. Various models of learning style are reviewed and their
application to language learning examined.
Chapter 3 outlines the experiment itself, providing first an account of the background
circumstances that led to the project before presenting its aims and a description of the
methodology used as well as a profile of the subjects. The target language area is
described. Information is given about the learning style questionnaire and the pre-test
and results of each are presented. There then follows a detailed description of the
inductive, corpus-based approach, incorporating screenshots to illustrate the various
stages of the online lesson.
Chapter 4 presents the results of the post-test with accompanying statistical analyis.
Results of the post-project questionnaire are also given.
Chapter 5 offers a conclusion based on the results of the experiment and discusses
lessons to be drawn and plans for future research.
The thesis concludes with a bibliography and appendices, which include the various
tests and questionnaires.
18
Chapter 2: Theoretical Perspectives:
A Review of the Literature
19
This chapter is divided into three sections. Section 1 provides an overview
of developments in linguistics and how these have impacted on grammar
teaching/learning. Section 2 describes the growth of corpora in applied
linguistics and applications of concordancing to language teaching/learning.
Section 3 traces developments in theories about individual differences,
outlines various learning style models and discusses how learning style applies
to language teaching/learning, in particular to computer-assisted learning.
Chapter 2: Section 1
Developments in notions of grammar and approaches to grammar learning
2.1.1
Historical framework
Until the early 20th century language learning was dominated by Latin and Greek and
for centuries the study of a language meant chiefly the study of its grammar, with
written language regarded as the model for linguistic correctness. Typical language
lessons would begin with an explicit statement of the rule followed by exercises
involving translation in and out of the mother tongue. This so-called ‘grammartranslation’ method was thus purely deductive with grammar treated in a wholly
prescriptive way.
Attitudes to grammar and grammar teaching were revolutionised by the development of
structural linguistics. This movement began with Ferdinand de Sausserre who sought to
highlight and analyse the systematic nature of language structure. He appreciated that
speech, rather than written language, must be the starting point for a valid description of
how people use language. He recognised that it is the combination and arrangement of
phonemes into systematic patterns that allows meaning to be conveyed between
speakers and referred to the shared understanding of the language system among a
language community as the “langue”. From this basis structural linguists such as
Leonard Bloomfield attempted to make linguistics into a true science, by studying the
observable patterns and forms of a language. With them was born the descriptive
approach, the idea of describing each language in its own terms rather than according to
20
a classical model. The reason for the name ‘structuralist’ was not because they tried to
find a general structure of language but because they tried to describe the whole of a
given language by simply making a comprehensive list of categories of patterns which
each had a particular structure. Structural linguists significantly developed the study of
phonology and morphology according to the principle of relationships between
meaningful units.
Language teaching methodology in the first half of the 20th century deliberately turned
away from explicit grammar focus but, nevertheless, tended to follow a syllabus of
grammar structures, often labelled under functional labels.
In the 1950s and 60s, the Audio-Lingual Method was even stricter in its rejection of
explicit grammar teaching. Audiolingualism derived its theoretical base chiefly from the
work of Skinner, who found the lists of sentence patterns describing a particular
language convenient to his behaviourist view of language learning. Language was
considered as simply a form of behaviour, to be learned through the formation of correct
habits, a process in which rules played no part. The Audiolingual syllabus consisted of a
graded list of sentence patterns, which, although not necessarily labelled as such, were
grammatical in origin and formed the basis of practice drills. Brooks saw ‘control of the
structures of sound, form and order in the new language’ as the essential aim of such an
approach. (Brooks, 1964).
Where psychology and linguistics had been separate before, Noam Chomsky brought
them together by asserting that the nature of language and the nature of language
acquisition were two parts of the same question. This new perspective led to the birth of
psycholinguistics, a new science to study language acquisition. Chomsky reacted
against Skinner’s behaviouristic view of language learning, seeking to show that all
human language has a universal structure which may reflect the structure of the human
mind. Language is not a set of stimulus-response associations but the result of rules
used creatively to generate unique sentences. Chomsky devised the concept of
‘transformational grammar’, that is those rules which allow transformations of
declarative sentences into their negative, interrogative and especially passive forms. The
number of transformational rules in each language is finite but the number of sentences
that can be produced is infinite. According to Chomsky, a given language has two
21
distinct levels of organisation – deep structure and surface structure. One deep structure
can lead to many varying surface structures, and that while two surface structures may
appear similar, they are different at deep level.
It is certain that the Chomsky revolution in linguistics produced a significant change in
language teaching and a return to a more cognitive approach to language learning. No
complete methodology emerged as it had done with behaviourism, the nearest to one
being the cognitive code method whereby rules are taught explicitly and language
regarded most definitely as a system.
The work of M.A.K. Halliday (1973) has further revolutionised approaches to grammar
and grammar teaching. While Chomsky views language from ‘underneath’ and from
there into the mind, Halliday looks at it from ‘on top’ and from there into language as a
social system. He sees language as being made up of a system of grammatical choices
and a system of semantic choices. Hallidayan grammar has influenced sociolinguistics
through its concept of the three functions of language - ideational, interpersonal and
textual - according to which the features of every sentence can be analysed. Halliday’s
ideas have led to an increased awareness of the social dimension of language use,
especially in the area of cohesion in discourse.
By the 1970s descriptive approaches to grammar were in the ascendancy. Structural
linguistics had asserted the primacy of speech, leading sociolinguists such as Trudgill
(1974) to question the pre-eminent status of standard forms of pronunciation and of the
written language. Moreover, humanistic teaching emphasised self-expression and
discovery learning and in mother tongue teaching, traditional grammar lessons gave
way to creative writing and focus on fluency.
At the same time, the sociolinguist Hymes was developing the notion of
‘communicative competence’, a concept with not only a linguistic but also a
sociolinguistic dimension, seen especially in the ability to use and interpret language
appropriately in specific contexts (Hymes, 1972). This notion appealed to those, such as
Van Ek, Richterick and Wilkins, seeking to develop foreign language teaching
syllabuses that reflected language in use (Wilkins 1976). There followed a number of
22
functional/notional syllabuses with a division between ‘stuctures’ and ‘functions’ with
the former often influenced by the latter
Such progress in the field of sociolinguistics led also to the development in the 1970s of
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT), which aimed to replicate in the classroom
the purposes and contexts vital to real communication. In its purest form CLT rejected
grammar instruction since it was suggested that accurate grammar was not a necessary
requirement of successful communication. However, CLT-influenced syllabuses did not
fully reject grammar and it was often presented albeit under functional headings.
The movement away from explicit grammar teaching was hastened also by
developments in psycholinguistics. Chomsky’s claim (detailed in Lyons, 1970) in the
late 1950s that language ability is an innate human capacity and that we are ‘wired’ at
birth for language acquisition led to Krashen’s belief that formal language instruction
was unnecessary. His Natural Approach does away with both a grammar syllabus and
explicit rule-giving. Instead, learners are exposed to large doses of ‘comprehensible
input’ with the assumption that innate processes ‘in due course’ convert this into output.
Krashen’s Input Hypothesis (Krashen 1985) was influenced by studies showing that
second language acquisition follows similar regularities in the order in which
morphemes are acquired as does L1 acquisition. Krashen’s concept of ‘acquisition’ is
based on his idea of the ‘creative construction process’. A form of ‘hypotheses testing’
whereby learners acquire rules without consciously analysing them. Controversially, he
suggested that ‘learned language’ – that is rules which have been studied consciously –
cannot be absorbed into the learner’s ‘acquired competence’ – that body of language
that he can call upon automatically in rapid, fluent speech.
The vast growth of interest in English language teaching throughout the world in the
1970s and 80s, and the need for adequate theories to explain L2 acquisition, meant that
Krashen’s ideas were readily absorbed. Thus by the 1980s, grammar had lost the central
position that it once held, replaced by function-based or task-based syllabuses.
Grammar was learned inductively with learners often required to study examples and
work out rules for themselves. Chomsky (1987) himself says that grammatical
description belongs to the world of externalised (or E-) language, while what was more
23
important was the learner’s internalised (or I-) language, a language system that
developed ‘automatically’, uninfluenced by any well-intentioned parent or teacher.
However, a reaction against Krashen’s theories and the emphasis on I-language has
contributed to the revival of explicit grammar study. It is now suggested that a lack of
conscious attention to form may lead to the fossilisation of a learner’s language and
according to Tonkyn (1994), it is now widely held that formal grammar study is a
highly beneficial complement to informal learning, especially at higher levels of
proficiency. Tonkyn explains how it is now recognised that the learner’s role is less
passive than Krashen implies and that acquisition involves conscious processes,
particularly that of attention. Pointing out features of the grammar system is a form of
consciousness-raising, an approach encouraged by many such as Rutherford (1987),
which may lead in time to accurate and appropriate production. The researcher Richard
Schmidt (1990) questioned Krashen’s suggestion that what had been formally ‘learned’
could not pass into the ‘acquired’ system. Schmidt concludes that noticing is a
prerequisite for acquisition. Research by Long (1988) (detailed in Tonkyn (1994) also
appears to show that learners develop more quickly and go on learning for longer if they
are supported by instruction. Modern syllabuses now tend to incorporate a focus on
form alongside task-based activities. There are now also a great variety of grammar
reference and practice books to supplement general courses.
The 1980s saw revised interest in an updated study of the language system and current
trends in linguistics clearly influenced the descriptive grammars of Greenbaum and
Quirk (1985) and the more Hallidayan-based Downing and Locke (1992). The
development of a grammar based on the massive COBUILD database (Sinclair, 1987)
also led to further growth of interest in modern grammatical description.
The potential of concordancing programs to reveal how the language works has led to
new developments in the way language is viewed. Insights from language corpora into
collocations and how words combine into patterns led linguists, most notably Nattinger
to talk about ‘lexical phrases’ (Nattinger, 1992). Sinclair talks of ‘semi-preconstructed
phrases that constitute single choices, even though they might appear to be analysable
into segments.’ (Sinclair, 1988) A lexical approach to grammar was popularised by
Michael Lewis who asserts that ‘language consists not of traditional grammar and
24
vocabulary but often of multi-word prefabricated chunks’ (Lewis, 1997). Such language
‘chunks’ also include ‘functional phrases’ (Baigent, 1999). Vocabulary
has
traditionally been seen in terms of individual words but this awareness of language
chunking urges language teachers to view vocabulary as units of meaning or ‘lexemes’
(Crystal, 1995).
Notions of grammar have also been challenged with the development of ‘pattern
grammar’. Hunston and Francis (1999) in particular have developed a corpus-driven
approach to the lexical grammar of English. A fundamental observation arising from
corpora analysis is the link between pattern and meaning. Sinclair states that if a word
has several senses, each sense will tend to be associated most frequently with a different
set of patterns, or ‘phraseology’. (Sinclair, 1988) According to Sinclair these
phraseologies should replace the word as the unit of vocabulary teaching. Indeed, he
argues that a view of language as phraseology necessitates the rejection of lexis and
grammar as separate entities. Hunston (2002) states that such an approach to grammar
‘prioritises the behaviour of each individual lexical item and patterns can be given for
both lexical words and grammatical words.’ Sinclair also argues that much of what
appears in spoken or written texts follows what he calls the ‘idiom principle’- that is,
each word in the text is used in a common phraseology and meaning is attached to the
whole phrase rather than to its constituent parts such that the hearer or reader
understands the phrase as a whole unit rather than as a grammatical template comprising
separate lexical items. When a stretch of text cannot be interpreted by the ‘idiom
principle’, the ‘open-choice principle’ is used – that is, when word-choice is constrained
only by the general grammatical rules of English. Thus words are either used in lexical
chunks or inserted into slots dictated by grammar. Pinker sums this up by stating that
‘the mind analyses language as some mixture of memorised chunks and rule-governed
assemblies’ (Pinker, 1999).
As yet, such lexical approaches to grammar have not given rise to a fully-fledged
language teaching methodology. Indeed, Harmer points out that ‘there are doubts about
how the learning of fixed lexical phrases can be incorporated into the understanding of a
language system’ (Harmer, 2001) or about the order in which such phrases should be
presented to learners. Certainly those such as Tim Johns who advocate ‘data-driven,
corpus-based learning’ (Johns, 1984) are already providing solutions to the problem of
25
how to expose learners to large quantities of the right kind of input. Corpus-based
concordancing technology now provides learners with versatile tools for exploring the
patterns of language. As far as language teaching is concerned, this new research has
stimulated discussion about what students should study. Harmer (2001) points out that a
lexical approach would ‘steer us away from an over-concentration on syntax and tense
usage.’ However, Lewis (1997) suggests that exposure to enough suitable input, not
formal teaching, is the ‘key to increasing the learner’s lexicon.’ Finally, one of the
original advocates of the lexical approach, Dave Willis, has set out the theoretical basis
for a corpus-based language syllabus (Willis, 1990) and has recently written a book –
Rules, Patterns and Words that illustrates different teaching techniques geared towards
promoting pattern grammar in the classroom. Willis advocates that in order to help
learners acquire the patterns of English they should follow a process of recognition,
system-building and exploration (Willis, 2003).
Section 2 shows how concordance-based approaches to language learning are providing
alternatives to the traditional formal grammar instruction of the language classroom and
that learners are being encouraged to discover the whole picture of the language for
themselves via access to corpora.
2.1.2
Deductive versus Inductive Approaches to Grammar Learning
Essentially we acquire knowledge either by being shown (learning from explanation), or
by finding out for ourselves (learning by discovery, and problem-solving). This applies
to language learning as much as it does to other skills, but with specific reference to
grammar learning Thornbury provides the following definitions:


