1. NCCU Academic Hub
  2. Publications
  3. College of Foreign Languages and Literature
  4. Theses
  5. Item

Publications-Theses

Article View/Open

Publication Export

Google ScholarTM

NCCU Library

Citation Infomation

Related Publications in TAIR

題名 以語料庫為本之近似詞教學成效之研究:以台灣大學生為例
The Effect of Teaching Near-synonyms to Taiwan EFL University Students: A Corpus-based Approach
作者 陳聖其
Chen, Sheng Chi
貢獻者 張郇慧
Chang, Hsun Huei
陳聖其
Chen, Sheng Chi
關鍵詞 資料觀察學習法
近似詞
以語料庫為本
data-driven learning
near-synonym
corpus-based approach
日期 2013
上傳時間 10-Feb-2014 14:43:48 (UTC+8)
摘要 台灣英語教育多以考試取向為主，許多教師進行英語字彙指導時採用填鴨式教學，致使學生無法於新的情境靈活使用字彙。
本研究旨在於探究以語料庫為本之教學對於台灣大學生在英語近似詞學習成效的影響，以台北市某一所大學86位英語學習背景及能力相似之大一生為研究對象。研究人數均分成兩班進行教學實驗，一班為實驗組，以資料觀察法進行教學，另一班為對照組，以傳統形式教學為主，每週一次五十分鐘，共進行十週。資料蒐集包含近似詞學習成就測驗前、後測，並且依據研究對象於實驗教學結束後接受語料觀察教學法回饋問卷，蒐集研究對象對於語料觀察法之反應與感知，進行量化分析。最後，透過訪談高分組和低分組學生，蒐集其質性資料進行研究探討哪些因素會影響不同英語能力學生對於資料觀察法的意願與需求。本研究發現如下:

一、近似詞教學有助於提升台灣大學生的英語字彙能力。兩組教學均在後測有
進步。但就後測成績來說，實驗組顯著優於控制組。資料觀察法之近似詞教學
均較傳統教學法更能有效提升學生的英語字彙能力。

二、在不同程度的學生學習成效上，高、低分組學生均在後測成績有進步。對於
高分組而言，實驗組後測成績顯著優於控制組後測。但對於控制組而言，實驗
組的與控制組的後測成績未呈顯著差異。

三、大部分的學生對於運用資料觀察法學習單字均給予正面回饋，也肯定資料觀
察學習法活動的效益。另外，根據高、低分組學生訪談結果發現，英語程度的
高低的確會影響學生對於資料觀察法的喜愛和需求。高分組的學生希望先以資
料觀察學習法為開端，再以傳統講解式方式做總結。但對低分組的學生而言，
喜歡參與小組討論。由於單字量的不足，低分組學生希望在語料庫為主的教材
旁能附上中文解釋，降低學習焦慮。

根據上述研究結果，本研究建議大學英語教師在教學現場能夠融入語料觀察學 習法並依照不同程度的學生進行教材設計，以助提升學生學習英語單字。

關鍵字:資料觀察學習法、近似詞、語料庫為本
Corpus Linguistics has progressively become the center in different domains of language research. With such development of large corpora, the potential applications and possibilities of corpora in second language teaching and learning are extended. A discovery-based authentic learning environment is provided as well as created by such corpus-based language learning. Synonym or near-synonym learning is a difficult aspect of vocabulary learning, but a linguistic phenomenon with ubiquity. Hence, this research aims to investigate the effectiveness of the application of data-driven learning (DDL) approach in near-synonyms instruction and compare the teaching effect on the high and low achievers through the near-synonyms instruction.
Participants of this study were given instruction throughout the eight-week corpus-based teaching with materials compiled by the teacher. This is a quasi-experimental study consisting of comparison between two experimental conditions, with a pre-post test and control-experimental group design, followed by qualitative method of semi-structure interviews and questionnaire provided to the experimental group of EFL university students in Taiwan. Two intact classes of 86 college students participated in this study. The quantitative analysis of the pre- and posttest scores and questionnaire were conducted through descriptive statistics and frequency analysis in order to explain the learning effects and learners’ perceptions.
The results of the study revealed that: (1) participants in the experimental group made significant improvement in the posttest; (2) EFL high proficiency learners with DDL approach performed better than high achievers who were taught by the traditional method. However, low achievers may not be able to benefit from DDL approach in the form of concordance teaching materials; (3) the majority of the participants had positive feedback on DDL activities. Also, types of preferred DDL activities were strongly influenced by students’ proficiency level. Low achievers preferred activities that should involve Chinese translation as the supplementary note while as for the high achievers, they were looking for the teacher’s explanation of words’ usages and functions in the end.
This study demonstrates the importance in illuminating the dynamic relationship between DDL approach and second language near-synonyms learning, as well as provides English EFL teachers with a better concept to incorporate corpus or concordance lines into vocabulary instruction.

