Getting the corpus habit: EAP students’ long-term use of personal corpora
Introduction
The direct use of corpus data by language learners has now been a subject of study for over two decades and there has been a particular focus on the teaching and learning of academic writing in English at university level (for reviews see Boulton, 2010b, Flowerdew, 2010, Yoon, 2011). Research has been carried out with students working on three main types of corpora: large general corpora like the British National Corpus (BNC); small specialised corpora, often compiled for an individual discipline-specific course; and personal do-it-yourself corpora constructed by students themselves. One overall driver for this research effort has been to understand whether, to what extent, and under which circumstances students can usefully engage directly with corpus data as they learn academic writing. To date, the majority of the work has been based on large general corpora, but there is growing interest in the use of specialised and personal corpora.
Research with students using large general corpora lends itself particularly well to the teaching/learning of individual lexico-grammatical items and has employed both quantitative and qualitative approaches. Quantitative studies include those which used an experimental set-up to investigate whether corpus consultation had a demonstrable effect on student learning of individual items (e.g., Boulton, 2009, Boulton, 2010a; Cresswell, 2007, Estling Vannestål and Lindquist, 2007). Here there was evidence that students using corpus data performed better than control groups, although results were not conclusive in all cases. Other studies, which quantified the success rate of error correction/self-correction, showed more positive outcomes, suggesting that students were able to apply corpus data to solving language problems (e.g., Gaskell and Cobb, 2004, Gilmore, 2009, Watson Todd, 2001). The qualitative research employed methods such as questionnaires and interviews to examine student attitudes to and evaluation of corpus use (e.g., Bernardini, 2000, Granath, 2009, Varley, 2009, Yoon, 2008, Yoon and Hirvela, 2004). Again, the results of these studies were somewhat mixed, with students’ enthusiasm for corpus work often depending both on their level of English and the extent of training and support available.
Work with specialised corpora, while still addressing lexico-grammar, is also able to focus on genre and discourse issues, as discussed by several researchers (e.g., Bondi, 2001, Charles, 2007, Charles, in press, Flowerdew, 2012, Gavioli, 2005). For example, Weber’s (2001) students consulted a corpus of law essays; they used concordances to identify the links between lexico-grammatical items and generic moves and succeeded in producing acceptable law essays. Improvement in writing a specific genre, research articles (RAs) in psychology, was also noted by Bianchi and Pazzaglia (2007), whose students helped compile a class corpus of relevant RAs. Hafner and Candlin (2007) provided students with a corpus of legal cases for help with their writing assignments outside class. They found roughly equal numbers of users and non-users, with the non-users divided between those who preferred other web-based tools for checking language and those who preferred not to use such tools at all. They made the point that the students had not developed long-term habits of using the corpus; rather they used it opportunistically to provide support for specific assignments.
Finally, a much smaller number of studies describes the use of personal corpora built by students themselves. Lee and Swales (2006) report on the achievements of six students who presented linguistic investigations of self-chosen aspects of their own discipline. Similarly, Gavioli’s (2009) English majors wrote extended papers after compiling and examining personal corpora for their own research purposes. In both cases, the students have effectively become corpus linguists, an approach which requires large inputs of time and resources and may well be beyond reach on most academic writing courses. However, working with larger, multi-disciplinary groups and within more limited time and resource constraints, Charles (2012) also reported positive evaluations of a course in which students used personal corpora to explore discourse functions in their disciplines.
To date, however, attention has focused primarily on student achievements and evaluation of corpus work immediately after a corpus course has been completed. As Pérez-Paredes, Sánchez-Tornel, and Alcaraz Calero (2013) point out, there is little data on long-term use, and in particular on whether students carry on using corpora once their course has finished. Although Yoon (2008) tracks her students’ corpus use for approximately half a year, both during and after their course, her research is based on just six case studies and thus does not provide quantitative data on continuing corpus use. If corpora are to take their place as a third reference resource alongside dictionaries and reference grammars, then it is important to determine whether student take-up persists in the longer term. The aim of the present study is to examine the extent of students’ use of corpora one year after they took an academic writing course in which they constructed their own personal corpus and learnt how to use it to answer language queries.