A deductive approach starts with the presentation of a rule and is followed by
examples in which the rule is applied.
An inductive approach starts with some examples from which a rule is inferred.
(Thornbury, 1999)
He suggests that it may be easier to use the terms ‘rule-driven’ learning and ‘discovery’
learning respectively.
26
The purest form of deductive approach was that used by the Grammar-Translation
method whereby the teacher was the fount of knowledge and the students would learn
best by being taught about the grammar first of all and then putting this into practice
through exercises. Mental effort on the part of the student was not seen to be
particularly important, except insofar as that effort was needed to put the rule into
operation in a very limited way.
However, in the modern classroom a certain degree of deductive-style learning can be
beneficial. It can save time to present grammar rules explicitly as well as confirming
many students’ expectations about classroom learning, particularly those with an
analytical learning style.
Felder & Henriques (1995) argue that (2nd) language learning is
a largely conscious process that involves formal exposure to rules of syntax and semantics
followed by specific application of the rules, with corrective feedback reinforcing correct
usage.
They characterize the flow of the learning process from general to specific as a
deductive process.
However, as Thornbury states, grammar explanation encourages ‘a teacher-fronted,
transmission-style classroom’ and teacher explanation is often at the expense of student
involvement and interaction.
The rationale behind the ‘pure’ inductive approach, as used by the Audio-Lingual
method was that students should develop a series of language habits and that if enough
examples of a structural pattern were repeated, the students would automatically
internalise the common features of that pattern and be able to apply it by analogy to
other situations and contexts.
Such a ‘behaviourist’ view of language-learning assumed that just as a child induces
language patterns from the language around him, so foreign language learners could
also induce language patterns, especially if they were presented in situational contexts
with lots of examples.
27
It was assumed the mind played little or no part in the process, though it is now
recognised that it is precisely the student’s mental effort to make sense of the patterns in
the language that is key to successfully assimilating new language items.
Developments in educational theory led to the promotion of ‘discovery learning’,
essentially a form of guided-inductive learning whereby the teacher provides the learner
with examples of the target language and helps him to work out the grammar rules for
himself by consciously focussing on the patterns. This is the approach now favoured by
a great many contemporary language learning courses and books.
Lewis (1986) argues that what we discover for ourselves is absorbed more effectively
than what we are taught. A guided-discovery approach is beneficial to students because
they are more actively involved in the learning process and become more autonomous.
Students are also more likely to remember rules they have worked out for themselves
(Skehan, 1998). Harmer (2001) argues that ‘the complex nature of language itself’ is a
strong reason for promoting discovery learning. He believes that encouraging language
learners to be more autonomous should be a priority, arguing that:
students who encounter real language outside the classroom will find it is considerably
‘messier’ than it may appear in a language lesson. Their response to this may well depend
on how prepared they are to observe this messy language and work out, for themselves, how
it is put together. Any training in language analysis we have given them will make them
more able to do so. (Harmer, 2001)
However, it is a time-consuming process with the risk that students will not hypothesize
the rule correctly. It may also frustrate those students who favour a more teachercentred approach or whose past learning experience causes them to prefer simply to be
given the rules. Harmer (2001) points out that discovery learning may be unsuitable for
students whose learning culture conflicts with the approach used. It is also doubtful
whether a more inductive approach works equally well with every type of grammar item.
Moreover, as Thornbury (1999) argues ‘successfully inferring patterns and rules from
the study of language data depends not only on how the data is presented, but on the
quantity and quality of the data itself.’
Two studies show how learners’ preferences about approaches to grammar can vary
considerably.
28
Fortune (1992) conducted a study comparing different types of self-study grammar
practice exercises, some inductive and others more deductive. He concludes that:
The experience of doing the exercises caused a significant number of learners to change
their opinions about inductive and deductive practice. Many informants ended up preferring
discovery activities to more traditional types of grammar exercise.
However, a similar study by Ranalli (2001) resulted in contradictory findings. In this
case, the subjects, who were from a Korean background, were given a questionnaire to
determine their preferred approach before then working through two different
treatments of the same grammar point (present perfect to describe experiences), one a
deductive treatment from a grammar practice book and the other an inductive treatment
using instances selected from the Bank of English corpus. Afterwards, the subjects
completed a second questionnaire which asked them to rate the approaches according to
their difficulty and usefulness and reassess their own preferences. Findings revealed that
though a majority initially favoured an inductive approach (surprising considering the
deductive approach is deeply ingrained in the Korean education system), many
subsequently said that they would prefer a more deductive approach.
With the advent of large computerised corpora, the possibilities of an inductive
approach have been vastly increased. The next section looks at how corpora can provide
teacher and student alike with a larger and more representative range of examples, such
that pattern-seeking can be done more reliably and more quickly.
29
Chapter 2: Section 2
Developments in Corpora and Concordancing
2.2.1 What is a corpus?
Traditionally the word corpus (plural corpora) was used by linguists to describe
collected examples of language (as it occurs naturally), whether a few sentences or a set
of texts, for the purpose of linguistic study.
In recent years the word has come to refer to ‘collections of texts (or parts of text) that
are stored and accessed electronically…and designed for some linguistic purpose’
(Hunston, 2000). Essentially, a corpus is an electronic ‘store of used language’. Due to
the capacity and processing power of modern computers, electronic corpora are
normally much larger than their paper-based forerunners. A corpus differs from an
electronic archive in that its aim is not to preserve the texts themselves, nor indeed even
to read them as a whole, but instead to study the body of texts in a nonlinear way using
both quantitative and qualitative means, in order to analyse the frequency and actual use
of linguistic items within the corpus. Thus, a corpus provides observational data about
how a language works in reality.
Corpus linguistics is now a well-established branch of linguistics. It first came to
prominence with the announcement of Randolph Quirk’s Survey of English Usage
Corpus in 1959 which led shortly afterwards to the Brown corpus, consisting of one
30
million words of written American English, and in 1961 the one million word LOB
corpus of written British English. In the 1980s the COBUILD project in the English
department of Birmingham University, led by John Sinclair, resulted in the development
of a 20 million word corpus of contemporary English as a basis for the preparation of a
range of reference and teaching materials for English as a Foreign Language, including
the Collins COBUILD English Dictionary (Sinclair, 1987). Since that time a number of
corpora have been collected and researchers are using them to work towards empirically
based description of languages and varieties of languages.
2.2.2 What is a concordancer?
Access to a corpus is usually through a concordancing program or concordancer. This
software enables the user to
recover from text all the contexts for a particular item (morpheme, word or phrase) and to
print them out in a way which facilitates rapid scanning and comparison (Johns, 1994).
The most common program is the keyword-in-context (KWIC) concordance whereby,
much like a conventional search engine, the user keys in a given word and the computer
then displays a list of all instances of that keyword in the form of lines of text, known as
concordances, accessed from the corpus. Most commonly the keywords are arranged
one below the other down the centre of the screen with a fixed number of characters on
either side to provide a context. The contexts to the left or right of the keyword can be
sorted alphabetically so as to highlight certain patterns and regularities. Many
concordancers also provide a greater amount of context if required, displaying every
sentence in which the keyword appears in its entirety.
Flowerdew (1996) points out that ‘the ordering which has been found to be most useful
is from the first word to the right of the keyword, because it shows up phrases and
typical collocations which begin with the keyword.’ Hunston (2000) explains how the
concordancer’s ability to reveal patterns of phraseology is a useful tool for teachers
trying to explain differences between minimal pairs and suggests that the learner’s focus
should be drawn to the common phrases highlighted by the concordancer. A wild card
symbol can be keyed-in to stand for any letter or combination of letters (useful in
finding different forms of the same verb, for example).
31
Among other functions available on most concordancers is the inclusion of a list of all
the words in a corpus and their frequencies, ordered either alphabetically or by
frequency. This is particularly useful when comparing frequency lists for different text
genres and can provide information about differences between spoken and written
discourse and between different registers of language. For example, Biber uses software
which counts not only words but categories of linguistic item and accordingly calculates
the distribution of present and past tenses across four registers (revealing that the
present tense occurs more frequently than past tense in conversation and academic
corpora than in fiction and news corpora). (Biber et al, 1999)
Another way in which corpora data can be exploited is in calculating statistical
information about frequently co-occurring words, or collocates. Lists of collocations
and their frequencies can reveal otherwise undetectable information about how lexical
items combine and about the different shades of meaning that words may possess.
2.2.3 Concordancing software
Back in the early 1990s the best available software for language teaching applications
was the Longman Mini Concordancer. This had the advantage of being both userfriendly and very fast, with almost instantaneous presentation of concordances.
However, it could only handle a maximum of about 45,000 words of text. The Mini
Concordancer has been superseded by the Oxford Mini-Concord which can deal with
much larger amounts of text, due to the fact that corpus size is limited only by the size
of the hard disk, while for the Longman program, it is limited by the amount of working
memory (RAM).
The two main types of concordancing software for use on personal computers can be
divided into streaming concordancers, which “read” a text line-by-line in real time and
produce concordanced text either to screen, printer or disk, and Text-indexing
concordancers which initially create an index of the text in one operation and then
permit a large variety of text retrieval activities.
32
Streaming concordancers are generally not limited to a particular size of text file – the
only real constraints being the amounts of hard-disk space and Random Access Memory
(RAM) available. Modern, commercially available concordancers such as MonoConc
for Windows and WordSmith run quickly enough to be suitable for both research
purposes and classroom use. Such applications offer a wide range of functions.
Text-indexing software has remained the preferred choice for many academic
researchers because once an index has been created it can be used many times and
access speed with a large indexed corpus is still much faster than with a streaming
concordancer.
The
most
commonly
used
indexing
program
for
language
teaching/learning is WordCruncher.
2.2.4 Types of corpora
The type of corpus depends on the purpose it was created for. A specialised corpus
consists of texts of a given text type, such as newspaper editorials or academic articles,
and is used to investigate a particular register. Such a corpus may be restricted to a
specific topic, time period or social scenario. Well known examples include the 5
million word Cambridge and Nottingham Corpus of Discourse in English (CANCODE)
which specialises in informal registers of British English, and the Michigan Corpus of
Acedemic Spoken English (MICASE).
A general corpus is a corpus of texts of many types, possibly including both written or
spoken language and perhaps form more than one country of origin. Such corpora aim
to include a wide cross-section of texts and thus tend to be very large in size. Examples
include the 100 million word British National Corpus (BNC) and the 400 million word
Bank Of English.
Comparable corpora is the name given to two, or more, corpora in different languages,
designed to contain the same spread of text types and allow learners and translators to
compare different languages or language varieties
and identify differences and
equivalences in them. An example is the International Corpus of English (ICE) which
consists of several one million word corpora each of different varieties of English.
33
Parallel corpora consist of two, or more, corpora in different languages, each
comprising texts translated from one language into the other, and used by translators to
research into how the languages differ and to seek matching equivalent expressions.
A learner corpus is a corpus of texts made by language learners in order to see how the
language of individual learners differs from that of native speakers and other learners.
The most well known is the International Corpus of Learner English (ICLE) – a
collection of sub-corpora, each 20,000 words in size and containing essays written by
learners of English form a specific language background.
As well as using published corpora, users may wish to create their own corpora.
Purpose-built corpora are especially appropriate for English for Special Purposes (ESP)
as each corpus can suit the particular target learning group it is designed for.
2.2.5 Applications of corpora
So great is the effect that corpora have had on the production of reference books for
learners of English that nowadays almost all large publishers produce learner
dictionaries and grammars based on a corpus. (Examples include the Macmillan English
Dictionary for Advanced Learners, 2002 and the Longman Grammar of Spoken and
Written English, 1999.) Such books often now include information about the relative
frequencies of words and frequencies of the different uses of the same word. The
diversity of use shown by corpora has led to dictionaries now listing many more senses
of common words. There is also an emphasis now on collocation and phraseology, with
a tendency to define phrases rather than words, and on lexical/pattern grammar and
authenticity, definitions being illustrated with examples taken directly from corpora that
show the most typical usage of a given word.
Corpora can also be used to study the discourse of particular communities and to
examine the variation between regions, gender and social groups as well as linguistic
differences between periods in history. Corpora can throw light on the way society
thinks about issues of gender, race and ideology. Corpora of texts from different ages
can be compared in order to determine how literary styles have changed and developed.
34
Forensic linguistics use corpora in the comparison legal documents to verify that they
were written by the same person, so as to authenticate police statements, for example.
Translators use comparable corpora to compare the use of apparent translation
equivalents in two languages, and parallel corpora to see how words and phrases have
been translated in the past.
There are many implications for both language learners and teachers arising from
corpus-based analysis of language. The area of syllabus design has been influenced the
most but classroom teaching and individual learner strategies have been affected by the
increased availability of concordancing technology. The present study will focus on the
application of concordancing in language learning.
2.2.6 Advantages of using corpora in language learning
A native speaker obviously knows about his/her language but even the most
experienced teacher can have difficulty explaining this knowledge, which is often felt as
an intuitive assumption that a certain word is correct in a given context. Even a
conventional dictionary only provides a few instances of a word in use. Corpora allow a
non-native speaker to get a feel of how language items are actually used. Thus a corpus
can illustrate the reality of language use and learners can test their own hypotheses
against the corpus. A corpus can provide proof that a particular structure is not in fact
used when the learner (or even the teacher) may be convinced otherwise. Biber says that
as linguists, we often have strongly held intuitions, but those intuitions frequently prove to
be incorrect when they are tested empirically against the actual patterns of use in large text
corpora.’ (Biber et al, 1994)
2.2.7 Disadvantages of using corpora in language learning
However, a corpus will not give information about whether something is possible or not,
only about its relative frequency. Native speaker intuition ultimately has to answer
doubts about acceptability. Even the largest corpus is still only a sample of a language
as a whole and results are only extrapolations. A corpus provides evidence of language
patterns and collocations but does not actually give information about meaning. This
35
still has to be worked out intuitively, which can prove difficult for learners of English,
especially at low levels.
Moreover, concordance lines only provide the barest of contexts and this absence of the
wider textual context in which the word or phrase was originally placed may make it
difficult for the learner to work out the meaning of a given item. This is especially true
of spoken language when there is no information about paralinguistic features such as
intonation and gesture.
2.2.8 Applications of corpora in language learning: for the teacher
One important application of corpora for the teacher is to use the concordancer as a
resource tool to increase his/her own awareness of linguistic usage, and in turn use this
data to make decisions about what linguistic items to teach and in what order, based on
their relative frequency.
Johns stresses the importance of revising teaching materials in light of what corpora
reveal about the nature of language. He says that ‘the evidence thrown up by the data
has left no escape from the conclusion that the description of English underlying our
teaching, whether homemade or inherited from other teachers and linguists, needs major
assessment (Johns, 1991). It is his view that descriptions of grammar in traditional
grammar books are ‘more often based on the armchair intuitions of the grammarian than
on any close analysis of data’.
Biber’s research reveals that there are ‘important systematic differences among registers
at all linguistic levels’ which are not taken into account by most popular EFL grammars
(Biber et al, 1994). He advises teachers of advanced students to ‘focus on the English of
particular varieties in naturally-occurring discourse, rather than “general” patterns that
are culled from linguists’ intuitions and do not accurately reflect the grammar of any
variety.’
One example Biber gives of the tendency for grammar books to over-generalize is in the
area of post-modification in noun phrases. Far more emphasis is placed on relative
36
clauses than on prepositional phrases as noun modifiers, when in fact corpus-based
research shows that the actual patterns of use are very different, with far more instances
of the latter in post-modification than the former.
Tense usage is another area where corpora can reveal just to what extent reality differs
from expectation. According to Mindt, for example, nearly all the future time reference
in conversational English is indicated by will or other modals. The going to future
accounts for about 10% of future time reference and the present continuous less than 5%.
(Mindt, 2000)
In deciding what grammatical structures to emphasize and how to sequence them, most
textbooks focus on how difficult given items are to teach. In contrast, Biber states that
an equally important consideration is whether beginning students will ever need to
produce or comprehend the construction in question outside the classroom, and if so, how
frequently that need will arise.
Biber thus believes that a teacher’s choice of material should depend equally on patterns
of actual use as on questions of teachability.
Flowerdew (1996) suggests that
native speakers who want the added support of an objective linguistic informant to
reinforce and corroborate or refute their intuitions and their grammaticality and
vocabulary usage judgements, as well as non-natives who lack the confidence to trust
their linguistic intuitions, can thus turn to a concordancer to provide them with reliable,
objective data on grammatical and lexical usage.
He suggests, for example, that in order to teach the use of sentence connectors to
students for science and technology, the teacher should first consult the vocabulary
frequency list of a scientific corpus to see which connectors are commonly used in
scientific writing and their relative frequency. Next, he/she should examine the
concordances generated from the most frequent connectors to find out what semantic
and syntactic differences there are between them.
As well as using a concordancer as an informant on usage, teachers can use it as a
source of input for teaching and can generate authentic instances of usage to present
students when teaching a particular language point. If the concordancer is kept in the
37
classroom then the teacher can run a search when a problem of usage arises during the
lesson.
The concordancer can also be used to prepare teaching materials in advance and lists of
concordance lines can be tailored to meet students’ needs or level, by removing those
instances that might be inappropriate for teaching purposes or be beyond the students’
language level.
Moreover, such edited lists of concordances can themselves be turned into exercise
material for students. Honeyfield (1989) has developed seven types of exercises based
on concordance material. These range from gap-filling tasks where keywords are
removed, to discourse-oriented exercises such as the use of discourse markers.
Honeyfield also advocates freely using a concordancing program to assist writing,
correction or comprehension and also to explore the emotional tone or style of certain
concordanced items between different genres.
More recently, Tribble and Jones have likewise produced a resource book for teachers
called Concordances In the Classroom (1997) which focuses on practical applications
of concordance data for language learners, including printout-based exercises and
interactive hands-on activities designed to raise students’ awareness of such areas as
position of adverbs, appropriate use of conjuncts in different types of writing and
analysis of different registers.
By presenting learners with pre-selected off-line
concordance data the authors’ aim is to limit the information overload that can occur
when learners encounter huge amounts of raw data, and remove the need to operate a
concordancing interface.
Others who have recently advocated using concordancing to teach grammar include
Bernhard Kettemann of the University of Graz, who believes that a concordancer
makes hidden structures visible, enhances at the same time imagination and checks it by
inductivity, thus making higher degrees of objectivity possible.’ Ketteman (2000)
He examines some possible applications of concordancing to the teaching of Reported
Speech, the difference between Past Simple and Present Perfect and contrasts between
since and for.
38
2.2.9 Applications of corpora in language learning: for the learner
Where learners use the concordancer themselves, as opposed to being exposed to preedited printouts, the approach is inherently inductive. Johns writes of the inductive
nature of concordance-based learning as follows:
A concordancer occupies an intermediate position between the highly organised, graded and
idealised language of the typical coursebook, and the potentially confusing but far richer
and more revealing “full flood” of authentic communication. By concentrating and making
it easier to compare the contexts within which a particular item occurs, it organises data in a
way that encourages and facilitates inference and generalisation.’(Johns, 1991)
Johns in particular has developed an inductive approach to concordancing which he
calls ‘Data Driven Learning’ (Johns, 1991). DDL was developed in the English
Department of Birmingham University, home also to the COBUILD project (Sinclair,
1987). According to Johns, both share an approach which aims to ‘contextualise’ and
‘demythologise’ the language but differ in the use they make of the evidence.
The method used by COBUILD in working with its corpus is summarised by Sinclair as
follows:
The computer sorts the words in various ways and delivers information on each word to a
team of editors and compilers. They study the words and build up an elaborate profile of
their meanings and uses in a database back in the computer. The database is then the
primary source of a family of books which will span many years of editorial work.
(Sinclair, 1987)
Johns seeks to ‘cut out the middleman as far as possible’ – that is, the mediating role of
the editing team –
and to give direct access to the data so that the learner can take part in building up his/her
own profiles of meaning and uses. (Johns, 1991)
Johns sees effective language learning as a form of ‘linguistic research’ and that the
learner’s needs are ‘driven by access to linguistic data’. In his view, the concordance
printout
offers a unique way of stimulating inductive learning strategies – in particular the
strategies of perceiving similarities and differences and of hypothesis forming and testing.
39
Learners are like ‘language detectives’ discovering facts about the language from
authentic examples.
A DDL concordancer activity might begin spontaneously in class when a question of
usage or function arises such as ‘What is the difference between therefore and hence?’
or ‘Why aren’t all shoulds real shoulds?’ (Johns, 1994) Johns explains how, in the latter
case, the teacher would respond that he/she does not know and that they can find out
together. Students might then consult a corpus and ask the concordancer to return all
instances of should. The computer’s output would include sentences with should that
the learners would then attempt to classify according to their various meanings and
contexts. This kind of spontaneous study uses a raw corpus - that is, the learner and
teacher will examine the corpus together without either necessarily knowing what they
will find. Indeed, a student may well notice something that a teacher has overlooked or
that no textbook covers. Johns ascertains that it is ‘this element of challenge and of
discovery that gives DDL its special flavour and stimulus.’ (Johns, 1991)
The teacher’s role becomes that of ‘a director and coordinator of student-initiated
research’. (Johns, 1991) Johns himself acknowledges that it can be difficult for teachers
to adapt to this change in role. Hunston points out that the teacher has very little control
over what happens and may feel ‘a loss of expertise’ if no answers are forthcoming and
students pose further difficult queries. (Hunston, 2000) She details other drawbacks to
DDL such as the fact that one-to-one interaction between student and teacher is rarely
achievable and computer access is often insufficient to allow students to do their own
linguistic research. Moreover, in cases where the teacher prepares pre-selected printed
handouts, by choosing the language area for study, he/she may remove the high
motivation felt by students when they want to satisfy their own personal linguistic
doubts.
Chapelle (2001) points out that if a DDL activity results in considerable amounts of data
which cannot be resolved by learners nor teacher, the effect could be negative because
learners may see it as a waste of time. She stresses the need for learner training in both
the mechanics of concordancing and the sort of questions that can be asked of the
concordancer.
40
Flowerdew (1996) also describes a number of problems connected with the use of
concordance data. First, it is likely that many concordance lines will contain language
beyond the learners’ level of understanding even when the target language item may be
at their level. Second, if single-line concordances are used, not all of them may provide
enough context to make the meaning clear. Third, depending on the size of the corpus
and the frequency of the given item, the concordancer may provide too few examples of
a particular usage or, conversely, too many, either of which may cause learners to
become easily frustrated. Finally, if a certain item has a variety of usages, one or other
of these may be very thinly represented in the corpus and difficult to pick out amidst
more common usages.
Cobb (1997) claims that advocates of data-driven learning have over-estimated the
needs of learners to get their hands on raw linguistic data and indeed the amount of such
data they can cope with. Both Cobb and Goodfellow argue that, in the field of
vocabulary instruction, learners should not be left to deal with concordancing data
unaided, but require ‘tutorial support for the use of lexical resources.’ (Goodfellow,
1995)
Johns (1994) has since attempted to increase his students' interest in hands-on
concordancing by building a tutor, CONTEXTS, on top of his concordance program.
The online tutor poses questions for learners to answer by exploring the concordances
supplied onscreen. This data comes in the form of pre-selected citations, which have
been chosen to make specific points about grammar or lexis, points which learners
might never notice for themselves.
Cobb (1997) criticises such use of pre-selected concordance data:
Theoretically, any learning advantage that might accrue to a genuine process of "discovery"
or "construction," in other words to making sense of raw data, is compromised if the data
has already been made sense of by somebody else.
Cobb also points out that the process of pre-selecting concordance lines to illustrate
specific points is very time consuming and
effectively means that learners will be exposed to a limited number of concordancing
experiences.
41
Cobb advocates bringing learner and corpus together in a way that neither compromises
the essential idea of concordancing – free exploration of language patterns - nor prelimits the amount of program use.
2.2.10 Lack of Research
It is a fact that student concordancing has generated a lot of enthusiasm but little
empirical research. Hunston (2000) makes the point that Tim Johns’ claims that Data
Driven Learning actually improves students’ general skills in deducing meaning from
context ‘have yet to be adequately tested’.
Of the several studies of student concordancing gathered into Johns and King (1991)
most simply described students in various concordance activities in guided lab sessions.
Only one presented any quantitative data about the learning effectiveness of
concordances, and that was an off-line study. Vance Stevens (1991) at Sultan Qaboos
University in Oman predicted that learners would be able to retrieve a word from
memory more successfully when cued by several pre-selected concordance lines with
the key word masked than by a single gapped sentence. His prediction was confirmed,
thus providing some proof that concordancing can facilitate language learning.
Tom Cobb, while at the City University of Hong Kong, conducted a study to see if there
is ‘any measurable learning from hands-on concordancing’. (Cobb, 1997) He proposes
that ‘a computer concordance might stimulate and potentially rationalize off-line
vocabulary acquisition by presenting new words in several contexts’. To test this idea,
an experimental lexical tutor was developed to introduce new words to subjects, either
through concordances or through other more conventional sources of lexical
information. In a series of tests involving transfer of word knowledge to novel contexts,
a small but consistent gain was found for words introduce through concordances.
Accounts of similar studies to measure the effectiveness of a corpus-based approach to
grammar learning are lacking in the literature.
In attempting to explain this lack of research, Cobb says that ‘it is doubtful that students
have ever used concordancing enough to generate a very large database so that even
42
initial pattern-perception can begin.’ (Cobb, 1997). Moreover, he goes on to say that ‘in
an open-exploration environment there is no learning task built in and no way of
knowing for certain what learners are trying to learn or whether they are succeeding.’ In
Cobb’s view ‘the way concordancing is typically introduced to students does not allow
variables to be isolated in any straightforward research design.’
This lack of hard research has led to an under-implementation of a potentially
powerful idea. Cobb believes that ‘without the benefit of an instructional design
process guided by research, the concordancing idea is now widely seen as
running into trouble.’ (Cobb, 1997)
2.2.11 Online Applications of Corpora
Aside from the classroom-based uses of corpora mentioned above, there are now
available many online applications, providing the learner direct access to concordancing
tools.
Tom Cobb, now at the Université du Québec à Montréal, Canada, has developed
the Compleat Lexical Tutor providing a full range of tools to enable data-driven
learning on the web. These include online tutorials, text tools, and resource
building materials for teachers.
Included also is a powerful online concordancer (created by Chris Greaves)
which gives the user access to fourteen separate corpora (among them the
Brown corpus and the BNC spoken and written corpora) with the option of
searching within the 4 million words of all these corpora combined. The
interface of the Lextutor concordancer is user-friendly and displays instances
43
using the KWIC (Keyword in context) mode. The user can further click on any of
the keywords to see the source of the instance and read the surrounding
context. The interface includes controls for refining the search by selecting
associated words, and their range from the keyword, particularly useful for
exploring collocations and lexical phrases.
There are also concordance tests which provide samples of sentences focusing on
prepositions, singular-plural, gerund-infinitive, and simple past/present perfect.
Learners read simple sentences, click "OK" or "Not", and check to see if they are
correct by using the concordancer.
Another impressive online resource is the Hong-Kong-based Edict Virtual Language
Centre (VLC), which bills itself as ‘a resource-assisted eLearning website for studying
English’. It is designed to be used for both independent self-access learning and as a
resource for teachers. Of particular interest here is VLC’s inclusion of a web
concordancer which lacks some of the more sophisticated design features of the
Lextutor but provides effective KWIC concordancing, with a wide choice of corpora
which include the Bible and the Koran, several novels and issues of The Times as well
as the Brown and LOB corpora.
There is also a tutorial on studying grammar with the aid of the concordancer. It
includes exercises dealing with preposition collocations which get users to think first
and use the concordancer to check their answers.
The University of Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English (MICASE) is
also available online, providing 152 transcripts (totalling 1,848,364 words). Its
concordancer allows the user to refine a search by choosing from a selection of
speech event attributes (such as the type of speech act or academic area) and
speaker attributes (such as gender, age and academic position). MICASE is
44
designed to study patterns of spoken English and focus on lexical phrases in
speech.
In addition, Collins Cobuild and the BNC both have ‘sampler’ sites where users
can use a simple concordancer to access a sample of their corpora. These are
useful tools for teachers and learners but do not contain any specific tutorials or
accompanying exercises.
Chapter 2: Section 3
Developments in Learning Style theory
45
2.3.1 Overview of factors involved in second language learning
Stern (1983) provides a useful framework for examination of second language learning.
Learner characteristics
↗
Age
Cognitive characteristics
Affective characteristics
Personality characteristics
↓
Social context
Sociolinguistic,
sociocultural, and
socioeconomic
factors
Learning process
Strategies, techniques,
and mental operations
↑↑
Learning outcomes
→
L2 competence/
proficiency
↑
↘
Learning conditions
Educational treatment:
Objectives
Content
Procedures
Materials
Evaluation
Fig 2 Diagram identifying the key factors or variables which are believed to be essential to
second language learning and suggesting probable ways in which the sets of different variables
may interact.
There are five sets of variables, three of which – social context, learner characteristics
and learning conditions – are seen as determining the learning process and through it
the learning outcome.
According to Stern (1983),
the learner process can be looked upon as consisting overtly of strategies and techniques
employed by the learner and, covertly, of conscious and unconscious mental operations.
46
The present study focuses on the set of variables here labelled learner characteristics,
and in particular cognitive characteristics. Attention is directed especially towards the
area of inductive learning.
2.3.2 Language Aptitude
Aptitude is usually regarded as a cognitive variable. Carroll defines it as follows:
Aptitude as a concept corresponds to the notion that in approaching a particular learning
task or program, the individual may be thought of as possessing some current state of
capability of learning that task – if the individual is motivated, and has the opportunity of
doing so. That capability is presumed to depend on some combination of more or less
enduring characteristics of the individual. (Carroll, 1981)
Larsen-Freeman & Long (1991) explain how the idea of an aptitude for language arose
from the common-sense notion of some students being better at learning languages than
others, and being specially talented in the same way that there are gifted learners who
demonstrate a high degree of musical aptitude, mathematical ability, manual dexterity
and so on.
Skehan (1989) describes how Carroll and Sapon (1959) devised a series of tests based
on several criteria related to language learning including ability to recognize phonemes,
and ability to develop meanings inductively. These tests were given to large numbers of
language learners and after analysis of the data Carroll put forward what has become the
standard ‘four component’ view of language aptitude.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Phonetic Coding Ability
Grammatical Sensitivity
Inductive Language Learning Ability
Rote-Learning Ability for foreign language materials
Skehan (1989) explains that ‘grammatical sensitivity’ refers to the ability to recognize
the grammatical functions that words fulfill in sentences. Carroll (1973), quoted in
Skehan (1989), defines ‘inductive language learning ability’ as
The ability to examine language material and from this to notice and identify patterns of
correspondence and relationships involving either meaning or syntactic form.
In other words, the ability to infer from limited evidence.
Larsen-Freeman & Long (1991) explain how language aptitude tests like the MLAT
have been useful primarily as practical instruments with which to conduct placement
47
testing at the beginning of language courses and to identify learners’ individual
strengths and weaknesses. Such tests are considered by some to be useful in providing a
better theoretical understanding of the nature of language aptitude. Stern (1983), for
example, says that language aptitude is
a group of characteristics which are relatively stable and should be considered as a given –
as a learner factor to count with.
He contends that language aptitude is not simply a ‘gift’ that someone either has or does
not have but that it is
a composite of different characteristics which come into play in second language learning
However, there has been considerable criticism of the whole notion of language aptitude
and the usefulness of aptitude tests. Harmer (2001) points out that they are more suited
to people who have little difficulty doing grammar-focused tasks and also do not test the
non-analytical aspects of language learning nor its communicative and social features.
The MLAT tests were also very much the product of their times and mirrored the
audiolingual principles of the 1950s and 60s which were rooted in theories of
behaviourism. More recently language learning has become increasingly seen as a
universal human cognitive characteristic and less a capacity that individuals possess in
greater or lesser doses. Neufeld (1978) (quoted in Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991)
suggests that all humans are equipped to master basic language skills but that an
individual’s intelligence determines the extent to which he can master the higher level
skills. For Neufeld there is no specific innate faculty called language aptitude.
However, Carroll (1981) counters this by saying that
Intelligence and aptitude may overlap but are not identical.
According to Skehan (1989), language aptitude is
consistently the most successful predictor of language learning success and at least as
important, and usually more important, than any other variable investigated.
Skehan (1998) believes that language aptitude should focus much more on the aspect of
memory, as what distinguishes exceptional students from the rest is that they have
unusual memories, particularly for the retention of things that they hear. Unlike the
48
MLAT, more recent research by Skehan has focused not solely on associate memory,
but on a wider consideration of memory, including size of working memory.
2.3.3 Cognitive Style and Learning Style
Alongside interest in discovering language aptitude some attempts have also been made
to identify global cognitive and learning characteristics.
Cognitive style refers to the preferred way in which individuals process information or
approach a task. Witkin et al (1981) (quoted in Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991) define it
as
a characteristic self-consistent mode of functioning which individuals show in their
perceptual and intellectual activities.
The term learning style is used to refer to how such cognitive styles may apply to
learning. Skehan (1998) defines learning style as
the characteristic manner in which an individual chooses to approach a learning task.
Skehan also points out the importance of distinguishing learning style form language
aptitude since a particular style adopted may reflect personal preference and not innate
ability. Individuals may display a given learning style to varying degrees, so there is not
the same fixedness which applies to language aptitude.
The main application of learning style research to language learning has been through
the concept of field dependence/independence (FD/I), developed in mainstream
psychology by Witkin (1962) (detailed in Larsen-Freeman & Long, 1991), who
proposed that a contrast can be made between analytic and holistic individuals. The
most widely-known means of measuring FD/I is via the Group Embedded Figures Test
(GEFT) whereby subjects have to pick out simple visual figures embedded in a complex
pattern. When faced with a decision making task, analytic, or field independent learners,
separate the problem into constituent parts and focus on these components,
manipulating them individually, while holistic, or field dependent learners perceive
situations as a whole.
49
According to Witkin, in language learning, an analytic learning style is shown by the
individual’s ability to analyse language material he/she is exposed to, identify
components and explore the relationship between them. Such a learner extracts what is
important from the flow of incoming speech or text, focusing on what is meaningful and
separating out irrelevance. This ability to channel selectively the essential from the nonessential has its downside in that such learners tend to be more aloof and withdrawn,
shunning opportunities to communicate and work with others.
A holistic learning style, on the other hand, is shown by the individual’s ability to
interpret situations as wholes. Such learners are not such effective information
processors and depend on external reference points such as other people’s opinions.
However, they are excel in communication situations and seek out opportunities to
receive good quality, relevant input and are more sociable and people-oriented.
Witkin is not claiming that some people have greater ability than others, but that there
are differences in the way people interact with the world and perceive and organize
information. Neither type of learning style is better than the other but each is
advantageous for different tasks.
However, the main drawback to the concept of FD/I is that it is a polarized view. It is
easy to categorise people at extreme ends of the continuum but those in the middle are
harder to classify. Brown (1994) makes the point that people are flexible and may adapt
to different situations in different ways. People are thus not fixed at one end of the
continuum for all tasks and learning style may vary according to the situation.
In language learning FD/I has not been shown to be a significant influence on language
proficiency. Skehan (1989) suggests that investigators turn their attention to other issues
such as memory retention. He concludes that the outcome of FD/I tests depend a lot on
general intelligence factors. Griffiths and Sheen (1992) (quoted in Skehan, 1998) are
even more critical and claim that FD/I is a case of a construct from one discipline being
misapplied to another. The GEFT test was originally proposed as a visual/perceptual
construct and is not, in their view, applicable to language learning in any convincing
way.
50
However, Chappelle and Green (1992) defend FD/I as a learning style model and
discuss how the construct should be divided into three distinct aspects:



Reliance on internal or external frames of reference
Cognitive restructuring ability
Interpersonal competence
They argue that people are more or less likely to want to make judgments based on their
own interpretations and some will want to check against others’ opinions and may be
less confident. Chapelle and Green propose that their ‘cognitive restructuring ability’
correlates with general intelligence and other cognitive abilities including language
aptitude. They propose that the three component structure for aptitude should be
extended with a language analytic component divided into a ‘crystallised’ language
analytic ability (the capacity to draw upon relevant knowledge of language from the
learner’s L1) and a ‘fluid’ general analytic ability (capacity to solve language-learning
problems without recourse to existing language knowledge).
More recent research has tended to use two dimensions in measuring style preferences
and characteristic modes of behaviour.
Riding and Cheema (1991) state two basic problems with Witkin (1962). Firstly, that it
does not represent each of the poles of the dimension positively and that it implies that
‘holistic style’ is simply the absence of ‘analytic’. Under Witkin, ‘holists’ do not get
the chance to show their ability to apprehend integrated, unanalysed perceptions as
unified fields. Riding and Cheema add an extra dimension, namely a contrast between
visual/verbal representations, arguing that the original GEFT test was too visually
oriented. Riding and Cheema propose that an analytic/holistic approach should focus on
style of processing. Visual/verbal contrast thus targets subjects’ preferred style of
representation - that is it measures how some people prefer to think verbally and others
visually. When applied to L2 analysis of language, analytic learners prefer to search for
components of pattern in language and analyse a chunk of language into its component
parts. This may lead them to formulate rules, either implicitly or explicitly. Their mental
representation of the input they have processed will be either visual or verbal. Holistic
learners display a less flexible approach to patterns in language and prefer to deal with
language as ‘chunks’ (Riding & Cheema, 1991). They resist breaking down such
51
chunks into subsections, but prefer to retain the larger unit of language, and seek ways
of using it as it is. They, too, would then represent material verbally or visually.
Riding and Cheema (1981) have developed computer-based procedures to measure the
two dimensions of style; analytic/holistic and verbal/visual. In a similar way to the
GEFT, their test uses embedded figures to assess analytic style but also uses geometric
figures to assess holistic style, whereby subjects have to perceive a whole figure,
retaining its unity, rather than just locate a simple figure within a more complex figure.
They also use verbal judgement tests to assess verbal/visual preferences. Being
computer-based, it can record how fast subjects respond and as such, even though all
the subjects can answer the questions, the test can identify which are ‘easier’ and
whether an individual has more or less capacity to make verbal or visual judgements.
2.3.4 – 2.3.11 Learning Style Models
2.3.4 Gregorc
Gregorc (1979) also describes learning style using two dimensions, namely
abstract/concrete and serial/random. The latter is similar to Riding’s analytic/holist axis,
both focusing on how learners process information. According to Gregorc, ‘serialists’
favour methodical analysis and work through material sequentially, while ‘random’
learners take a more global view and expect to see patterns from larger amounts of
initially unstructured data. Gregorc’s second dimension, again like Riding, is concerned
with the information being represented. ‘Abstract’ learners deal well with
decontextualised material where as ‘concrete’ learners mistrust abstractions and cope
better with material in context that relates to their own personal experience.
Gregorc's Mind Styles Model identifies four major learning types (Gregorc, 1979):

Concrete Serial
52
These learners like order, logical sequence, following directions, predictability,
and getting facts. They learn best when they have a structured environment.
They can rely on others and can apply ideas in pragmatic ways. They find it hard
to deal with abstract ideas or questions with no right or wrong answer.

Abstract Random
These learners like listening to others, bringing harmony to group situations, and
establishing healthy relationships with others. They learn best when they are in a
personalized environment and given general guidelines. They find it hard to
work with dictatorial/authoritarian personalities, or in a restrictive environment
and dislike having to concentrate on one thing at a time.

Abstract Serial
These learners like to analyze a situation before making a decision or acting, and
applying logic. They learn best when they have access to experts or references,
they are placed in stimulating environments, and they are able to work alone and
have time to deal with a subject thoroughly. They find it hard having to repeat
the same tasks over and over and dislike lots of specific rules and regulations.

Concrete Random
These learners like experimenting to find answers, taking risks, using their
intuition, and solving problems independently. They learn best when they are
able to use trial-and-error approaches, and are given the opportunity to work
through problems by themselves. They dislike having to show how they reached
an answer, and being restricted to choosing only one answer.
2.3.5 Kolb
Another view of learning style is taken by Kolb (1976), who characterises it in dynamic
and static terms. Kolb’s model does not focus on how information is processed but more
53
on how the individual interacts with the world, whether actively or passively. He
proposes that learning is a cyclical process involving four stages:




concrete experience
reflection-observation
abstract conceptulisation
active experimentation
Effective learning would take in each of these stages with the cycle repeating itself as
the individual enters new and more complex levels of learning. Kolb also suggests that
some learners may be fixed at certain stages of the cycle. For example, those relying too
much on a concrete approach will be unable to relate to anything that does not arise
from their own experience.
Kolb’s Learning Styles inventory (Kolb, 1984) includes:

Diverging
People with ‘diverging’ styles are able to look at things from different
perspectives. They are sensitive, preferring to watch rather than do, and tend to
gather information and use imagination to solve problems. They are best at
viewing concrete situations from several different viewpoints. They tend to be
imaginative and emotional with broad cultural interests and like to gather
information. They are interested in people and prefer to work in groups, listen
with an open mind and receive personal feedback.