Key words: data-driven Learning, near-synonym, corpus-based approach
參考文獻 Alex, G. (2009). Using online corpora to develop students’
writing skills. ELT Journal, 63(4), 363-372.
Allan, R. (2009). Data-driven learning and vocabulary:
investigating the use of concordances with advanced learners of English. English Language Teaching
Journal, 63(1), 23-32.
Allen, B. (2012). Concordance lines without no fear.
Proceedings of the 19th International symposium on
English Teaching, 85-96. Taipei: Crane Publishing Company
Limited.
Batstone, R. (1995). Product and process: Grammar in the
second language classroom. In M. Bygate, A. Tonkyn, & E. William (Eds.), Grammar and the language teacher (pp. 224—
236). London: Prentice Hall.
Boulton, A. (2008). DDL: Reaching the parts other teaching
can’t reach? In A. Frankenberg-Garcia (Ed.), Proceedings
of the 8th Teaching and Language Corpora Conference (pp.
38—44). Portugal: Associação de Estudos e de Investigação
Cientifíca do ISLA-Lisboa.
Boulton, A. (2009). Data-driven learning: reasonable fears
and rationale reassurance.Indian Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 35(1), 81-106.
Boulton, A. (2010). Data-driven learning: taking the
computer out of equation.Language Learning, 60(3), 534-
572.
Chandrasegaran, A. (1980). Teaching the context clue
approach to meaning.Guidelines, 3, 61-68.
Chan, T. P., & Liou, H. C. (2005). Effects of CALL Approach on EFL College Students’ Learning of Verb-Noun Collocations. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 18(3), 231-250.
Chang, M. L. (2013). The effects of decodable text instruction on word learning of fourth-grade EFL learners. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taipei University of Education, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chapelle, C. A. (2001). ELT, technology and change. In A. Pulverness (Ed.), IATEFL: 2001 Brighton conference selections (PP. 9—18). Whitstable: IATEFL
Chen, H. J. (2004). Developing an English Collocation Retrieval Web Site for ESL
Learners. The review of existing collocation teaching and learning resources,
25-34. National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chen, P. C. (2002). A corpus-based study of the collocaitonal errors in the writings of
the EFL learners in Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan
Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chief, L. C., Huang, C. R., Chen, K. J., Tsai, M. C., & Chang, L. L. (2000).What can near synonyms tell us? Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing (1), 47-60.
Ciezielska-Ciupek, M. (2001). Teaching with the Internet and corpus materials:
Preparation of the ELT materials using the Internet and corpus resources. In B.
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Ed.), PALC 2001: Practical Applications in
Language Corpora (pp. 521—531). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Cobb, T. (1999). Breadth and depth of vocabulary acquisition with hand-on concordancing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 12 (4), 345-360.
Cobb, T. (2003). Do Corpus-based Electronic Dictionaries Replace Concordances? In
B. Morrison, G, Green., & G. Motteram (Eds.), Directions in CALL: Experience,
experiments, evaluation (pp. 179—206). Polytechnic University: Hong Kong.
Conrad, S. (2000). Will corpus linguistics revolutionize grammar teaching in the 21th? TESOL Quarterly, 34 (3), 548-560.
Crail, F.I.M., & Lockart, R.S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.
Cummins, J. (2000). Academic language learning, transformative pedagogy, and
information technology: Toward a critical balance. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 537-547.
Curse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deci, E. L., & Flaste, R. (1995). Why we do what we do. New York: Penguin.
DeKeyser, R. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a
miniature language system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(3),
379-410.
Divjak, D. (2006).Ways of intending: delineating and structuring near-synonyms. In
S. Th. Grice., & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistic: corpus-
based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 19—56). New York : Mouton de
Gruyter.
Divjak , D., & Gries, S. (2006). Ways of trying in Russian: clustering behavioral
profiles. Corpus linguistics and linguistics theory, 2(1), 23-60.
Dörnyei, Z., & Murphy, T. (2003). Group dynamics in the language classroom.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., & Varella, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J.
Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.
85—114).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Edmonds, P., & Hirst, G. (2002). Near synonyms and lexical choice. Computational
linguistics, 28(2), 105-144.