Section snippets
Background to the study
This research is based on data provided by 40 international students who attended a corpus-building course in 2009 or 2010 and reported on their corpus use one year later. The course, which forms part of the Academic Writing programme at Oxford University Language Centre, is designed for advanced-level graduates and is open-access and non-assessed. Groups of approximately 15–18 students are taught in 5/6 parallel, multi-disciplinary classes. The corpus work takes place over 6 weeks, with one
Method and data
Details of participants’ background and prior corpus use were obtained from a questionnaire given at the beginning of the course; data on the size of students’ personal corpora were collected at the end of the course. A follow-up questionnaire was administered by email approximately one year after completion of the course; its purpose was to investigate participants’ corpus use during the preceding 12 months. The survey consisted of 12 closed and open questions, which were emailed to
Respondents
Background data showed that 23 respondents (58%) were female and 17 (43%) male. The largest number of participants were from China (12), but 24 different countries were represented, indicating that students came from a wide range of cultural and educational backgrounds. Twenty-nine respondents (73%), were doctoral candidates, while 11 (28%) were Master’s students. Participants studied in 25 different fields: 16 natural sciences (40%); 16 social sciences (40%); 8 arts/humanities (20%). The most
Two case studies
The following section presents cases studies of two students whose attitude to their personal corpus developed along opposing trajectories. The first, Ahmad,1 reported moving from initial scepticism and apprehension to enthusiastic use, while the second, Piotr, described how he took the opposite path, from initial enthusiasm to disillusionment and rejection.
Conclusions and Future Challenges
Results from this study show that most respondents did ‘get the corpus habit’, that is, they continued to use their personal corpus after the course had finished. To a greater or lesser extent, then, the students have incorporated this new tool into their writing practices; they are able to use it independently, without further assistance from corpus specialists, and they work autonomously, consulting their corpus in response to their own language needs. This suggests that the students consider
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank Martin Hurajt, IT Officer, and all the students who took part in this research.
Maggie Charles is a Tutor in English for Academic Purposes at Oxford University Language Centre. She has published widely on academic discourse and pedagogy, including the co-edited volume Academic writing: At the interface of corpus and discourse (2009). Recently she worked as a consultant on the Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary.
References (31)
Reconciling top-down and bottom-up approaches to graduate writing: Using a corpus to teach rhetorical functions
Journal of English for Academic Purposes
(2007)’Proper vocabulary and juicy collocations’: EAP students evaluate do-it-yourself corpus-building
English for Specific Purposes
(2012)- et al.
Can learners use concordance feedback for writing errors?
System
(2004) - et al.
Corpus tools as an affordance to learning in professional legal education
Journal of English for Academic Purposes
(2007) - et al.
A corpus-based EAP course for NNS doctoral students: Moving from available specialized corpora to self-compiled corpora
English for Specific Purposes
(2006) Concordancing in L2 writing class: An overview of research and issues
Journal of English for Academic Purposes
(2011)- et al.
ESL student attitudes towards corpus use in L2 writing
Journal of Second Language Writing
(2004) Using corpora to teach academic writing: Challenges for the direct approach
- Anthony, L. (2007). AntConc (Version 3.2.2). Retrieved from <http://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/antconc_index.html>....
Systematising serendipity: Proposals for concordancing large corpora with language learners
Student writing of research articles in a foreign language: Metacognition and corpora
Small corpora and language variation
Testing the limits of data-driven learning: Language proficiency and training
ReCALL
Data-driven learning: Taking the computer out of the equation
Language Learning
Learning outcomes from corpus consultation
Cited by (97)
The gap between intentions and reality: Reasons for EAP writers’ non-use of corpora
2022, Applied Corpus LinguisticsCorpus-aided EAP writing workshops to support international scholarly publication
2022, Applied Corpus LinguisticsAutonomous corpus use by graduate students: A long-term trend study (2009–2017)
2022, Journal of English for Academic Purposes
Maggie Charles is a Tutor in English for Academic Purposes at Oxford University Language Centre. She has published widely on academic discourse and pedagogy, including the co-edited volume Academic writing: At the interface of corpus and discourse (2009). Recently she worked as a consultant on the Oxford advanced learner’s dictionary.