Assimilating
Those with an ‘assimilating’ learning style prefer a concise, logical approach
with more importance on ideas and concepts than people. Such learners require
good clear explanation rather than practical opportunity. They excel at
understanding wide-ranging information and organizing it in a clear logical
format. People with this style are more attracted to theories than practice and in
formal learning situations prefer readings, lectures, exploring analytical models,
and having time to think.
54

Converging
People with a ‘converging’ learning style use their learning to find solutions to
practical issues. They prefer technical tasks, and are less concerned with people.
They enjoy solving problems and making decisions as well as experimenting
with new ideas and working with practical applications.

Accommodating
The ‘accommodating’ learning style is 'hands-on', and relies on intuition rather
than logic. Such learners use other people's analyses, and prefer to take a
practical, experiential approach. They are attracted to new challenges and
experiences, and to carrying out plans. They commonly act on 'gut' instinct
rather than logical analysis while tending to rely on others for information.
People with this learning style prefer to work in teams to complete tasks. They
set targets and actively work in the field trying different ways to achieve an
objective.
2.3.6 Willing
Willing (1987) attempts to relate concepts of learning style from general psychology to
the field of language learning. Willing proposes his own two-dimensional framework of
learning style based on Kolb’s model. This consists of an analytic/holistic axis
(corresponding to field dependence/independence) and a passive/active axis which
focuses on the extent to which an individual is proactive or authority-oriented. Like
Kolb, Willing thus considers that an individual’s personality disposition is key to how
he/she processes information. On this basis Willing characterises four types of language
learner:

Convergers
These are ‘analytic’ learners who prefer to study alone and who are independent
and confident in their own abilities, able to impose their own structures on
55
learning. They like studying grammar, studying English books and reading
newspapers, finding their own mistakes and working on problems set by the
teacher.

Conformists
These are ‘authority-oriented’ learners who like the teacher to explain
everything and who prefer emphasis on learning ‘about language’ over learning
to use it. They like to have their own textbook, to write everything in a notebook,
to learn by reading and learn new words by seeing them.

Concrete learners
They are more interested in using language for communication rather than
studying it as a system. They like the social aspects of learning and like to learn
from direct experience, enjoying games, pictures, films, video, pair and group
work activities.

Communicative learners
They are confident at using the language, comfortable speaking out of class and
are more willing to take risks. They are much more interested in social
interaction with other speakers of the language than they are with analysing how
the language works. They are prefectly happy to work without the guidance of a
teacher. They like watching TV in English and learning new words by hearing
them.
In a major study of learning styles among adult learners of English as a second langauge
in Australia, Willing (1987) obtained data on the learning preferences of 517 learners.
The main aim of the research was to determine whether or not learning style differences
can be attributed to different learner biographical variables, such as ethnic background,
age, level of previous education, and speaking proficiency level. Data was collected by
means of a questionnaire which learners completed during the course of an interview.
56
Surprisingly, the research showed that there was no significant correlation between the
biographical variables and any of the learner preferences.
None of the learning differences as related to personal variables were of a magnitude to
permit a blanket generalization about the learning preference of a particular biographical
sub-group. Thus, any statement to the effect that ‘Chinese are X’ or ‘South Americans
prefer Y’, or ‘Younger learners like Z’ or ‘High-school graduates prefer Q’, is certain to be
inaccurate. The most important single finding of the study was that for any given learning
issue, the typical spectrum of opinions on that issue were represented, in virtually the same
ratios, within any biographical sub-group. (Willing, 1989)
Willing also reports that 10% of the subjects tested were convergers, 30% conformists,
10% concrete and 40% communicative learners. Skehan (1998) points out that the
results could be very different if the study were conducted in other circumstances with
people from different backgrounds or in a country where English was not the native
language.
2.3.7 Skehan
Skehan (1998) proposes a system of characterization of individual learning styles using
two related dimensions, namely ‘degree of analysis’ and ‘amount of memory’. He
suggests that high analysis language learners would develop differentiated, organized
and rule-based representations of language and would value accuracy. Low analysis
learners, on the other hand, would not be so able to organize the language input they are
exposed to and would be less able to articulate rules. High memory learners would be
able to draw on a wide range of lexical elements, internally represented in a variety of
ways, and recall them easily in communicative situations. Low memory learners would
not have recourse to such a variety of lexical exemplars or mental representations.
2.3.8 Myers-Briggs
The models of learning style highlighted thus far have dealt mainly with the way
learners sense, think, solve problems, and remember information. However, another
category of learning style models are those that focus on personality patterns.
57
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator measures preferences on four scales derived from
Jung's Theory of Psychological Types (Myers & McCaulley, 1985). People are
classified according to their preference for:

Introversion (I) - interest is drawn mainly to the inner world of concepts and
ideas.

Extroversion (E)
- interest is drawn mainly to the outer world of actions,
objects, and persons.

Sensing (S) - tendency to perceive immediate, real, practical facts of experience
and life

Intuition (I) - tendency to perceive possibilities, relationships, and meanings of
experiences.

Thinking (T)
- tendency to make judgments or decisions objectively and
impersonally.

Feeling (F) - tendency to make judgments subjectively and personally.

Judging (J) - tendency to act in a planned and decisive way.

Perceiving (P) - tendency to act in a spontaneous and flexible way.
On this basis, it is claimed by Felder that an individual learning type can be made out of
sixteen possible combinations of these preferences (Felder, Felder, and Dietz, 2002).
For example, an ENTP would have a preference for extroversion, intuition, thinking,
and perception. A preference for one or the other category of a dimension may be mild
or strong. Students with different type preferences tend to respond differently to
different teaching styles. ‘Extroverts’ like activity and group work while ‘introverts’
prefer working alone. ‘Sensors’ like concrete learning experiences and clearly defined
expectations and dislike instruction heavy in abstractions such as theories and
mathematical models. On the other hand, ‘intuitors’ like instruction based on
understanding concepts rather than on memorization of facts, rote substitution, and
repetitive calculations. ‘Thinkers’ like logically organized presentations of course
material and feedback related to their work. ‘Feelers’ like those teachers who establish a
personal rapport with them and show appreciation of their efforts. Judgers like wellstructured instruction with clearly defined assignments, goals, and milestones.
58
‘Perceivers’ like to have choice and flexibility in their assignments and dislike rigid
timelines (Felder et al, 2002)
2.3.9 Felder-Silverman
Based on the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, at North Carolina State University Felder
and Silverman developed their own Learning Style Model (Felder & Silverman, 1988),
with engineering students in mind. It classifies students using five dimensions:

Sensing / Intuitive
Sensing learners are concrete, practical and oriented toward facts and procedures
while intuitive learners are conceptual, innovative and oriented toward theories
and meanings.

Visual / Verbal
Visual learners prefer visual representations of presented material e.g. pictures,
diagrams, flow charts while verbal learners prefer written and spoken
explanations.

Inductive / Deductive
Inductive learners prefer presentations that proceed from the specific to the
general while deductive learners prefer presentations that go from the general to
the specific.

Active / Reflective
Active learners learn by trying things out and prefer to work with others while
reflective learners learn by thinking things through, and prefer to work alone.

Sequential / Global
Sequential learners are linear, orderly, and learn in small incremental steps
while global learners are holistic, systems thinkers, and learn in large leaps.
59
2.3.10 McCarthy
Among other models that could be considered as personality-based is that built by B.
McCarthy (1990), who identified four learning styles:.

Innovative learners
They look for personal meaning while learning, draw on their values while
learning, enjoy social interaction, cooperate and want to make the world a better
place.

Analytic learners
They want to develop intellectually while learning, draw on facts while learning,
they are patient and reflective, they want to know " important things" and to add
to the world's knowledge.

Common sense learners
They want to find solutions, they value things if they are useful, they are
kinesthetic, they are practical and straightforward, they want to make things
happen.

Dynamic learners
They look for hidden possibilities, judge things by gut reactions, synthesize
information from different sources, and are enthusiastic and adventurous.
2.3.11 Gardner
60
H. Gardner's (1985) concept of multiple intelligences' is commonly viewed as, in fact, a
model of learning styles. According to this point of view, the following types of
learning styles can be identified (Gardner, 1985):

Visual Learners
These learners need to see the teacher's body language and facial expression to
fully understand the content of a lesson. They tend to prefer sitting at the front of
the classroom to avoid visual obstructions. They may think in pictures and learn
best from visual displays. They often prefer to take detailed notes to absorb the
information.

Auditory learners
They learn best through verbal lectures, discussions, talking things through and
listening to what others have to say. Auditory learners interpret the underlying
meanings of speech through listening to tone of voice, pitch, speed and other
nuances. Written information may have little meaning. These learners often
benefit from reading text aloud and using a tape recorder.