Ellis, R. (1991). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Pedagogy.
Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Ewa, D. J. (2011). The use of language corpora and concordancing software to
improve grammatical competence in teaching English as a foreign language. Sino-US English Teaching, 8(12), 754-765.
Fox, G. (1998). Using corpus data in the classroom. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Material
development in language teaching (pp. 25—43). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gaskell, D., & Cobb, T. (2004). Can learners use concordance feedback for writing
errors? System, 32(3), 301-319.
Hadley, G. (2004). Sensing the winds of change: An introduction to data-driven learning. Retrieved from April 24, 2013, from http://www.nuis.ac.jp/~hadley/publication/
/windofchange/windsofchange.htm.
Haller, C. R., Gallagher, V. J., Weldon, T. L., Weldon, T. L., & Felder, R. M. (2000).
Dynamics of peer education in cooperative learning workshops. Journal of
Engineering Education, 89(3), 285-293.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1976). Lexis as a linguistic level. In C. Bazell, J. Catford, M. A. K., Halliday, & R. Robins (Eds.): in memory of J. R. Firth. London: Longman.
Higa, M. (1963). Interference effects of intralist word relationships in verbal learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2(2), 170–175.
Hill, J. (2000). Revising priorities: From grammatical failure to collocational success. In M. Lewis (Ed.), Teaching collocation: Further development in the lexical approach (pp. 47—69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hsieh, W. L. (2008). “See”, “Watch” and “Look at”: Teaching Taiwanese EFL
students on a corpora-based approach. Unpublished master’s thesis, National
Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Huang, C. R, Chung, S. F, & Su, I. L. (2008). Durative event: a comparison of 趕 gan3 and 搶 qiang3. Proceedings of the Chinese lexical semantic workshop
2008 (CLSW), Singapore, 42-50.
Huston, S., & Francis, G. (1998). Verbs observed: A corpus-driven pedagogical
grammar. Apply Linguistics, 19(1), 45-72.
Huston, S. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johns, T. F. (1986). Micro-concord: A language learners’ research tool. System, 14(2), 151-162.
Johns, T. F. (1991). Should you be persuaded: Two examples of data-driven learning.
English Language Research Journal, 1-16.
Johns, T. F. (1994). From printout to handout: Grammar and vocabulary teaching in
the context of data-driven learning. In Terence Odlin (Ed.), Perspective on pedagogical grammar (pp. 293—313). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johns, T. F. (1997). Contexts: The background, development and trialling a concordance-based CALL program. In A. Wichman, S. Fligelstone, T. McEnery, & G. Knowles (Eds.), Teaching and language corpora (pp. 100—115). London: Longman.
Johns, T. F. (2002). Data-driven learning: The perpetual challenge. In B. Kettemann
& G. Marko (Eds.), Teaching and learning by doing corpus analysis (pp.107—
117). Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.
Kilgarriff, A. (2009). Corpora in the classroom without scaring the students. In Leung,
Y. N. (Ed.), The Proceedings of the 18th international symposium on English Teaching, 35—45. Taipei: Crane Publishing Company Limited.
Kennedy, G. D. (1990). Collocations: The missing link in vocabulary acquisition
Amongst EFL learners. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics, 26, 123-136.
Kettermann, B. (1995). Concordancing in English language teaching. TELL and
CALL, 4, 4-15.
Koosha, M., & Jafarpour, A. A. (2006). Data-driven learning and teaching collocation of prepositions: the case of Iranian EFL adult learners. Asian EFL Journal, 8(4),
192-209.
Krashen, S. (1981). The input hypothesis. London: Longman.
Laufer, B. (1990). Words you know: How they affect the words you learn. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Further insights into contrastive linguistics (pp. 573—593). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Leech, G. (1994). Students’ grammar, teachers’ grammar, learners’ grammar. In
M. Bygate, A. Tonkyn, & E. Williams (Eds.) Grammar and the Language Teacher (pp. 17—30). London: Prentice Hall.
Lehmann, H. M., Schneider, P., & Hoffmann, S. (2000). BNCweb. In J, Kirk (Ed.),
Corpora Galore: Analysis and Techniques in Describing English (pp. 259—266). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach: The state of ELT and away forward. Hove,
England: Language Teaching Publications.
Lewis, M. (2000). Teaching collocation: further developments in the lexical approach.
Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications.
Li, C. C. (2005). A study of collocational error types in ESL/EFL college learners’
