Learning process, strategies and web-based concordancers: a case study

The recent widespread use of web-based concordancers seems to provide a promising mode for language teaching and learning, especially in the English as a foreign language (EFL) setting, because through concordancers students can easily gain exposure to a huge number of authentic and sorted language examples. This paper describes a case study of the learning process and strategies used by three Taiwanese college students in the concordancer setting. A web-based concordancer was used to assist the participants while undertaking a proofreading activity. Think-aloud protocol was used to collect their data. The results showed that the following four factors have influenced learners’ learning process and strategies in use: (1) prior knowledge, (2) cognitive skills, (3) teacher intervention and (4) concordancer skills. erators (Johns, 1990; Levy, 1990; Sun, 2001). A concordancer allows users to interact with a selected corpus. When a keyword or phrase is typed, the system will search for and then display occurrences of the word or phrase in its immediate context and allow learners to discover patterns and adjust their misconceptions by observing extensive naturally occurring examples in real texts (Hill, 2000). These patterns refer to language rules that are grammatical or lexical. Since a concordancer can extract numerous examples of a particular language usage, it helps learners discover rules by retrieving instances of similar language usage. Concordancer use has been energised by the advent and popularity of computing power and the development of computer concordancer programs (Steven, 1995). It has been regarded as one of the most promising recent ideas in computer-assisted language learning (Cobb, 1997; Levy, 1990, 1997; Owen, 1996; Steven, 1991, 1993; Tribble and Jones, 1997). In the late 1980s several concordancer programs for personal computers became available. Some of the well-known programs are MicroConcord, MicroOCP and Mini-concordancer. The development of the Internet has led to another leap forward in terms of easier access to wider applications in language learning and teaching. Some of the well-known web-based programs are ConApp from the Virtual Language Center at Hong Kong Poly University, CoBuild Sampler by Collins Cobuild and the Gutenburg Web Concordancer. The basic operation of most concordancers includes the following five types of search method: (1) only exact matches, (2) all instances containing the search string as a prefix, (3) all instances containing the search string as a suffix, (4) all instances containing the search string and (5) all instances containing both of the search words. Sort Method menus are usually displayed next to the keyword window. In order to reduce the loading of reading, some concordancers (eg, Sun’s) also allow users to sort by order of increasing sentence difficulty. Figure 1 illustrates the search page of Sun’s concordancer. Johns and King (1990) have advocated the use of concordancers as a tool for datadriven learning (DDL). In this process learners play the role of a researcher who explores the use of language through investigating an authentic corpus. He identifies two approaches in concordancer-based DDL. One is the inductive approach, whereby learners identify patterns observed from the evidence of the concordancer output. The other is the deductive approach, whereby learners attempt to find examples to verify grammar rules. To date there have been several studies exploring approaches to integrating concordancing tools into language learning and teaching (Chen, 2000; Cobb, 1997; Conrad, 1999; Flowerdew, 1993; Kettemann, 1994; Turnbull and Burston, 1998). However, very little research, if any, aims to examine the process that learners follow when using concordancing tools as a learning aid. Therefore, the goal of this study is to identify the learning process and strategies used by EFL learners in the concordancer setting and to examine the factors that impact on learner behaviour. 602 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 34 No 5 2003 © British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, 2003. Method Participants Three college students (Students C, H and R) participated in the current case study. All were enrolled in the Department of Applied Foreign Languages at a university located in central Taiwan. Each student represents a particular program within the department. Student C is in the two-year regular daytime program whereas Student H is in the three-year night school program. Both programs award students with a Bachelor’s degree upon graduation. These undergraduate programs are subject to two different nation-wide entrance examinations. The daytime program is more competitive than the night school program, thus students’ language proficiency also varies between the two. Student R is from the TESOL (Teaching English as a Second Language) graduate program. Both Students C and H were seniors at the time whereas Student R was in her first year of graduate studies. Since this is a pilot study on learning process and strategies in the concordancer context, only three students were chosen to participate. Procedure The study began with an individualised tutorial. Each student spent about 30 minutes undergoing the following process: Learning process, strategies and web-based concordancers: a case study 603 © British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, 2003. Figure 1: Illustration of Sun’s concordancer web page 1. Received a brief overview of the purpose and function of the concordancer. 2. Observed the teacher’s demonstration on how to use the concordancer tool. 3. Gained hands-on experience on how to use the concordancer. 4. Demonstrated capability in concordance research. Students were then given an eight-question proofreading list with different types of grammatical errors. They were asked to check the sentences one by one to see if they were correct or not, and were encouraged to use the concordancer to look for evidence to support their answers. There are two main types of verbal report to examine process-oriented description. One is a retrospective report, which has the advantage of not interfering with the process itself, as well as the potential disadvantage of being distorted or inaccurate, depending on the best recollection of the subject (Hare, 1981). The other type of description is an introspective or ‘think-aloud’ protocol. This protocol is a kind of verbal report in which participants comment on their thoughts and behaviour while undertaking a processoriented task. Think-aloud reports provide a more direct view of the problem-solving process. They allow researchers or teachers to learn about what is actually going on in a learner’s mind and provide insight into his/her cognitive problem-solving activity. Therefore, in the current study, data were gathered using a think-aloud procedure; the students were asked to verbalise their thoughts as they attempted the proofreading exercises. In order to familiarise the students with the ‘think aloud’ technique, the researcher conducted an initial pilot test by giving them a short orientation to thinking aloud and by asking them a few questions. They were encouraged to think aloud on their own as they digested the questions, until they were able to operate in this way with relative ease. For detailed data-analysis, each student’s think-aloud oral report was recorded and transcribed immediately after the session. The duration of the think-aloud process ranged from 50 to 70 minutes, depending on the student. Tentative criteria for the measurement of both mental activity and learner strategies were developed in the early stage of data coding and were later refined. The criteria included a timeline for each student’s reported mental activities, keyword searches performed with the concordancer, concordancing skills used, reflection on learner’s prior knowledge, learner’s cognitive stages, rule formulation, circumstances and timing of teacher intervention, mode of response, and sections of the erroneous sentences that drew the learner’s attention. These timelines facilitated the analysis of the learner’s strategies and process. Results and discussion Research question 1: What are the learning process and strategies used by EFL learners in the web-based concordancing setting? Of the eight proofreading questions, Student R got half of them correct at the very beginning, while Students C and H got only two correct. The prior knowledge modes 604 British Journal of Educational Technology Vol 34 No 5 2003 © British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, 2003. that the students worked through to decode and investigate the sentences could be classified into three typical varieties. While learners undertook analysis of concordancer outputs, they usually worked through four cognitive stages, namely comparing, grouping, differentiating and inferring. A flow chart of the three modes and four stages of cognitive activity is detailed in Figure 2. Examples of the three typical modes are presented below. The categories describe mental activity during several stages of proofreading with concordancer help. Mode 1 For mode 1 students detected and corrected the error successfully, and then searched the concordancer to verify their prediction and obtain confirmation. This mode often occurred when students had complete prior knowledge and used deductive thinking skills to search for supporting examples from the concordancer. For example, after reading the second question: Let’s keep this information just between you and *I. Learning process, strategies and web-based concordancers: a case study 605 © British Educational Communications and Technology Agency, 2003. X Mode 3 Incorrect error detection Unsuccessful correction Verify and confirm the prediction Mode 1 Correct error detection Successful correction Mode 2 Correct error detection Unsuccessful correction