Tactile/Kinesthetic learners
They learn best through a hands-on approach, actively exploring the physical
world around them. They may find it hard to sit still for long periods and may
become distracted.
2.3.12 Practical Application of Learning Style Theory
With such a large number of different learning style models, the task of teachers to
apply the theory to their own students in specific learning environments is clearly a very
complex one.
Harmer (2001) cautions against ‘pigeonholing students with fixed descriptions so that
we assume they are always going to behave in the same way.
61
Felder too, in defence of his own Index Of Learning Styles (an online instrument
designed to assess preferences on the dimensions of the Felder-Silverman model),
recognises the need to guard against possible misuse of learning style models. He
reminds us that learning style dimensions should be viewed as continua, and not as
either/or categories.
A student’s preference for one or other pole of a given dimension may be mild, moderate or
strong.
Felder further argues that learning style profiles suggest behavioural tendencies but are
not infallible predictors of behaviour just as they do not provide a reliable measure of
students’ actual learning strengths and weaknesses and can also be affected by previous
educational experiences.
Williams and Burden (1997), writing from a social constructivist angle, are particularly
averse to current developments in the whole area of individual differences.
In dealing with averages and statistics we appear somehow to have lost track of the
individual. This kind of approach does not help us to deal effectively with such issues as
how individuals make their own sense of the process of learning a language, or how we as
teachers can best help our learners, given that they are all different. (Williams and
Burden, 1997)
They call for a different approach which will focus on
the unique contribution that each individual brings to the learning situation, and on how the
teacher can assist the learner in learning more effectively.
This is a view echoed by Harmer (2001) who says we should ‘recognise students as
individuals as well as members of a group’. He states the importance of providing
activities ‘which offer maximal advantage to the different people in the class.’ This
means in practice that some activities will be more useful for some students than others
but that ‘most of the class will be engaged with the learning process most of the time’.
Felder and Spurlin (2005) also argue that
The point of identifying learning styles is not to label individual students and modify
instruction to fit their labels. While studies have shown that greater learning may occur
when teaching styles match learning styles than when they are mismatched, a strong case
can be made against teaching exclusively to accommodate learning style preferences.
62
They advise teachers to try to provide a balanced approach to teaching such that all
students are sometimes taught in a manner that matches their learning style preferences,
and sometimes in the opposite manner
so they are forced to stretch and grow in directions they might be inclined to avoid if given the
option.
2.3.13 Learning Style Theory Applied to CALL
To what extent do learners’ preferred styles of learning influence their use of CALL as a
means of studying grammar? Chapelle (2001) states that this is a ‘thorny question’
which ‘remains an important research issue for the future’.
She does refer, however, to a study carried out by Abraham (1985) on cognitive style
and task variables in materials teaching participial phrases. Findings showed that fieldindependent (i.e. analytic and independent) language learners performed better on posttests when they had used a rule-presentation (deductive) approach and field-dependent
(i.e. holistic and dependent on others) learners performed better after using software
presenting examples of the structure (inductive).
In another study, Chapelle and Jamieson (1986) found field-independent language
students tended to have a more negative attitude to CALL-based instruction, while fielddependent students had more positive attitudes.
The literature reveals a lack of research into the area of learning style as applied to
concordancing and corpus-based approaches to language learning.
63
Chapter 3: The Experiment
This chapter outlines the procedure of the experiment central to this thesis.
It first sets out the background and aims of the study, before detailing the
target language, the subjects as well as the methods and materials used.
It then documents the inductive and deductive modes of the online lesson,
providing screenshots of relevant webpages.
3.1 Background
64
A number of computer-based initiatives for grammar teaching preceded the present
project, a brief description of which will provide a picture of the context in which the
experiment was run.
Since 2000 FLUP has liaised with the Reitoria of the University of Porto in the setting
up and maintenance of a website designated for English 3 students, specifically for
presentation and practice of the material included in their grammar third year grammar
syllabus. This self-contained grammar course is accessed via the WEB-CT learning
platform. The course has been modified and developed over the years.
The material is divided into a number of modules subdivided into units, each dealing
with a different area of the grammar syllabus. Module 1 presents the Noun Phrase and
Module 2 the Complex Sentence, with units on nominal clauses and adverbial clauses.
The grammar is presented in a variety of ways and students can to some extent choose
whether to follow a purely deductive approach or a more inductive ‘guided discovery’
type approach. For example, they can first read up on the grammar in their
accompanying Study Guide (also accessed online) and then do practice exercises on the
computer, or they can find out about the grammar and be guided to an understanding of
the main principles by following a series of online ‘lessons’ which encourage them to
think and work out the rules for themselves.
This online course did not use concordancing as a means of presenting grammar.
In 2002 the teachers of the English 3 course became involved in project ITEGO, a joint
venture with the University of Chemnitz, Germany to collaborate and share each other’s
know-how regarding online grammar teaching. Chemnitz had developed their own
Internet Grammar (Schmied, 2002) – a site designed to help students find out more
about a range of grammar areas. What is distinctive about this online grammar site is
the way that it offers the user a dual approach to learning as the following from the
homepage explains:
This web-based self-learning environment is a tool to explore English Grammar in a new
way. You can learn at your own pace and work through various grammar topics as often as
65
you like. The grammar is intended for learners at an intermediate or advanced level of
English. Throughout the Grammar we offer you two approaches and accompanying
exercises:
Discovery Approach
Challenges you to discover the rules on your own, with the help of various examples and
hints.
Explanation Approach
Will help you to learn about English Grammar by presenting rules and relating examples in
detail.
The ‘examples’ referred to in the Discovery Approach are in fact concordances
carefully selected for the most part from the BNC (British National Corpus).
Materials from FLUP’s Online Grammar were included in the Explanation section of
the Chemnitz Internet Grammar and FLUP students were encouraged to access the
Chemnitz site for further opportunities to practise.
However, it was felt that the Discovery section was only a partially inductive experience,
since the examples to illustrate the grammar were selected from the corpus and messy or
potentially confusing concordances were deliberately avoided. Attention turned to the
possibility of building a concordancer into the website so that students could actually
consult the original concordance lists and access raw language content with all the
irregularity intact.
3.2 Aims
The present project is thus a small scale attempt at providing a dual approach to learning
about a particular grammar area.
The main aim of the project is to try to discover whether or not an individual’s learning
style, specifically his/her ability to process information inductively, will influence how
successfully he/she deals with using a concordancer as a means of studying grammar as
opposed to a more conventional deductive presentation of grammar.
66
3.3 Initial Experiment
The method and materials here described constitute a second version of the experiment.
An initial experiment was run during the second semester of the academic year
2003/2004. A number of factors rendered the results of that experiment most unreliable.
These included the fact that the post-test was misguidedly included as part of the
students’ end of year grammar exam and, therefore, many of the subjects who had
followed an inductive approach were highly motivated to revise the grammar points in
question via reference books and other purely deductive means, which severely
distorted the findings as it was impossible to determine to what extent their use of the
concordancer had influenced their post-test result.
Furthermore, the pre and post-tests covered too wide an area of grammar, focusing
overmuch on low frequency linking expressions, such as lest and albeit, which it was
felt the students would be unlikely to have met but which they could ‘learn’ via the
concordancer. Correspondingly, the hands-on corpus-based lesson, on which the
research was based, was itself too lengthy and many students did not finish all the
activities, which again impacted negatively on their test results as they had not had
sufficient time to study some of the items included in the post-test.
It was also felt that students should have had more contact with hands-on concordancing
prior to the experiment, as their unfamiliarity with the tool hampered their progress
through the activities.
For all of these reasons the experiment was re-run using a different set of subjects at the
end of the first semester of the academic year 2004/2005.
3.4 The Target Language
67
The area of grammar studied in the experiment was that of connectors, specifically
linking adverbials (conjuncts) e.g. nevertheless, subordinators e.g. although and
prepositions e.g. despite.
This topic was chosen because it fitted in to the students’ third year grammar syllabus,
which focused on the complex sentence and the grammar of adverbials. Moreover,
connectors lend themselves to a corpus-based treatment since their different semantic
roles make them more like lexical items, and it is quite easy to produce concordance
lists to reveal their use and meaning.
The virtual lesson (in both modes of instruction) deals with the following selection of
linkers of each type, chosen because they share similar semantic roles:
Linking
Adverbials
(conjuncts)
Time (progressive)
Cause / Reason
Consequence
Subordinators
Prepositions
meanwhile
while
during
for this reason
because / since
due to
therefore
so
as a result of
Time (sequential)
afterwards
once
following
Concession
nevertheless
although
despite
nonetheless
though
even so
even though
though
whereas
in spite of
notwithstanding
still
Table 1. Linkers studied in the virtual lesson.
3.4.1 Linking Adverbials
68
Biber et al (1999) describe the primary function of linking adverbials as ‘to state the
speaker/writer’s perception of the relationship between two units of discourse.’ They
can be seen as signaling devices, highlighting the links between passages of text, and
are thus fundamental in providing text cohesion. Greenbaum and Quirk (1985) refer to
them as ‘conjuncts’, the term used in the materials here described.
Biber et al identify the following semantic meanings of linking adverbials: addition,
summation, apposition, result/inference, contrast/concession and transition.
Biber et al also reveal interesting corpus findings regarding the distribution of these
semantic categories across the four registers of academic prose, conversation, fiction
and news.
Linking adverbials are far more frequent in academic prose and conversation than in
news and fiction. A large number of the linking adverbials used in academic prose and
conversation express result/inference. Of particular pertinence to the present study, there
is a similar level of frequency of contrast/concession adverbials in conversation, fiction
and academic prose but far fewer in news registers.
As the above table shows, linking adverbials are syntactically realized in various ways.
The most common form is the single adverb e.g. nevertheless, but adverb phrases e.g.
even so and prepositional phrases e.g. for this reason are also found. Biber et al detail
how corpus findings reveal that ‘in conversation almost all linking adverbials are single
adverbs’ while in academic prose ‘prepositional phrases are also relatively common.’
Of interest to this study, the linking adverbials so and though are shown to be far more
common in conversation than in academic prose. So is often used in narrative accounts
to move a story along. Though is used in oral discourse as speakers mark contrasts
between one statement and another, as shown by the following example, taken from
Biber et al p.888 (punctuation unchanged):
So it should have everything, I still think it’s a bit expensive though.
69
The corpus findings also reveal something about the most common positions of linking
adverbials. In both conversation and academic prose they are most commonly found in
initial position. Indeed, So cannot occur in any other position and Still almost always
appears at the front of a sentence. Final position is the second most common position
that linking adverbials take in conversation, though in particular being very common at
the end of a sentence, as in the above example. (In fact though cannot be used as a
linking adverbial in initial position, only as a subordinator.) Medial positions are very
rare in conversation but are much more common in academic prose, where final position
is rare. Biber et al suggest that though as a linking adverbial is sometimes used in
writing that is informal or intended to resemble speech.
3.4.2 Subordinators
Also known as subordinating conjunctions, these introduce (mainly finite) subordinate
clauses. Most subordinators introduce adverbial clauses, and it is on these that the
present study focuses. Adverbial clauses express a wide range of semantic relationships,
including time, manner, reason/cause, result, concession and condition. The
subordinator signals the semantic relationship between the sub- and superordinate
clauses in a sentence.
e.g. He was screaming because he had to go home. (taken from Biber et al p. 134)
Most subordinators are single words, but there are various complex subordinators made
up of two or more words which can introduce an adverbial clause e.g. even though.
Some subordinators can have more than one semantic meaning. For example, while is
used for both time and concession/contrast. Its use to mark a temporal relationship
occurs much more often in conversation, while its use to signal a concessional meaning
is far more common in academic prose (as this very sentence demonstrates). Similarly,
since can express both temporal and causal relationships, the former much more
frequently in conversation and the latter in academic prose.
Biber et al explain that there is an overlap between subordinators and other word classes.
Indeed, the virtual lesson looks at three such linkers which can each function in more
70
than one way, namely since (preposition and subordinator), besides (preposition and
linking adverbial) and though (subordinator and linking adverbial).
Across all four registers surveyed by Biber et al most non-finite adverbial clauses are
not introduced by subordinators. The register with the largest proportion of non-finite
clauses is academic prose. In this type of discourse, and in news, non-finite clauses
express time relationships more overtly than in conversation, due to the presence of
subordinators which remove any ambiguity.
e.g.
He was accused of molesting a 14-year-old boy whom he had been counseling while
working as a school chaplain (from Biber et al p. 840)
Without the subordinator the two clauses in this sentence could be construed as having a
causal relationship.
Subordinators of purpose, time and similarity/comparison are the most common types to
signal non-finite clauses.
Biber et al point out that
many semantic categories have multiple subordinators; reason clauses can be introduced by
because, since and as, for example.
Similarly, clauses of concession can be signaled by although, though and even though.
Of particular interest to the present study, corpus findings in Biber et al reveal that
regarding these concessive subordinators, they occur in all four registers, albeit with
different preferences of use. Though is used more in conversation and fiction, while in
academic prose although is about three times as frequent. Biber et al justify suggest this
may result from an attempt to distinguish this subordinator from the common use of though
as a linking adverbial in conversation.
3.4.3 Prepositions
71
Prepositions are linkers which commonly connect with a noun phrase to form a
prepositional phrase, although they can link to a non-finite -ing clause, e.g.
he said Noreiga had called two or three times since turning himself over to U.S. forces.
(taken from Biber et al p.77)
In this case there is some ambiguity over whether the preposition is in fact a
subordinator. Another case in point is despite which frequently introduces non-finite
-ing clauses.
All the instances in this study are free prepositions; that is they are not dependent on
any specific words in the sentence.
Though most are single words, some are complex prepositions made up of two or more
words e.g. as a result of, in spite of and due to.
Biber et al point out that there is an overlap between prepositions and other word classes.
For example, with regard to prepositions in the present study, since can also function as
a subordinator and following is more commonly a verb form.
Finally, the preposition notwithstanding is included in the study – as a deliberately
challenging item to fully test the capacity of the inductive materials to help students
understand its use and meaning.
Notwithstanding is irregular in that it can appear in end position following a noun
phrase, especially in formal academic prose.
e.g. Teachers get irritated, of course they do, their elaborate and expensive training courses
notwithstanding. (taken from the BNC)
3.5 Method
72
Essentially, all the subjects were first given a questionnaire to identify their learning
style in respect to whether they favour a more or less inductive approach to learning
grammar. On this basis, the subjects were divided into two groups; inductive learners
and deductive learners. All the students then did the same pre-test.
Two approaches to the study of the same grammar area (linking devices – see section)
were devised, one an inductive approach using hands-on concordancing and the other a
more conventional deductive approach. Both were supplemented by a series of online
practice exercises designed using Hot Potatoes. Both approaches to the grammar were
computer-based with written study guides accompanying them.
All the subjects were asked to work through an online grammar lesson accessed via a
website set up specially for the experiment. The total number of 56 students were
divided into four groups. Half of the ‘inductive’ learners followed the inductive
approach while the other half followed the deductive approach. Similarly, the
‘deductive’ learners were divided into two groups each following one of the two
approaches.
Two weeks after completing the online lesson, all the subjects did the same post-test.
By comparison of the results between the two tests, conclusions could be drawn about
whether there was indeed any identifiable link between learning style and the type of
approach followed by each individual.
3.6 The Concordancer
The concordancer used for this project forms parts of the Corpógrafo ‘an integrated
web-based environment for corpus linguistics and knowledge engineering’, developed
at FLUP as part of Linguateca, ‘a distributed resource centre for Portuguese whose main
aim is to foster R&D in the processing of the Portuguese language.’ (MAIA, SANTOS
& SARMENTO, 2004). The Corpógrafo makes freely available on the web a
73
comprehensive set of text and language tools including a concordancer linked to the
BNC (British National Corpus). As a consequence, it employs the BNC’s own system
of grammatical tagging, which proved most useful in enabling more complex, specific
searches.
3.7 The Subjects
The experiment was run using all 56 available students following the English 3 course
at FLUP. These students are taking a degree in Línguas e Literaturas Modernas (LLM)
and as part of this wider course study four years of English language. The students are
divided into three variants: English/Portuguese, English/French and English/German.
Additionally, the students belong to one of two ramos or branches, namely educação or
cientifico. Essentially students of the former are hoping to eventually become teachers
whilst the latter hope to work in the field of translation.
The English language component of their course follows a broad approach, comprising
reading and writing skills, development of oral fluency and grammar learning. In
English 1 students revise the pedagogic grammar that they studied at school. Thereafter,
a more systematic approach is taken, based on A Student’s Grammar of English (Quirk
and Greenbaum, 1985) In English 2 the students focus on the elements of the simple
sentence, with particular emphasis on the verb phrase. In English 3 focus shifts to the
noun phrase and the complex sentence, with particular emphasis on adverbial clauses
and the role of conjunctions. English 4 goes on to examine text grammar and emphatic
structures such as fronting and inversion.
The students engaged in this project were therefore familiar with the simple sentence
and its constituent elements. Revision of the year 2 material was conducted at the
beginning of the semester such that by the time the students participated in this project
they were familiar with the terminology used. This was the first time that they would
examine in detail the differences between conjuncts and conjunctions.
74
As English 3 students they were also used to working with computers and using CALL
to study grammar, as the whole grammar syllabus is presented online. They were not so
familiar with using concordancers, though some had used them extensively as part of
their translation studies. Some effort was made to introduce students to concordancing
prior to the experiment, chiefly with activities focused on vocabulary and idioms.
Of the 56 subjects, 48 were female and 8 male.
3.8 The Questionnaire
The same questionnaire was given to all 56 subjects (see Appendix I).
Questions focused on the inductive/deductive axis of the Felder-Silverman Learning
Style Model. The main source was Rebecca Oxford’s Style Analysis Survey (1995) but
some questions were also drawn from How to Identify your Best Learning Styles
(Chapter 13 from How to Be a Successful Student) by Don Martin at College of Marin
(1991);
Other sources, though not focusing directly on deductive/inductive learning style, did
provide useful advice about building a questionnaire. These included The Translator as
Learner (Chapter 3 of Becoming a Translator) by Douglas Robinson (1997); Ellis and
Sinclair’s Learning to Learn English (1989); and the Index of Learning Styles (ILS)
Questionnaire developed by Soloman and Felder at North Carolina State University
(1995).
The latter, though based on the Felder-Silverman Learning Style Model, deliberately
chooses not to include questions to assess the inductive/deductive dimension. Felder
explains why in the FAQ section of his site:
Barbara Soloman and I don't want instructors to be able to give our instrument to students, find
that the students prefer deductive presentation, and use that result to justify continuing to use the
traditional deductive instructional paradigm in their courses and curricula. (Felder, 1995)
75
Results of Learning Style questionnaire
22%
Inductive Learners
Deductive Learners
78%
12 Inductive Learners
44 Deductive Learners
Fig. 3 Results of Learning Style questionnaire
The subjects were then divided into the following four groups:
 Group 1 (6 students)
‘Inductive’ Learners /
Inductive (Corpus-based) approach
 Group 2 (22 students)
‘Inductive’ Learners /
Deductive (traditional rule-based) approach
 Group 3 (6 students)
‘Deductive’ Learners /
Inductive (Corpus-based) approach
 Group 4 (22 students)
‘Deductive’ Learners /
Deductive (traditional rule-based) approach
3.9 The Pre-Test
All the subjects were given the same pre-test (see Appendix II). This consisted of
twenty sentences, taken from the BNC, each with a linker removed and a list of four
options given with which to fill in the blank space.
76
The mean average score obtained by the group of six inductive learners who were to
follow the inductive approach was 14.1. That obtained by the group of six other
inductive learners who followed the deductive approach was 13.8. The average score
obtained by the group of 22 deductive learners who were to follow the inductive
approach was also 13.8. Finally, the average score of the group of 22 other deductive
learners who followed the deductive approach was 11.3.
Pre-test Results
20
18 Ind/Ind Ind/Ded
Ded/Ind
14,1
16
13,8
13,8
14
Ded/Ded
11,3
12
10
Pre-test
8
6
4
2
0
Fig. 4 Average totals scored in the pre-test by each of the four groups (learning style /
approach).
3.10 The Inductive Lesson
The 28 students who followed the ‘inductive’ approach were divided into two batches
each of which spent a two-hour session in a computer room, with each student working
individually at a separate terminal. They were given a printed handout (see Appendix III)
which guided them through the lesson, though onscreen instructions were also given
and students were encouraged to follow these (since they would at certain times need to
copy/paste specific tagged search codes into the concordancer).
77
After accessing the website http://web.letras.up.pt/jlewis , the students selected
Inductive mode and then logged into the Corpógrafo, using a specially created
universal username and password, namely ‘english3’. They were then able to access the
BNC Concordancer. It was explained that the Concordancer could thereafter be
accessed either by clicking on ‘concordancer’ in the navigation bar at the top of the
screen or by clicking on ‘Concordância BNC’ in the window bar at the bottom of the
screen.
There followed a brief explanation of what a concordancer is and how to use it. See
screenshot below.
Fig. 5 Screenshot of ‘Set Up’ page from Inductive Mode
In a few simple steps students were taken through the process of how to enter words
into the concordancer and view the outcome of their search. They were encouraged to
begin by selecting words of their own choice before then viewing the results obtained
for the word “while”. The study guide informed students that none of the instances
78
show while at the beginning of a sentence and that in order to produce these they would
have to type in the code “W|while”. It was explained that in order to save time, it was
sufficient to simply copy/paste the code from the onscreen instructions into the
concordancer’s search box. See screenshot below.
Fig. 6 Screenshot of BNC Concordancer Interface
Instructions were supplied for those students who perhaps did not know how to
copy/paste using the right mouse key. This need to copy/paste the search codes was
considered very important so as both to save time and also to ensure that the codes were
entered correctly, seeing that many of those used later in the lesson were particularly
lengthy.
It should be noted in the screenshot above that the Corpógrafo divides the corpus into
10 sections labeled A to K. Students could, therefore, at any time select different
sections of the corpus and view the concordances there offered. In practice, however,
the concordancer was defaulted to section A and this provided sufficient input for
grammar analysis to be made.
79
After this brief setting up procedure, the students began the online grammar lesson
proper.
The first exercise asked them to look at the 15 linking expressions in the following box.
during
so
therefore
because
afterwards
following
for this reason
as a result of
despite
meanwhile
due to
although
nevertheless
once
afterwards
Fig. 7 Box of linkers to classify, from Exercise 1 of the Inductive Approach
They then had to fill in the chart below so that the items in each row shared a similar
meaning while those in each column shared the same grammatical function. The chart
has been completed to show the answers.
Group A
Group B
Group C
meanwhile
while
during
cause/reason
for this reason
Because
due to
consequence
therefore
so
as a result of
afterwards
once
following
nevertheless
although
despite
time (progressive)
time (sequential)
concession*
* (concessive) linkers join one idea or fact to another which is opposed to it.
Table. 2 Completed chart from Exercise 1 of the Inductive Approach
At this stage the students were not given any terminology. They simply had to try to
work out how the linkers are used by studying the concordance lines. The teacher went
around the classroom helping students to recognize patterns and by looking closely at
what type of structures precede or follow the linkers, work out which of them
functioned in similar ways. They were encouraged to look at the concordances for the
80
three examples already filled in, namely ‘meanwhile’, ‘while’ and ‘during’. For example,
attention was drawn to the fact that despite is commonly followed by a noun phrase and
that although is commonly followed by a subject and a verb (i.e. a clause). This extra
help given by the teacher was in fact very important and many students working on their
own in isolation would probably not have filled in the chart correctly. They needed to
be nudged in the right direction and may not have otherwise noticed the patterns – at
least not in this initial exercise.
In order to save the students from having to type in the codes every time, they were
given an onscreen chart from which they could copy/paste the relevant codes. See
screenshot below.
Fig. 8 Screenshot of chart from Ex.1 of the Inductive Approach, containing codes (in red) of
grammar items to enter into the concordancer.
It should be noted that some of the codes are especially lengthy, so as to focus on
particular instances of the words in question and exclude other uses which would be
potentially confusing. For example, ‘following’ is most commonly used as a verb, and
81
so to access its prepositional use a complex code had to be used. Similarly, the codes for
‘so’ and ‘once’ reveal only their use as conjunctions.
The screenshot below shows an example of concordance lines for ‘during’.
Fig. 9 Screenshot of concordances for ‘during’.
After completing the chart in their handout, the students clicked on Go to Ex.2 Part i).
This took them to a page showing the completed chart for them to check and with
instructions to then use the concordancer, with the same onscreen codes, to answer a
series of multiple choice questions in their handout.
The following shows the first of these questions (for complete list see Appendix III).
1. Which group of linkers can usually be omitted without affecting the
grammar/syntax of the sentence?
‫ ٱ‬Group A
‫ٱ‬
Group B
‫ ٱ‬Group C
82
The aim of this exercise was to focus students’ conscious attention on the grammatical
differences between the linkers, looking again at such things as punctuation, word order
and what type of structures typically follow the linkers.
The last three of these questions asked students to identify what each type of linker is
called – conjuncts, conjunctions or prepositions. This information they, of course, were
unlikely to have known, so they were encouraged to make a guess.
Having completed this multiple choice exercise on their handouts, the students were
then told to do online Ex.2.ii). This was essentially the same exercise but completed
online using one of Hot Potatoes’ exercise templates. See below.
Fig 10. Screenshot of Interface for Exercise 2 of the Inductive approach, made using Hot
Potatoes software
A smiley face appeared when the correct option was chosen. Additional feedback
appeared in the space at the top of the screen as well as the student’s cumulative
percentage score. The students had already done the necessary thinking, so used this
exercise as a means of checking their answers. It would have been much too easy if they
83
had done this online version of the multiple choice exercise first, as they would have
been tempted merely to click on box A, B or C until the smiley face appeared, without
necessarily thinking about the question, much less actively looking at the concordance
lines as they did so when completing the exercise on their handout.
Exercise 3 focused on three linkers – since, besides and though – which can function in
more than one way. By consulting the corpus students had to determine what two
functions each linker can perform and in the case of since how the meaning changes as
well. As before, the students were supplied with the necessary codes and feedback was
conducted in the same way via a Hot Potatoes exercise.
Exercise 4 gave the students the chance to manipulate some of the linkers they had been
studying by joining two short sentences together into one using a given linker. This was
done using another of Hot Potatoes’ exercise templates (see screenshot below).
Fig 11. Screenshot of Interface for Ex. 4 of the Inductive approach, made using Hot Potatoes
84
The extent to which the computer appears ‘intelligent’ in such an exercise relies on the
extent to which the teacher predicts the students’ responses. Effort was made to
anticipate several possible correct answers.
The remainder of the lesson focused on more linkers with a concessive meaning. As in
the first exercise, students were given a box containing seven linkers.
whereas
even so
notwithstanding
still
even though
nonetheless
in spite of
Fig 12. Box of linkers from Exercise 5 of the Inductive Approach
They had to put the linkers into a chart, this time labeled with the terms conjuncts,
conjunctions and prepositions and already containing the concessive linkers
encountered in the lesson thus far.
Group A
Group B
Group C
Conjuncts
Prepositions
nevertheless
Conjunctions
(subordinators)
although
though
though
despite
Table 3. Chart to be completed in Exercise 5 of the Inductive Approach
85
As before, an onscreen chart with the appropriate codes was supplied. See below.
Fig. 13 Screenshot of chart from Ex.5 of the Inductive Approach, containing codes (in red) of
grammar items to enter into the concordancer
This was especially important in the case of still so as to reveal its function as a
conjunct. It was thus decided to limit instances of still to those where it appears in initial
position. Even so, many of the resulting concordances also show how still can be a
disjunct or an adjective. It was felt, however, that following the understanding they had
built up thus far, students would be able to pick out the relevant instances, namely those
where still is followed by a comma See screenshot below.
86
Fig. 14 Screenshot of concordances for ‘Still’ as a conjunct.
The screenshot below shows the completed chart.
Fig. 15 Screenshot of completed chart for Ex.5 and table of codes for Ex. 6
87
Exercise 6 got students to look more closely at though, notwithstanding and even so by
working through a multiple choice exercise on their handout. This exercise aimed to
show students how when though is used as a conjunct it appears at the end of a sentence,
especially in more informal contexts. The focus on notwithstanding was aimed at
showing how this linker is used in very formal writing and can appear at both the
beginning at end of a noun phrase, something that sets it apart from despite and which
students would not be familiar with.
The code for though (see highlighted in blue in the screenshot above) was again
designed so as to highlight its use as a conjunct. A selection of corresponding
concordances appear below.
Fig. 16 Screenshot of concordances for ‘though’ as a conjunct
The final two exercises (Ex. 7 and 8) used Hot Potatoes templates to provide students
with further practice opportunities at manipulating the forms. The first of these was a
straightforward gap-fill exercise using the linkers studied (see below).
88
Fig. 17 Screenshot of interface for Ex. 7, made using Hot Potatoes software
The final exercise provided students with an opportunity to join together sentences
using the linkers given.
Fig. 18 Screenshot of interface for Ex. 8, made using Hot Potatoes software
89
3.11 The ‘Deductive’ Lesson
The 28 students who followed a more traditional rule-based approach were given a
handout (see Appendix IV) containing an explanation of the same grammar points
covered by the ‘inductive’ lesson. No attempt was made here to guide the learner to an
understanding of the grammar and there was no recourse to the concordancer. These
students were expected simply to read about the three types of linkers – conjuncts,
conjunctions and prepositions – and apply the knowledge thereby gained to the same set
of online ‘Hot Potatoes’ exercises as encountered in the ‘inductive’ lesson. Both
approaches thus used the same practice exercises but differed considerably in the way
the grammar was presented.
This group of students likewise took part in an online lesson, accessing the same
website but selecting ‘deductive mode’. The information could also be read onscreen –
see screenshot below.
Fig.
19 Screenshot of information about conjuncts from Ex. 1 of the deductive mode
3.12 The Post-Test
Two weeks after the online lesson, all 56 students did the same post-test (see Appendix
5). This was essentially identical to the pre-test with only the contexts changed.
90
Chapter 4: Results
This chapter presents the findings of the post-test, with accompanying
statistical analysis, and results of the post-project questionnaire.
91
4.1 Post-test Results
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
14,1
15,1
13,8
13,8
11,5
12,9
11,3 11,7
Pre-test
Post-test
Ind/Ind Ind/Ded Ded/Ind Ded/Ded
Fig. 20 Chart showing the average scores obtained by each group in the post-test compared to
those in the pre-test. (Ind/Ind = Inductive learners with inductive approach.)
'Inductive' Learners /
Inductive (Corpus) Approach
6 students
'Inductive' Learners /
Deductive Approach
6 students 17%
higher
same
50%
0%
50%
higher
same
lower
83%
'Deductive' Learners /
Inductive (corpus) Approach
22 students
higher
27%
60%
same
lower
'Deductive' Learners /
Deductive Approach
22 students
32%
45%
higher
same
lower
23%
13%
Fig. 21 Charts showing to what extent the post-test scores obtained by students in each group
were higher than the pre-test.
92
The average score obtained in the post-test by the group of 6 ‘inductive’ learners who
followed the inductive approach was 15.1, an increase of 7.8% on the pre-test. Of these
students, 50% had the same score in the two tests while the other 50% scored higher.
The average score obtained by the 6 ‘inductive’ learners who followed the deductive
approach was 11.5, a 20% decrease from the pre-test. Of these, 83% scored lower in the
post-test and only student scored higher.
The group of 22 ‘deductive’ learners who followed the inductive approach had an
average score in the post-test of 12.9, a 7% decrease from the pre-test. 60% of the
scores in this group were lower in the post-test, 32% were the same and 45% higher.
The group of 22 ‘deductive’ learners who followed the deductive approach had an
average score in the post-test of 11.7, an increase of 3.5% on the pre-test. 60% of the
scores in this group were lower in the post-test, 32% were the same and 45% higher.
93
4.2 Statistical Analysis
4.2.1 Correlations
In order to create one variable for statistical analysis, the 56 students were divided into
two groups: those where learner style matches the approach followed and those where
there is no match. A second variable was created by calculating the differences between
the pre and the post test. Using SPSS, this information was entered and a correlation
analysis was performed (see table below) to measure the degree or strength of a linear
association between the two variables.
Such analysis reveals the Pearson correlation coefficient, which is a numerical measure
of linear association between two variables that takes the values between -1 (perfectly
strong and indirect relationship) to +1 (perfectly strong and direct relationship). Values
near zero indicate a lack of linear relationship. In this case the correlation value is 0.315,
indicating a ‘significant’ degree of relationship between pre/post test differences and
matching learner style/approach. As the table below shows, the correlation value is
significant at the 0.05 level. Thus it 95% certain that the correlation is not accidental.
The value of 0.018 is the p-value associated with the correlation; that is the probability
of getting a result as extreme or more extreme than the one observed if the proposed