writing. Unpublished master’s thesis, Ming Chuan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Lin, C. C., Chan, H. J., & Hsiao, H. S. (2011). EFL students’ perceptions of learning vocabulary in a computer-supported collaborative environment. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(2), 91-99.
Lin, Y. P. (2002). The effects of collocation instruction on English vocabulary
development of senior high students in Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis,
National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Liu, C. P. (1999 a). A study of Chinese Culture University freshman’s collocational;
competence: “Knowledge” as an example. Hwa Kang Journal of English Language & Literature, 5, 81-99.
Liu, C. P. (1999 b). An analysis of collocational errors in EFL writings. The proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on English Teaching, 483-494. Taipei: Crane.
Liu, D. (2010). Is it a chief, main, major, primary, or principal concern? A corpus-based behavioral profile study of the near-synonyms. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(1), 56-87.
Liu, L. E. (2002). A Corpus-based lexical semantic investigation of verb-noun
miscollocations in Taiwan learners’ English. Unpublished master’s thesis,
TamkangUniversity, Taipei, Taiwan.
Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quartely, 19(2), 207-228.
Mindt, D. (1997). Corpora and the teaching of English in Germany. In A. Wichmann,
S. Fligelstone, A. M. McEnery, & G. Knowles (Eds.), Teaching and Language
Corpora (pp. 40—50). London: Longman.
Nesselhauf, N. (2003). The use of collocations by advanced learners of English and some implications for teaching. Applied Linguistics, 24 (2), 223-242.
O’Keefe, A., McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (2007). From corpus to classroom.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards. J.C., & Bohlke. D. (2012). Four Corners Level 4. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Room, A. (1981). Room’s dictionary of distingusihables. Boston: Routhledge &
Kegan Paul.
Rutherford, W., & Smith, M. (1988).Consciousness raising and universal grammar.
In Rutherford, W., & Smith, M (Eds.), Grammar and Second Language Teacher:
A Book of Readings (pp. 107—116). Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
Schmitt, N. (2012). Researching Vocabulary: A Vocabulary Research Manual.
Palgrave MacMillan.
Scott, M., & Tribble, C. (2006). Textual patterns: Key words and corpus analysis in
language education. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Sealey, A., & Thompson, P. (2007). Corpus, concordance, classification: young
learners in the L1 classroom. Language awareness, 16(3), 208-216.
Serkan, C. (2011). Developing collocational competence through web-based
concordance activities. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and
Language), 5(2), 273-286.
Shin, S., & Wang, H. (2006). The relationship between EFL learners’ depth of
vocabulary knowledge and oral collocation errors. In The 23rd International
Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, 964-977.
Taipei, Taiwan: Jaun Tang International Publishing Ltd.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus concordance collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (2000). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Stern, H. H. (1986). Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Sun, H. C., & Wang, C. Y. (2003). Concordances in the EFL Classroom: Cognitive
Approaches and Collocation Difficulty. Computer Assisted Language Learning,
16(1), 83-94.
Supatranont, P. (2005). A Comparison of the Effects of the Concordance-Based and the Conventional Teaching Methods on Engineering Students` English Vocabulary
Learning. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Graduate School Chulalongkorn University, Thailand.
Swan, M. (1985). A critical look at the communicative approach. ELT Journal, 39(1), 2-12.
Takač, V. P. (2008). Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Foreign Language
Acquisition. British: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Taylor, J. R. (2003). Near synonym as co-extensive categories: high and tall revised. Language sciences, 25(3), 263-284.
Taylor, J. R. (2007). Semantic categories of cutting and breaking: Some final thoughts. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(2), 331–337.
Tian, S. (2005). The impact of learning tasks and learner proficiency on
the effectiveness of data-driven learning. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of
Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 263-75.
Tomlinson, B. (1998). Introduction. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development in
language teaching (pp. 1—24). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Touraj, T., & Zahra, F. (2012). Data-driven learning: A student-centered technique for
language learning. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(7), 1526-1531.
Tribble, C., & Jones, G. (1990). Concordances in the classroom: A resource guide for
teachers. Essex: Longman.
Tribble, C. (1996). Corpora, concordances and ELT. IATEFL Newsletter, 130, 25-26.
Tseng, F. P. (2002). A study of effects of collocation instruction on the collocational competence of senior high school students in Taiwan. Master Thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Tsui, A. B. M. (2005). ESL teachers’ questions and corpus evidence. International
Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10(3), 335-356.
Vygotski, L. S. (1963). Learning and mental development at school age. In B.
Simon & J. Simon (Eds.), Educational psychology (pp. 21—34). London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Wang, X. W. (2012). The study of using data-driven learning in English grammar
teaching in elementary school. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taipei
University of Education, Taipei, Taiwan.
Warschaucer, M. (2000). The changing global economy and the future of English
teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 511-535.
Webb, S. (2005). Receptive and productive vocabulary learning: The effects of reading and writing on word knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(1), 33-52.
Willis, D. (1990). The Lexical Syllabus: A New Approach to Language Teaching.
London: HarperCollins.
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (1996). Consciousness-raising activities in the language
classroom. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and Change in Language Teaching (pp. 63—76). Oxford: Heinemann.
Willis, J. (1998). Concordances in the classroom without a computer: assembling and exploiting concordances of common words. In Brian Tomlinson (Ed.), Material development in language teaching (pp. 44—66). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Woodward, T. (1996). Paradigm shift and the language teaching profession. In J. Willis and D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and Change in Language Teaching (pp. 4—
9). Oxford: Heinemann.
Wu, W. S. (1996). Lexical collocations: One way to make passive vocabulary active. Paper from the eleventh conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China (pp. 461—480). Taipei: Crane.
Wu, W. S. (2010). The integration of corpus-based data into grammar instruction:
Using advise, recommend, and suggest as an example. Retrieved from May, 10,
from http://web.chu. edu.tw/ ~wswu/ publications/papers/journals/07.pdf.
Xiao, R. Z., & McEnery, A. M. (2006). Collocation, semantic prosody and near synonymy: A cross-linguistic perspective. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 103-129.
Yeh, H. Y. (2013). The effect of video production project on freshman learners’ English learning motivation. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taipei
University of Education, Taipei, Taiwan.
Yeh,Y. Y., Liou, H. C., & Li, Y. H. (2007). Online synonym materials and concordancing for EFL college writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(2), 131-152.
Yoon, H. & Hirvela, A. (2004). ESL student attitudes toward
corpus use in L2.Journal of Second Language Writing,
13(4), 257-283.
Young, R., & Perkins, K. (1995). Cognition and conation in
second language acquisition theory. IRAL 33(2), 142-164.
Zhang, X. (1993). English collocations and their effect on
the writing of native and non-native college freshman.
Publishes doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of
Pennsylvania, Pennsylvan.
描述 碩士
國立政治大學
英國語文學研究所
100551019
102
資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1005510191
資料類型 thesis
dc.contributor.advisor 張郇慧zh_TW
dc.contributor.advisor Chang, Hsun Hueien_US
dc.contributor.author (Authors) 陳聖其zh_TW
dc.contributor.author (Authors) Chen, Sheng Chien_US
dc.creator (作者) 陳聖其zh_TW
dc.creator (作者) Chen, Sheng Chien_US
dc.date (日期) 2013en_US
dc.date.accessioned 10-Feb-2014 14:43:48 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.available 10-Feb-2014 14:43:48 (UTC+8)-
dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 10-Feb-2014 14:43:48 (UTC+8)-
dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G1005510191en_US
dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/63627-
dc.description (描述) 碩士zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 英國語文學研究所zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 100551019zh_TW
dc.description (描述) 102zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) 台灣英語教育多以考試取向為主，許多教師進行英語字彙指導時採用填鴨式教學，致使學生無法於新的情境靈活使用字彙。
本研究旨在於探究以語料庫為本之教學對於台灣大學生在英語近似詞學習成效的影響，以台北市某一所大學86位英語學習背景及能力相似之大一生為研究對象。研究人數均分成兩班進行教學實驗，一班為實驗組，以資料觀察法進行教學，另一班為對照組，以傳統形式教學為主，每週一次五十分鐘，共進行十週。資料蒐集包含近似詞學習成就測驗前、後測，並且依據研究對象於實驗教學結束後接受語料觀察教學法回饋問卷，蒐集研究對象對於語料觀察法之反應與感知，進行量化分析。最後，透過訪談高分組和低分組學生，蒐集其質性資料進行研究探討哪些因素會影響不同英語能力學生對於資料觀察法的意願與需求。本研究發現如下:

一、近似詞教學有助於提升台灣大學生的英語字彙能力。兩組教學均在後測有
進步。但就後測成績來說，實驗組顯著優於控制組。資料觀察法之近似詞教學
均較傳統教學法更能有效提升學生的英語字彙能力。

二、在不同程度的學生學習成效上，高、低分組學生均在後測成績有進步。對於
高分組而言，實驗組後測成績顯著優於控制組後測。但對於控制組而言，實驗
組的與控制組的後測成績未呈顯著差異。

三、大部分的學生對於運用資料觀察法學習單字均給予正面回饋，也肯定資料觀
察學習法活動的效益。另外，根據高、低分組學生訪談結果發現，英語程度的
高低的確會影響學生對於資料觀察法的喜愛和需求。高分組的學生希望先以資
料觀察學習法為開端，再以傳統講解式方式做總結。但對低分組的學生而言，
喜歡參與小組討論。由於單字量的不足，低分組學生希望在語料庫為主的教材
旁能附上中文解釋，降低學習焦慮。

根據上述研究結果，本研究建議大學英語教師在教學現場能夠融入語料觀察學 習法並依照不同程度的學生進行教材設計，以助提升學生學習英語單字。

關鍵字:資料觀察學習法、近似詞、語料庫為本		zh_TW
dc.description.abstract (摘要) Corpus Linguistics has progressively become the center in different domains of language research. With such development of large corpora, the potential applications and possibilities of corpora in second language teaching and learning are extended. A discovery-based authentic learning environment is provided as well as created by such corpus-based language learning. Synonym or near-synonym learning is a difficult aspect of vocabulary learning, but a linguistic phenomenon with ubiquity. Hence, this research aims to investigate the effectiveness of the application of data-driven learning (DDL) approach in near-synonyms instruction and compare the teaching effect on the high and low achievers through the near-synonyms instruction.
Participants of this study were given instruction throughout the eight-week corpus-based teaching with materials compiled by the teacher. This is a quasi-experimental study consisting of comparison between two experimental conditions, with a pre-post test and control-experimental group design, followed by qualitative method of semi-structure interviews and questionnaire provided to the experimental group of EFL university students in Taiwan. Two intact classes of 86 college students participated in this study. The quantitative analysis of the pre- and posttest scores and questionnaire were conducted through descriptive statistics and frequency analysis in order to explain the learning effects and learners’ perceptions.
The results of the study revealed that: (1) participants in the experimental group made significant improvement in the posttest; (2) EFL high proficiency learners with DDL approach performed better than high achievers who were taught by the traditional method. However, low achievers may not be able to benefit from DDL approach in the form of concordance teaching materials; (3) the majority of the participants had positive feedback on DDL activities. Also, types of preferred DDL activities were strongly influenced by students’ proficiency level. Low achievers preferred activities that should involve Chinese translation as the supplementary note while as for the high achievers, they were looking for the teacher’s explanation of words’ usages and functions in the end.
This study demonstrates the importance in illuminating the dynamic relationship between DDL approach and second language near-synonyms learning, as well as provides English EFL teachers with a better concept to incorporate corpus or concordance lines into vocabulary instruction.