null hypothesis is correct. A p-value of .018 indicates that there is only a 1.8% chance
of drawing the sample being tested if the null hypothesis was actually true. Thus, it
confirms the statistical significance of the correlations.
Correl ations
Difference between
Post and Pre Test
Learner Sty le
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Pearson Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed)
N
Difference
between Post
and Pre Test Learner Sty le
1
,315*
,
,018
56
56
,315*
1
,018
,
56
56
*. Correlation is s ignificant at t he 0.05 level (2-t ailed).
Table 4: SPSS Correlations table showing strength of relationship between pre/post test results
and matching learner style/approach
94
4.2.2 Regression
However, correlations do not show direction of causality i.e. that matching learning
style/approach was responsible for the difference in test results. Therefore, a simple
linear regression analysis was performed, confirming that matching learner
style/approach is a significant predictor of the difference between the pre and post-test
results.
The Model Summary table below contains the necessary summary statistics for
assessing the accuracy of the estimated sample regression line (SRL). R is the sample
correlation coefficient. The meaning of r = .351 is the same as the Pearson correlation
value given earlier – that the relationship between pre/post test result differences and
matching learner style/approach is significant.
R-square is the sample Coefficient of Determination, which measures the goodness-offit of the estimated SRL in terms of the proportion of the variation in the dependent
variable explained by the fitted sample regression equation or SRL. Thus, the value
of .099 means that 9.9% of the variation in pre/post test results is accounted for by the
predictor of difference, in this case matching learner style/approach.
Adjusted R-Square is the sample Coefficient of Determination after adjusting for the
degrees of freedom lost in the process of estimating the regression parameters.
Standard Error of the Estimate is a summary statistic measuring the overall accuracy or
quality of the estimated SRL in terms of the average unexplained variation in the
dependent variable that may be due to possible errors that could originate from chance
sampling errors, or possible variation in the parameter.
Model Summ aryb
Model
1
R
R Square
,315a
,099
Adjust ed
R Square
,083
St d. Error of
the Es timate
2,59229
a. Predic tors: (Constant), Learner Sty le
b. Dependent Variable: Difference between Post and Pre
Test
Table 5: SPSS Model Summary table showing results of simple linear regression analysis.
95
An ANOVA (Analysis of Variation) test (or F-test) was also run (see table below). It
tests the difference in means between two groups, in this case those students whose
learner style matched the learning approach and those where there was no match. It
calculates the total sum of squares in the dependent variable i.e. pre/post test differences.
The term Regression refers to the explained sum of squares, while Residual refers to the
remaining sum of squares which is unexplained and attributable to errors. ‘df’ refers to
the degrees of freedom associated with the sources of variance. F here refers to the
variance or difference between the means of the two groups and the figure of 5.949
shows significant variance. .018 is the p-value as explained above.
ANOVAb
Model
1
Regres sion
Residual
Total
Sum of
Squares
39,978
362,879
402,857
df
1
54
55
Mean Square
39,978
6,720
F
5,949
Sig.
,018a
a. Predic tors: (Constant), Learner Style
b. Dependent Variable: Difference between Pos t and Pre Test
Table 6: SMSS ANOVA, or F-Test, table, showing analysis of variation between the means in
each group.
The table below contains the estimated regression coefficients.
The figure of 1.691 represents the marginal effect of matching learner style/approach on
the mean difference between pre and post test results. The figure of .693 is a measure of
the precision of the estimated value of 1.691. The Standardized Coefficient, or beta
coefficient, is the same as the correlation coefficient R = .315. This confirms once again
that matching learner style/approach is an significant determinant of mean test result.
Coeffi cientsa
Model
1
(Const ant)
Learner St yle
Unstandardized
Coeffic ient s
B
St d. Error
-2, 863
1,084
1,691
,693
St andardiz ed
Coeffic ient s
Beta
,315
t
-2, 641
2,439
Sig.
,011
,018
a. Dependent Variable: Difference between Post and Pre Test
Table 7: SPSS Coefficients table showing estimated regression coefficients.
96
4.2.3 T-Test
An independent samples T-Test was also run which shows that the difference between
the means of the test results is statistically significant.
Group Statistics
Std. Error
Learner Style
N
Mean
Std. Deviation
Mean
Difference between
Learner Style Does
Post and Pre Test
Not Match Approach
28
-1,1724
2,42117
,44960
Learner Style
28
,5185
2,76476
,53208
Matches Approach
Table 8: SPSS T-Test table showing the descriptive statistics for the two groups, that
where learner style matches approach and that where it does not.
The Independent Samples Test table below shows the Levene's Test for Equality of
Variances. This indicates whether the two groups have approximately equal variance on
the dependent variable. The figure of .957 in the Sig. Column shows that the two
variances are not significantly different and indeed display almost equal variance. Since
the significance for Levene's test is above 0.05, then the "Equal Variances
Assumed" test is used (the one on the top).
The T value is -2.439 with 54 degrees of freedom. The p-value of.018 shows
that there is a significant difference between the two groups.
97
Independent Samples Test
Levene's Test for
Equality of Variances
F
Difference between
Post and Pre Test
Equal variances
assumed
Equal variances
not assumed
Sig.
,003
,957
t-test for Equality of Means
t
df
Sig. (2-tailed)
Mean
Difference
Std. Error
Difference
95% Confidence
Interval of the
Difference
Lower
Upper
-2,439
54
,018
-1,6909
,69326
-3,08084
-,30103
-2,427
51,842
,019
-1,6909
,69660
-3,08886
-,29301
Table 9: SPSS Independent Samples Test
4.3 Post-project Questionnaire
The students in the two groups that followed the inductive, corpus-based approach were
given a questionnaire to obtain feedback on their learning experience. (See Appendix 6)
Questions focused on what they thought about studying grammar using the
concordancer.
In response to the question ‘How easy was the Concordancer tool to use?’ 66% of
students in each of the groups responded that it was ‘easy’ and 17% said it was ‘very
easy’. 17% of students in each of the groups said that it was ‘difficult’.
When asked about how useful they found the Concordancer tool as a means of studying
grammar, two out of the six ‘inductive’ learners who had used it (33% of the group)
responded that it was ‘very useful’ and the other four students in this group (67% of the
total) said that it was ‘quite useful’. Of the 22 deductive learners who used it, 82%
thought that it was ‘quite useful’, 9% that it was ‘very useful’ and 9% that it was ‘not
very useful’.
All of the ‘inductive’ learners thought that it was ‘easy’ to identify patterns of grammar
and work out rules using the Concordancer tool. 57% of the ‘deductive’ learners
thought likewise while 43% of this group thought that it was ‘difficult’.
67% of the ‘inductive’ learners would also have liked to have the grammar rules given
in a more traditional way whilst 33% said they would not. All but 5% of the ‘deductive’
learners responded that they would have preferred a more traditional approach.
98
The ‘inductive’ learners were divided when it came to the question of whether they
would like to study grammar in this way again in the future, with three of them (50%)
saying they would like to and the other three saying they would not. 64% of the
‘deductive’ learners said they would like to use the tool to study grammar in the future
with 36% saying they would not.
The following charts serve to illustrate these findings
Fig. 22
How easy was the Concordancer tool to use?
Inductive Learners /
Inductive Approach
17%
Very Easy
Easy
Difficult
Very Difficult
Deductive Learners /
Inductive Approach
Very Easy
17%
Easy
Difficult
66%
17%
17%
66%
Very
Difficult
99
Fig. 23
How useful did you find the Concordancer tool as a means of
studying grammar?
Inductive Learners /
Inductive Approach
33%
Deductive Learners /
Inductive Approach
Very
Quite
Not very
Not at all
67%
9%
9%
Very
Quite
Not very
Not at all
82%
Fig. 24
How easy was it for you to identify patterns of grammar and
work out ‘rules’ using the Concordancer tool?
Inductive Learners /
Inductive Approach
Deductive Learners /
Inductive Approach
Very Easy
Very Easy
Easy
43%
Dificult
100%
Very
Difficult
57%
Easy
Difficult
Very
Difficult
100
Fig. 25
Would you also have liked to have the grammar rules given
to you in a more traditional and straight forward way?
Deductive Learners /
Inductive Approach
Inductive Learners /
Inductive Approach
5%
33%
67%
Yes
No
Yes
No
95%
Fig.26
Would you like to study grammar in this way again in the future?
Inductive Learners /
Inductive Approach
Deductive Learners /
Inductive Approach
36%
50%
Yes
No
Yes
No
50%
64%
101
102
Chapter 5: Conclusions
This chapter offers a conclusion based on the results of the experiment
and discusses lessons to be drawn and plans for future research.
5.1 Conclusions
The findings suggest strongly that learning style, more specifically the learner’s
preferred way of processing new information – whether tending more towards an
inductive style or a deductive style – does indeed have an influence on the effectiveness
of using a corpus-based approach to present grammatical concepts.
In the context of third year language students at FLUP, it would appear that a guideddiscovery approach involving learners in the process of inducing rules from analysis of
examples (in this case concordance lines) strongly favours those with a more inductive
learning style.
Perhaps the more telling conclusion, however, is that the converse is also true and that
such a hands-on approach using onscreen concordances (albeit filtered to some extent
using pre-selected codes) does not, in fact, favour the majority of students, who prefer a
more deductive means of learning. Indeed, the results suggest that many students were
103
confused by the inductive online ‘lesson’ and did not learn how the linkers are used or
what the differences in their grammatical properties are.
Interestingly, the same proportion (two-thirds) of students in the two groups who used
the corpus-based approach said they found the concordancer tool easy to use. This
suggests that the reason for the disparity in what the two groups actually learned was
not due primarily to any perceived difficulty that the students had in using the
concordancer. The reason, it would seem, lies much more in their comparative cognitive
ability to process information, and the necessity to work out rules from raw data proved
in many cases to hamper the learning process and cause more confusion, whilst at the
same time appearing to aid those who readily recognize and formulate rules for
themselves. Indeed, 43% of the ‘deductive’ learners studying the corpora data did
express that they found it difficult to identify patterns and work out rules using the
concordancer.
Of course, it is likely that some students were unable to define clearly their preferred
learning style. Indeed, there were several cases where students’ responses to the initial
questionnaire showed discrepancies. It is important to stress that the 12 students who
were categorized as ‘inductive’ learners were only those who came out strongly
favouring an inductive approach on the basis of the questionnaire. A number of students
in the ‘deductive/deductive’ group may have actually been more inductively inclined
without necessarily knowing it, being predisposed towards a deductive approach to
learning because of their previous educational experience. Such students could well
have improved in the post-test as a result of using the concordancer.
It is interesting that a significant number (64%) of the ‘deductive’ students using the
tool said they would like to use it in the future, though the overwhelming majority of
this group said they would also like to have grammar rules presented in a more
traditional way. It would seem to be the case, therefore, that many students would
benefit from a mixture of the two approaches – a combination of explicit rules and the
opportunity to further analyse and confirm these rules through studying concordance
lines.
104
It is almost certain that the results would have been different if the students had had
much more experience using concordancers prior to the experiment. With this extra
training students may then have become more used to how to look for and identify
patterns. Then again, considering that all the students were in the same position
regarding lack of previous exposure to concordancers, the snapshot view offered by this
experiment does, nevertheless, suggest that a pure hands-on approach is especially
beneficial to those with a more inductive learning style.
In hindsight there are a number of things that could have been done differently in order
to clarify the grammar concepts and aid learning. Chief among these was the way in
which the concordance lines were arranged on the screen. It would have been better to
use a concordancer that displayed the lines with the keyword in the middle (a good
example being the Lextutor Online Concordancer detailed in Chapter 2). The main
reason why such a means of presentation would have been preferable is that many of the
connectors were adverbial conjuncts and as such link back to the preceding sentence, or
indeed paragraph. Using the BNC Interface belonging to Linguateca it was not possible
for students to look back at previous statements since the concordancer was
programmed only to show the sentences in which the keyword was contained. Thus the
students were unable to use the overall context to understand the meaning and use of the
linkers, something which is fundamental to an understanding of the differences between
‘even so’ and ‘even though’, for example. Another advantage of concordancers like the
Lextutor is that the user can click on the keyword in each concordance line and open a
separate window showing the section of the original text where the concordance was
drawn from.
Though it is an accepted prescriptive rule that conjuncts are separated by commas, this
is not always the case and native speakers often neglect to add this punctuation.
Therefore, many instances of linking adverbials in initial position were not followed by
a comma and many students were confused by this. Indeed, this raises another issue
arising from getting students to try to induce rules from raw corpora data. It was evident
that students were often drawn to the irregularities in a list of concordances and failed to
perceive that the majority of instances listed onscreen were actually following a
particular pattern. Again, this tendency not to see the wood for the trees, as it were,
could be partially rectified by giving students more pre-training in using concordancers.
105
In hindsight, some of the linkers did produce potentially confusing lists of concordances,
especially while, which is clearly a subordinator but often introduces non-finite -ing
clauses – not something the lesson ‘guide’ mentioned. Similarly once caused some
confusion as the data included a mixture of finite and non-finite clauses. More
sophisticated codes could perhaps be devised to combat this problem and filter out the
-ing clauses. Then again, it is important that students are aware that while and once
function in this way.
The key problem with this approach could have been in the central idea of getting
students to classify the linkers according to tight parameters and rigid patterns.
Exceptions are always then going to stick out like a sore thumb and potentially distract
students from recognizing the underlying regularities and patterns.
Finally, it would seem clear that if students struggled to induce rules about the use of
linkers – a comparatively straightforward area of grammar – then how much harder
would they find it to work out the patterns of use involved in more complex areas such
as instances of ‘if’ or modal verbs? An exclusively hands-on data-driven approach to
grammar study is probably only to be recommended for students who are clearly
inductive learners.
5.2 Future research
As mentioned above, this experiment offers very much only a snapshot view of how the
effectiveness of concordancing may be affected by students’ preferred learning style. In
order to more accurately determine a student’s optimum learning style, more than a
simple questionnaire is required. Students could be asked to reflect on how they study
over a longer period of time, and then answer a subsequent questionnaire.
In future, a wider sample of subjects should be tested, as here there were only a small
number of inductive learners. Clearly, other variables also influence students’
performance in tests like those administered here, including previous educational
background and facility for using computers. However, with more extensive learner
training in using concordancers, interference from these other factors can be reduced.
106
The experiment carried out here, was part of a wider project aimed at providing a fullyfledged online grammar course for third year English students at FLUP. The results are
helpful in determining how best to incorporate corpora-based exercises of this nature
into a program of online grammar activities.
For the study of those grammar items, such as connectors, which lend themselves to a
corpus approach, one solution would be to provide two modes of study in much the
same way as demonstrated here. Students could be asked to do a questionnaire online,
which would automatically suggest that they were either inductive or deductive learners.
Students would then choose their mode of study accordingly with inductive learners
doing exercises involving the analysis of corpus-data using a concordancer, albeit with
guidance from an online tutorial, vital for providing feedback to their hypotheses about
grammar rules.
Another solution would be not to give students choice over whether they studied a given
grammar item deductively or inductively, but instead to vary the approach used so that
some virtual ‘lessons’ would be presented more traditionally and others using hands-on
concordancing. That way all the students would follow their preferred approach some of
the time, and would likely benefit from being offered a mix of lesson treatments.
From the point of view of teaching grammar, or at least facilitating its study, this
experiment has shown that even though a teacher may be very enthusiastic about a
particular approach to learning, he must pay attention to the needs and preferences of
his individual students and try to tailor the materials he produces (whether on paper or
online) in order to accommodate them. It is important, therefore that he does not expect
all students to respond equally to hands-on concordancing but should encourage them to
see it as a tool to aid learning. Otherwise he runs the risk of alienating students and
actively harming the learning process.
107
Bibliography
Abraham, R.G. (1985). Field independence-dependence and the teaching of grammar.
TESOL Quarterly, 19; pp 689-702.
Baigent, M. (1999). Teaching in chunks: integrating a lexical approach. In
Modern English Teacher 8 / 2.
Bedford, T. A. (2004). Learning styles: a review of literature. Toowoomba, OPACS,
The University of Southern Queensland.
Bednar, A.K., Cunningham, D., Duffy, T.M., & Perry, J.D. (1991). Theory into
practice:
How do we link? In G.L. Anglin (Ed.), Instructional
technology: Past, present, & future (pp. 88-101). Englewood, CO: Libraries
Unlimited.
Chomsky, N. (1987). The Chomsky Reader. New York: Pantheon
108
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R., (1994) Corpus-based approaches to
issues in applied linguistics. In Applied Linguistics, 15 (2), pp 169-189.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999).
Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London. Longman.
Brown, H.D. (1994) Principles of Language Learning and Teaching. Englewood
Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Carroll, J. (1981). Twenty-five years of research on foreign language aptitude.
In Diller, K. (ed), Individual differences and universals in language learning
aptitude. pp. 83-118. Newbury House, Rowley, Massachusetts.
Chapelle, C. (2001). Computer Applications in Second Language Acquisition.
Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
Chapelle, C., & Jamieson, J. (1986). Computer-assisted language learning as a predictor
of success in acquiring English as a second language. In TESOL Quarterly, 20 pp.
27-46.
Chapelle, C., & Green, P. (1992). Field independence/dependence in second language
acquisition research. In Language Learning, 42 pp. 47-83.
Clarke, M (1992). Vocabulary learning with and without computers: Some
thoughts on a way forward. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 5 (3),
139-146.
Cobb, T. (1997). From Concord to Lexicon: Development and Test of a Corpus-
Based Lexical Tutor. PhD Thesis, Department of Educational Technology,
Concordia University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Cobb, T. (1997). Is there any measurable learning from hands-on concordancing? In
System, 25 (3), pp.301-315. Division of Language Studies, City University of Hong
Kong.
Crystal, D. (1995). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language .
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Downing, A., & Locke, P. (1992). A University Course in English Grammar.
Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.
109
Ellis, G., & Sinclair, B. (1989). Learning to Learn English. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Felder, R.M., & Silverman, L. (1988). Learning and Teaching Styles in Engineering
Education. In Engr. Education, 78(7); pp 674-681 University of North Carolina.
Felder, R.M., & Henriques, E.R.(1995). Learning and Teaching Styles in Foreign and
Second Language Education. In Foreign Language Annals, Spring 1995: University
of North Carolina.
Felder, R.M., & Soloman, B.A. (1995) Index of Learning Styles (ILS) Online
Questionnaire. North Carolina State University.
Felder, R.M., Felder, G.N. & Dietz, E.J. (2002). The Effects of Personality Types on
Engineering Student Performance and Attitudes. In Journal of Engineering
Education, 91(1), 3-17.
Felder, R.M., & Spurlin, J. (2005). Applications, Reliability and Validity of the Index of
Learning Styles. Pdf University of North Carolina.
Flowerdew, J. (1996). Concordancing in Language Teaching. In Pennington,
M.C. (ed.), The Power of CALL. Athelstan.
Fortune, A. (1992). Self study grammar practice: learners' views and
preferences. In ELT Journal 46 (2): pp 160-171.
Gardner, H. (1985). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York:
Basic Books Inc.
Goodfellow, R. (1995). The language learner and the computer - what's really
going on in there? Interpreted results from a vocabulary-learning program.
Pdf - Paper presented at Eurocall95, Valencia.
Greenbaum, S., & Quirk, R. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English
Language. Harlow: Longman.
Gregorc, A. (1979). An Adult’s Guide to Style. Columbia: Gregorc Associates.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1973) Explorations in the Functions of Language. London: Edward
Arnold.
Hanson-Smith, E. (1993). Dancing with concordances. CÆLL Journal, 4 (2), 40.
110
Harmer, J. (2001) The Practice of English Language Teaching . Harlow:
Longman.
Higgins, J. (1988). Language, learners and computers: Human intelligence and
artificial unintelligence. London: Longman.
Higgins, J., & Johns, T. (1984). Computers in Language Learning. Reading: AddisonWesley.
Honeyfield, J. (1989). A typology of exercises based on computer generated
concordance material. In Guidelines, 11(1), pp. 42-50.
Hymes, D.H. (1972) On Communicative Competence. In: Brumfit, C.J. & Johnson, K.
The Communicative Approach to Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press,
Hunston, S. (2002) Corpora in Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Hunston, S., & Francis, G. (1999) Pattern Grammar: A corpus-driven approach
tot eh lexical grammar of English. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Johns, T. (1991). Should you be persuaded: two samples of data-driven
learning materials. In Johns, T., & King, P.(eds), Classroom Concordancing.
English Language Research
Journal, 4.
(pp.
1-16). University
of
Birmingham: Centre for English Language Studies.
Johns, T. (1994). From printout to handout: grammar and vocabulary teaching
in the context of data-driven learning. In Odlin, T (ed.), Perspectives on
Pedagogical Grammar (pp. 293-313). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Kettemann, B. (2000). Concordancing in English Language Teaching. Pdf
Universtiy of Graz, Austria.
Kolb, D.A. (1976). Learning Styles Inventory. Boston: McBer.
Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: Experience as the source of learning and
development. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
111
Krashen, S. (1982) Principles and Practice in Second Language Acquisition. Oxford:
Pergamon
Krashen, S. (1985). The Input Hypothesis: Issues and Implications. Longman
Larsen-Freeman, D., & Long, M.H. (1991) Explanations for differential success
among second language learners. Ch.6 of An Introduction to Second
Language Acquisition Research. London: Longman.
Leech, G., & Candlin, C.N. (1986). Computers in English language teaching and
research. London: Longman.
Leech, G. (1997) Teaching and language corpora: a convergence. In
Wichmann, A., Fligelstone, S., McEnery, T, & Knowles, G. (eds), Teaching
and Language Corpora (pp. 1-24). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
Lewis, M. (1996). The English Verb. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
Lewis, M. (1997). Implementing the Lexical Approach. Hove: Language
Teaching Publications.
Lyons, J. (1970) Chomsky. Fontana
Martin, D. (1991) How to Identify your Best Learning Styles. In How to be a Successful
Student. San Anselmo, CA: Martin Press LLC.
McCarthy, B. (1990). Using the 4MAT system to bring learning styles to schools. In
Educational Leadership, 48(2), pp. 31-36.
Mindt, D.(2000). An Empirical Grammar of the English Verb System. Berlin:
Cornelsen.
Myers, I.B. & McCaulley, M.H. (1985). Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use
of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, Consulting Psychologists Press, Palo Alto, CA.
Nattinger, J., & DeCarrico, J. (1992) Lexical Phrases and Language Teaching.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Oxford, R. (1995) Style Analysis Survey. In Reid, J. (ed), Learning Styles in the EFL /
ESL classroom pp. 208-215. Boston: Thomson International.
Pinker, S. (1999) Words and Rules. Weidenfeld and Nicholson.
112
Prabhu, N. (1987). Second Language Pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ranalli, J. M. (2001). Consciousness Raising versus deductive approaches to
language learning: a study of learner preferences. Pdf file from Centre for
English Language Studies, University of Birmingham, UK
Reiff, J. (1992). What research says to the teacher: Learning styles.
Washington, DC: National Education Association.
Riding, R., & Cheema, I. (1991). Cognitive styles – an overview and integration. In
Educational Psychology, 11 pp. 193-215.
Robinson, D. (1997) The Translator as Learner Ch. 3 of Becoming a Translator.
London: Routledge.
Rutherford, W.E. (1987). Second Language Grammar: Learning and Teaching.
Harlow: Longman.
Schmied, J. (2002) Exploring the Chemnitz Internet Grammar. Pdf Chemnitz
University of Technology, Germany.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The Role of Consciousness in Second Language Learning.
In Applied Linguistics, Vol. 11, no.2, pp 17-46.
Sinclair, J.M. (ed.) (1987). Looking Up: An Account of the COBUILD Project.
London: Harper Collins.
Sinclair, J.M., & Renouf, A. (1988). ‘A lexical syllabus for language learning’ in
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (eds) Vocabulary and Language Teaching.
London: Longman.
Skehan, P. (1989). Individual Differences in Second-Language Learning. London:
Edward Arnold.
Skehan, P. (1998). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Stern, H.H. (1983). Fundamental concepts of language teaching. London:
Oxford University Press.
113
Stevens, V. (1991). Concordance-based vocabulary exercises: A viable
alternative to gap-fillers. In T. Johns., & P. King. (eds.), Classroom
concordancing: English Language Research Journal, 4 (pp. 47-63).
University of Birmingham: Centre for English Language Studies.
Thornbury, S. (1999). How to Teach Grammar. Harlow: Longman.
Tonkyn, A. (1994). Introduction: In Bygate, M., Tonkyn, A. & Williams, E. Grammar
and the Language Teacher. Hemel Hempstead: Prentice Hall.
Tribble, C., & Jones, G. (1997). Concordances in the Classroom. Houston:
Athelstan.
Trudgill, P. (1974) Sociolinguistics. Harmondsworth: Cambridge University Press.
Wilkins, D.A. (1976) Notional Syllabuses. Oxford. Oxford University Press.
Williams, M., & Burden, R.L. (1997) Psychology for Language Teachers. Cambridge.
Cambridge University Press.
Willing, K. (1987). Learning Styles in Adult Migrant Education. Adelaide, Australia:
Adult Migrant Education Programme.
Willing, K. (1989) Teaching how to learn: Learning strategies in ESL. Adelaide,
Australia: Adult Migrant Education Programme.
Willis, D. (1990). The Lexical Syllabus. Glasgow: Collins Cobuild.
Willis, D. (2003). Rules, Patterns and Words: Grammar and Lexis in English
Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Witkin, H., & Goodenough, D. (1981). Cognitive styles; essences and origins.
New York: International Universities Press.
114
Appendix 1
Learner Style Questionnaire
115
NAME ______________________________ Teacher__________
1. When faced with a new learning situation ...
___a) I jump in feet first without thinking about it.
___b) I hang back to figure things out first.
2. When learning a new game...
___a) I prefer to learn the rules ‘as we go along’.
___b) I like to know all the rules before starting.
3. When learning new grammar...
___a) I prefer to look at some examples (e.g. some sentences or a text)
and try to discover a grammar rule for myself.
___b) I prefer to read or listen to a grammar explanation first and then
do some exercises.
4. In dealing with grammar rules…
___a) I like to learn rules of grammar indirectly by being exposed to
examples of grammatical structures.
___b) I like to start with rules and theories rather than specific examples.
5. How important is it for you to study explicit grammar rules in order
to understand how a language works?
___ Very important
___ Important
___ Useful, but not very important
___ Unimportant
6.
When learning a new grammar point...
116
___a) I prefer to be given simplified examples that show clearly how the
grammar structure is used.
___b) I prefer to study authentic examples of the grammar as used by
native speakers.
7. To what extent do you enjoy dealing with the ‘messiness’ of real
language use?
___Very much
___Quite a lot
___To some extent
___Not very much
___Not at all
8.
How easy is it for you to identify patterns in a foreign language
and work out grammar rules from them?
___Very easy
___Easy
___Not sure
___Difficult
___Very difficult
Appendix 2
Grammar Project
Pre-Test
Name_______________________________________________________________
117
Indicate which is the correct linking expression to fit each space by writing a, b, c
or d on the lines provided.
1. For this job you don't need any previous work experience. Two qualifications are needed, ___________.
a) although
b) notwithstanding
c) though
d) even though
2. First and foremost is that almost every facility has an OHP projector ___________ not all have slide
projectors .
a) despite
b) whereas
c) even so
d) notwithstanding
3. Industrial sabotage has been a neglected area of research, ____________ its being one of the
commonest forms of worker resistance .
a) although
b) though
c) even though
d) despite
4. Teachers get irritated , of course they do , their elaborate and expensive training courses
____________.
a) nonetheless
b) notwithstanding
c) even so
d) nevertheless
5. Vapour from a heated pool in the centre of the floor obscured Folly 's vision with a steamy , exotically
scented mist , but , _________, she could see that she was not alone .
a) even so
b) even though
c) though
d) notwithstanding
6. ___________ the Conservatives domination of the area , we can expect some exciting contests in this
election and perhaps even some upsets .
a) although
b) whereas
c) because
d) in spite of
7. Reform of the company's computer system has yet to begin. ____________, practically everything else
we set out to do has been achieved , including the next magazine and the annual report .
a) despite
b) nonetheless
c) though
d) even though
8. For some art historians, the Renaissance is a new beginning, ____________ medievalists can point
out convincingly that no one event divides the Middle Ages from the Renaissance.
a) though
b) even so
c) despite
d) nevertheless
9. ____________ you have left drama school your attention will be on the immediate problems of survival
and making progress with your work.
a) afterwards
b) while
c) once
d) following
10. An astigmatism has hampered her recovery. ____________ , today she’s having more laser
treatment to improve the sight in her left eye.
a) despite
b) notwithstanding
c) though
d) nevertheless
11. Gary Cockett, the NRA’s assistant district engineer for North Essex, said every time there was a high
tide the River Hyde at Colchester flooded ____________ the sea wall was too low.
a) in spite of
b) due to
c) because
d) as a result of
118
12. ____________ the ultimate prize had eluded King Edward, his prestige, and the military reputation of
his countrymen, was at its height in 1360.
a) despite
b) even though
c) in spite of
d) even so
13. The bank provides many services for their customers ____________ keeping their money safe.
a) besides
b) although
c) in addition
d) nevertheless
14. The UK observatory at Lerwick is now operating very well ____________ continued developments in
instrumentation, communications and data-processing software.
a) with the result that
b) so as to
c) for this reason
d) as a result of
15. Football is like a religion in Scotland and, ____________ , it has a very strong social aspect attached
to it.
a) as well as
b) besides
c) also
d) too
16. I hadn’t seen her for 15 years. ____________, I recognised her immediately when I saw her.
a) still
b) whereas
c) despite
d) even though
17. ___________ arriving in London, Sally has had over 10 job interviews.
a) once
b) afterwards
c) since
d) meanwhile
18. We used to call him ‘Skinny’ ____________ he was really fat.
a) even so
19
b) despite
c) nevetheless
d) although
This is a binding contract. ______________, we recommend that you review it with a lawyer.
a) therefore
b) as a result of
c) due to
d) although
20. _____________ Tuesday is a bank holiday (feriado), I suggest that we don’t have a lesson on
Monday.
a) due to
b) once
c) for this reason
d) since
Appendix 3:
Inductive lesson guide: Printed Handout given to ‘Inductive’ learners
119
Online Grammar Project
Inductive Approach
Welcome to the project. First, access the website: http://web.letras.up.pt/jlewis
IMPORTANT!!!
Select Inductive mode
Follow the Set Up Instructions onscreen.
Go through the 11 online exercises following the onscreen instructions.
Note: Some exercises are to be done on the printed handout which you will be given.
Grammar focus
- linkers
Exercise 1
Look at the 15 items in the box below. They are all linking expressions.
120
during
so
therefore
because
afterwards
following
for this reason
as a result of
despite
although
meanwhile
due to
nevertheless
once
afterwards
Your task is to fill in the chart below with the linkers from the box so that the items in
each row share a similar meaning and those in each column share the same
grammatical function. Look at the row that has been filled in by way of example. All
the linkers in Group A should, therefore, function like meanwhile, all those in Group B
like while and all those in Group C like during.
IMPORTANT! Consult online Exercise 1 and use the Concordancer to study the
grammar of each linker. Use the codes in the table onscreen.
Group A
time
(progressive)
cause/reason
meanwhile
Group B
while
Group C
during
consequence
time (sequential)
concession*
* (concessive) linkers join one idea or fact to another which is opposed to it.
Exercise 2
Look again at the chart you completed in Exercise 1. Answer the following questions in
order to understand more clearly how each group of linkers function.
IMPORTANT! Again use the Concordancer with the onscreen codes for Exercise 2.i.
121
1. Which group of linkers can usually be omitted without affecting the grammar/syntax
of the sentence?
‫ ٱ‬Group A
‫ٱ‬
Group B
‫ ٱ‬Group C
2. Which group of linkers join together two parts of a sentence thus providing cohesion?
‫ ٱ‬Group A
‫ٱ‬
Group B
‫ ٱ‬Group C
3. Which group of linkers are most commonly followed by a finite subordinate clause?
‫ ٱ‬Group A
‫ٱ‬
Group B
‫ ٱ‬Group C
4. Which group of linkers commonly introduce nonfinite subordinate clauses (e.g. -ing clauses)?
‫ ٱ‬Group A
‫ٱ‬
Group B
‫ ٱ‬Group C
5. Which group of linkers are usually separated from the rest of the sentence by a
comma or commas?
‫ ٱ‬Group A
‫ٱ‬
Group B
‫ ٱ‬Group C
6. Which group of linkers commonly join together an idea from one sentence or
paragraph to the next?
‫ ٱ‬Group A
‫ٱ‬
Group B
‫ ٱ‬Group C
7. Which group of linkers are very often followed by a noun phrase?
‫ ٱ‬Group A
‫ٱ‬
Group B
‫ ٱ‬Group C
8. Which group of linkers are flexible in their position and can appear at the beginning,
middle or end of a sentence?
‫ ٱ‬Group A
‫ٱ‬
Group B
‫ ٱ‬Group C
9. Which group of linkers are in fact a type of adverbial?
‫ ٱ‬Group A
‫ٱ‬
Group B
‫ ٱ‬Group C
10. What are the linkers in Group A called?
‫ ٱ‬Conjuncts
‫ٱ‬
Conjunctions
‫ ٱ‬Prepositions
11. What are the linkers in Group B called?
‫ ٱ‬Conjuncts
‫ٱ‬
Conjunctions
‫ ٱ‬Prepositions
122
12. What are the linkers in Group C called?
‫ ٱ‬Conjuncts
‫ٱ‬
‫ ٱ‬Prepositions
Conjunctions
Now do online Ex.2.ii
Exercise 3
Some linkers can function in more than one way. Let’s have a brief look at three such
examples: since, besides and though
Answer the following questions by looking the words up on the Concordancer with the
onscreen codes for Exercise 3.i. in order to see how they function.
1.
'since' can function as both a...
‫ ٱ‬conjunct and conjunction
‫ٱ‬
conjunct and preposition
‫ ٱ‬conjunct and
preposition
2. Before a finite clause (indicating person and tense) the meaning of 'since' can refer to...
‫ ٱ‬time
3.
‫ٱ‬
cause
‫ ٱ‬time and cause
Before a (non-finite) -ing clause the meaning of 'since' can only refer to...
‫ ٱ‬result
‫ٱ‬
time
‫ ٱ‬cause
4. 'besides' can function as both a...
‫ ٱ‬conjunct and conjunction
‫ٱ‬
conjunct and preposition
‫ ٱ‬conjunct and
preposition
5.
'though' can function as both a...
‫ ٱ‬conjunct and conjunction
‫ٱ‬
conjunct and preposition
‫ ٱ‬conjunct and
preposition
Now do online exercises 3.ii and 4
Exercise 5
We’re now going to look at some more linkers with a concessive meaning (i.e.linkers
joining one idea or fact to another which is opposed to it).
123
whereas
notwithstanding
even so
still
even though
nonetheless
in spite of
Put the linkers from the box above into the chart below. The chart contains the
concessive linkers we have already looked at.
IMPORTANT!
In order to see how the linkers function, use the Concordancer with the onscreen codes
for Exercise 5.
Group A
Group B
Group C
Conjuncts
Prepositions
nevertheless
Conjunctions
(subordinators)
although
though
though
despite
Exercise 6
Let’s look more closely at though, notwithstanding and even so
IMPORTANT! Again use the Concordancer with the onscreen codes for Exercise 6.i.
1. When 'though' is used as a conjunct, it can be positioned...
‫ٱ‬
‫ٱ‬
‫ٱ‬
At the beginning, middle or end of the sentence
In the middle of the sentence, separated by commas
In the middle and at the end of a sentence
2. 'though' is most commonly used at the end of a sentence in what kind of context?
‫ٱ‬
‫ٱ‬
Formal, written contexts
Informal contexts, especially in speech
124
‫ٱ‬
Formal speech
3. Which structure is 'notwithstanding' linked to?
‫ٱ‬
‫ٱ‬
‫ٱ‬
Noun phrase
Nonfinite -ing clause
Finite clause
4. 'notwithstanding' can be positioned...
‫ٱ‬
‫ٱ‬
‫ٱ‬
at the beginning of a noun phrase
at the end of a noun phrase
at both the beginning and end of a noun phrase
5. When 'notwithstanding' comes after a noun phrase, the effect is...
‫ٱ‬
‫ٱ‬
‫ٱ‬
formal
extremely formal
informal
6. 'even so' is often used after which word?
‫ٱ‬
‫ٱ‬
‫ٱ‬
but
and
yet
Now do online exercises 6.ii, 7 and 8
125
Appendix 4: Printed Handout given to ‘deductive’ learners
Online Grammar Project - Deductive Approach
Grammar Focus -
Linkers
There are various types of linking words and expressions which join ideas together and
provide cohesion between separate sentences and paragraphs as well as within a single
sentence.
The most common kind of linkers are: conjuncts, conjunctions and prepositions
Conjuncts
Examples of conjuncts are: meanwhile, therefore, afterwards, nevertheless


Typically, these linkers join together an idea from a previous sentence (or
paragraph) to another idea in the following sentence (or paragraph).
They can express a variety of meanings. Here are just a few examples.
time (progressive)
The council consistently fail to offer any leisure facilities for the city's youth.
Meanwhile, vandalism and street fighting continue to plague the community.
consequence:
By seven o'clock it will be dark. Therefore, the last race will, , be at 6 o'clock .
time (subsequent)
At the meeting Jeff raised the issue of job-sharing. Afterwards, he telephoned Lizzie to
ask what she thought .
concession (i.e. conceding that the last point was true but he next opposes it in some way)
The Samsung monitor and video card don't work brilliantly together, but, nevertheless,
the screen is good .
Conjuncts...






are usually separated from the rest of the sentence by commas.
can be omitted without affecting the syntax of the sentence.
often appear in initial position, linking back to the previous sentence.
can link back to a clause within the same sentence - see the example with
'nevertheless' above - and in this case are often preceded by a coordinator e.g.
and or but.
are flexible in their position and can usually appear at the beginning, middle or
end of a sentence.
are a type of adverbial - sometimes known as sentence adverbs
126
Conjunctions
Broadly speaking there are two types of conjunctions; coordinating conjunctions and
subordinating conjunctions.
Coordinating conjunctions - or coordinators - join together two units of the same status
e.g. two noun phrases: I watched a film and a documentary
two adjectives:
He felt cold and hungry.
two clauses:
David went to the cinema but Cathy stayed at home.
The most common coordinators are and, but and or
Subordinating conjunctions - or subordinators - introduce a subordinate clause and
link it to a main clause in the same sentence.
Examples of subordinators are: while, because, so, once, although
They are like the cement that glues two grammatical blocks together and are
fundamental to the sentence structure. If removed the syntax would be broken.
As with conjuncts there is a wide range of subordinator meanings. e.g.
time (progressive)
I noted him working on the machinery while we were waiting to ascend .
cause
She was pardoned because she was an internationally famous actress.
consequence
Acting is very much a doing thing , so the emphasis is always on practical work .
time (subsequent)
Once you 've taken the drug , your next decision could be influenced by that drug .
concession (i.e. conceding that the last point was true but he next opposes it in some way)
York does not have a permanent site for travellers although one is planned .
Note:



the subordinator can appear in initial position in the sentence (when the main
clause follows the subordinate clause) and in such cases a comma usually
appears at the end of the subordinate clause (see examples above)
it is more common for the subordinate clause to follow the main clause and in
such cases a comma is usually not required.
'so' is a special case because the consequence it introduces necessarily has to
follow the main clause. It is usually preceded by a comma (see above)
127
Prepositions
Prepositions are usually single words e.g. in, on, at, for, during, despite
These are known as simple prepositions.
Complex prepostions are composed of two or more words e.g due to, as a result of
Prepositions do not usually appear by themselves. They are almost always followed by
an accompanying structure, most commonly a noun phrase e.g.
in the early morning at my old school for many years since the beginning of May
This accompanying structure is known as a prepositional complement and together they
make up a prepositional phrase.
Other structures can also act as prepositional complements including finite and
nonfinite clauses e.g.
(1) (a letter) about what he planned to do in the future
(2) On arriving home, he had a strong drink.
Prepositional phrases most commonly function as postmodifiers in a noun phrase - see
(1) above or as adverbials - see (2) above.
The main semantic role of a preposition is to express a relationship of meaning
between its complement (usually a noun phrase) and another part of the sentence. e.g.
time (progressive)
She was disappointed that he hadn't arranged to meet her during the afternoon.
cause
Sadly , due to refurbishment and a desire to create more shopping space , the kennels
have been closed .
consequence
There has been an increase in reports of deaths as a result of torture in Turkish police
stations .
time (subsequent)
Local authority children 's departments were established following the report of the
Curtis Committee in 1946. (Note: the meaning here is also consequential.)
concession (i.e. conceding that the last point was true but he next opposes it in some way)
Despite being the most powerful man in the world, there seemed to be nothing he could
do .
128
The table below summarises what we have studied and includes a sample of linker
meanings.
Conjuncts
Prepositions
meanwhile
Conjunctions
(subordinators)
while
-
because
due to
therefore
so
as a result of
afterwards
once
following
nevertheless
although
despite
during
time (progressive)
cause
consequence
time (subsequent)
concession
Some words can function as more than one type of linker. Common examples include
since, besides and though.
since functions as a preposition, expressing a time relation e.g.
(1) Since 6th April 1990 , married couples have been taxed independently
(2) Since coming to this country, I've experienced a fair degree of culture shock.
since also functions as a conjunction, expressing a causal relation (3) and a time
relation (4) e.g.
(3) Since almost all those on death row come from impoverished backgrounds they
lack the funds to hire their own attorney and will be appointed counsel by the Court .
(4) Since the new boss arrived, motivation has increased greatly.
Note: Since can only precede a non-finite -ing clause as a preposition - see (2) above.
besides functions as a preposition e.g.
Besides its industrial uses , the metal has been readily adopted for tableware .
The public order legislation will mean that the police , besides being charged with the
duty to keep the peace , will be enabled to mediate the already constrained ability to
engage in protest and dissent on a much wider front.
129
besides also functions as a conjunct e.g.
"How dare you suggest that I'm out of touch! Besides , it 's nothing to do with you."
though functions as a conjunction (a synonym of although) e.g.
Tone and colour are not synonymous , though the two terms are often wrongly
interchanged .
Though she has had little education , her vocabulary is excellent
though also functions as a conjunct e.g.
(1) I'll be going to Italy next week. I'll be back for your birthday, though.
(2) Corpus linguistics is a difficult subject. It does, though, give us a fascinating insight
into how language works.


Notice that as a conjunct though cannot appear in initial position.
It often appears in end position - as in (1) above - in speech and informal writing.
The chart below shows a selection of linkers, all with a concessive meaning.
Conjuncts
Conjunctions
Prepositions
nevertheless
(subordinators)
although
nonetheless
though
despite
even so
even though
in spite of
still
whereas
notwithstanding
though
130
Look at the examples below:
concessive conjuncts:
It's a difficult race. Nevertheless, about 1,000 runners participate every year.
In the 19th century education was the preserve of the male dominated upper classes.
There were , nonetheless , women who managed to become well-educated .
The lighting is considerably brighter than before but, even so , the Committee reported ,
is at the margins of acceptability for the production of pictures of broadcastable quality
.
Diana was annoyed with Jim for disagreeing with her. Still , she was pleased he had
sought her opinion .
Note: even so often follows 'but'
concessive conjunctions
Although he's got a good job now, he still complains.
The remains have always been visible , even though the temple was erected some 2,500
years ago .
Whereas knowledge can be aquired from books, skills must be learned through
practice.
concessive prepositions
Solicitors are increasingly becoming the dominant branch of the profession despite the
historical recognition that they are the junior part of the legal profession .
In spite of being a trained lawyer, he was unable to give her any legal advice.
The employment contract made between employer and employee still forms the basis of
modern employment law , notwithstanding the detailed legislation of recent years .
He is an extremely conceited , very lecherous , nearly alcoholic bore , his excellent
work notwithstanding .
Note: notwithstanding is unique in that it can appear after its noun phrase (as in the last
example above), but he effect is extremely formal.
131
Appendix 5
Grammar Project
Post-Test
Name___________________________________________________________
Indicate which is the correct linking expression to fit each space by writing a, b, c
or d on the lines provided.
1. None of those photos I took from the top of the hill came out. I did get some nice pictures of the
castle, ____________ .
a) although
b) notwithstanding
c) though
d) even though
2. ____________ wildlife conservation lends itself to a science-based approach, this is not really
possible for landscape conservation.
a) despite
b) whereas
c) even so
d) notwithstanding
3. ____________ his having been based in Southampton for many years, he had never lost his
Lancashire accent .
a) although
b) though
c) even though
d) despite
4. It’s taken a fortnight to get the oil out of my fingers, nightly doses of Ecover washing up liquid
____________ .
a) nonetheless
b) notwithstanding
c) even so
d) nevertheless
5. Two defenders had raced back from midfield but, ____________ , Parker slid the ball through them
and scored a magnificent goal.
a) even so
b) even though
c) though
d) notwithstanding
6. During Rita’s presentation the projector broke down, but she calmly carried on ____________ this
rather inconvenient technical hitch.
a) although
b) whereas
c) because
d) in spite of
7. In recent months staff shortages and discipline problems have plagued Banbury Secondary School.
____________ , parents have given the school a vote of confidence.
a) despite
b) nonetheless
c) though
d) even though
8. Attempting to capture the spirit of a period is another planning strategy for a survey, ____________
this philosophical notion of a Zeitgeist is notoriously elusive.
a) though
b) even so
c) despite
d) nevertheless
9. Many teachers make a place in their classes for work of this nature, since ____________ the
benefits have been experienced, most class members enjoy it and want more.
a) afterwards
b) while
c) once
d) following
132
10. As with so many of Stockman’s ambitions, this one did not come close to full realization.
____________ , in the early months of Reagan’s first term, the legislature was repeatedly
upstaged and out-manoeuvred by the White House.
a) despite
b) notwithstanding
c) though
d) nevertheless
11. One soldier was trapped for 20 minutes ____________ the impact of the crash forced the lorry
onto his body.
a) in spite of
b) due to
c) because
d) as a result of
12. He stayed out there shovelling snow, confounding the pessimists ____________ his task was
clearly hopeless.
a) despite
b) even though
c) in spite of
d) even so
13. Bacteria, ____________ being the simplest form of life we know, are also among the oldest fossils
we have discovered.
a) besides
b) although
c) in addition
d) nevertheless
14. A child may be said to acquire the rules of grammar, although it is difficult to see how such rules
can be established ____________ numerous learning experiences.
a) with the result that
b) so as to
c) for this reason
d) as a result of
15. He wants to score a goal urgently to show he’s still on top form, and, ____________, he has a
point to prove – he wants to show United they were right to invest in him!
a) as well as
b) besides
c) also
d) too
16. It rained constantly every day we were there. __________ , it was great just to get out of the city for
a few days.
a) still
b) whereas
c) despite
d) even though
17. ___________ leaving university, I have been doing voluntary work in the Sudan.
a) once
b) afterwards
c) since
d) meanwhile
18. She could feel him trembling with fever and cold, ___________ he was close to the fire which
burned merrily now .
a) even so
19.
b) despite
c) nevertheless
d) although
The difference between Peak and RMS switching is that , with Peak , the compressor monitors the
true signal peaks which may be much higher than the average level. For drums , ___________ ,
Peak makes most sense .
a) therefore
b) as a result of
c) due to
d) although
20. ___________ the session normally ends in July, a Bill which is not on its way by May or June may
stand little chance of passing into law .
a) due to
b) once
c) for this reason
d) since
133
Appendix 6
Post-Project Questionnaire
Name:___________________________________________
The following questions refer ONLY to the online unit you studied recently about
the grammar of linking expressions. Thanks you for your cooperation.
1. How clear were the instructions?
‫ٱ‬Very clear ‫ٱ‬Reasonably clear ‫ٱ‬Rather unclear ‫ٱ‬Very unclear
2. How easy was the Concordancer tool to use?
‫ٱ‬Very easy ‫ٱ‬Easy ‫ٱ‬Difficult ‫ٱ‬Very difficult
3. How useful did you find the Concordancer tool as a means of studying
grammar?
‫ٱ‬Very useful ‫ٱ‬Quite useful ‫ٱ‬Not very useful ‫ٱ‬Not at all useful
4. How easy was it for you to identify patterns of grammar and work out ‘rules’
using the Concordancer tool?
‫ٱ‬Very easy ‫ٱ‬Easy ‫ٱ‬Difficult ‫ٱ‬Very difficult
5. How useful did you find the online practice exercises?
‫ٱ‬Very useful ‫ٱ‬Quite useful ‫ٱ‬Not very useful ‫ٱ‬Not at all useful
6. How difficult were the exercises on the whole?
‫ٱ‬Very difficult ‫ٱ‬Quite difficult ‫ٱ‬Quite easy ‫ٱ‬Very easy
7. How easy was it to follow the ‘path’ of the online ‘lesson’?
‫ٱ‬Very easy ‫ٱ‬Easy ‫ٱ‬Difficult ‫ٱ‬Very difficult
8. Would you also have liked to have the grammar rules given to you in a more
traditional and straight forward way?
‫ٱ‬Yes ‫ٱ‬No
9. Would you like to study grammar in this way again in the future?
‫ٱ‬Yes ‫ٱ‬No
134