Key words: data-driven Learning, near-synonym, corpus-based approach		en_US
dc.description.tableofcontents TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………iii
Chinese Abstract……………………………………………………………x
English Abstract………………………………………………………………xii

Chapter One: Introduction………………………………………………………1

1.1 Background and Motivation…………………………………………………1
1.2 Significance of the Study…………………………………………………4

Chapter Two: Literature Review…………………………7

2.1 Data-driven learning (DDL) in a classroom…………………………………7
2.2 Concordance lines and Data-driven learning..........11
2.3 Related studies on data-driven learning……………………………………14
2.3.1 Vocabulary……………………………………………14
2.3.2 Collocation…………………………………………………15
2.3.3 Grammar……………………………………………………………15
2.4 Synonym and near-synonym in language learning and
teaching…...............16
2.5 Chapter Summary…………………………………………………………...18
2.6 Research Purposes and Research Question......19

Chapter Three: Methodology…………….……………21

3.1 Research Design…………………………………………………………….23
3.2 Research Procedure and Duration…………………………………………..26
3.3 Setting and Participants……………………………………………………..31
3.4 Experimental Instruction Design………………………………………33
3.4.1 Teaching Content……………………………………………………33
3.4.2 Teaching Activities………………………………………………35
3.4.3 Teaching Procedure………………………………………………….37
3.5 Control Instruction Design…………………………………………………39
3.6 Instruments…………………………………………………………………41
3.6.1 Background Questionnaire…………………………………………..41
3.6.2 Self-Designed Vocabulary Test….....................42
3.6.3 Student Feedback Questionnaire……………………………………42
3.6.4 Semi-Structured Student Interviews............43
3.7 Chapter Summary ………………………………………………………..44
3.7.1 Quantitative Data……………………………………………………44
3.7.2 Qualitative Data……….......44

Chapter Four: Results and Discussions…………………………………………47

4.1 Pretest……………………………………………………………………….48
4.2 Posttest………………………….................49
4.2.1 Learners’ Learning Achievement Score……………………………..49
4.2.1.1 Paired samples t-test………………………………………….49
4.2.1.2 Independent sample t-test…………………………………….51
4.2.1.3 Summary of result……………………………………………53
4.2.2 Questionnaire results: Learners’ Perceptions………………55
4.2.2.1 Learners’ attitude: DDL Learning Value……………55
4.2.2.2 Learners’ attitude: Hands-on Activities………………………61
4.2.2.3 Learners’ attitude: Teacher’s teaching value………………66
4.2.3 Qualitative Findings: Interview………….............67
4.2.3.1 High Achievers: prefer doing tasks with Chinese
translation Chinese……………………………………………………….68
4.2.3.2 Low Achievers: prefer challenging tasks….....70
4.2.3.3 Summary of Interview………………………………………..73

Chapter Five: Conclusions and Implications…………………………………… 75

5.1 Summary of the study………………………………………………………75
5.2 The Major Findings…………………………………………………………76
5.2.1 Data-driven learning approach improved participants’
vocabulary knowledge………………………………………………………….6
5.2.2 Data-driven shows different impact on participants’
proficiency…...76
5.2.3 Students’ Positive Reactions...................77
5.3 Pedagogical implications………..........................78
5.3.1 Adaptive Data-driven Learning Approach in English
Near-synonyms learning…………………………………………………79
5.3.2 Instructional Activities and Design of Lesson.....79
5.4 Limitations and Delimitations………………………………………………82
5.5 Suggestions for future study…….....................84

REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………86

APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………95
Appendix A: Pilot study-lesson plan for corpus-based data-
driven learning......95
Appendix B: Concordance lines handout: idioms and
phrases…………………99
Appendix C: Teaching materials of the control
group………………………103
Appendix D: Vocabulary Acquisition Questionnaire…………106
Appendix E: Pre and post-test…………………………………………………108
Appendix F: Chinese Version of learners’ perception in
corpus-based data-driven learning
questionnaire………113
Appendix G: English Version of learners’ perception in
corpus-based data-driven learning
questionnaire………116
Appendix H: Sample of group interview Questions…...119


LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 Idioms and Phrases in Three Near-synonyms……22
Table 3.2 Timetable of the Study…………………………………………………….30
Table 3.3 Number of students in Each Subgroup………………………32
Table 3.4 Format of Data-driven learning activity……………32
Table 3.5 Near-synonyms List of the Study………………………………………….34
Table 3.6 Teaching Activities and Timetable of the Study……36
Table 3.7 The Selective Procedure of ‘people’………………………………40
Table 3.8 Five Senses of ‘people’ in Selected
Dictionaries……………41
Table 3.9 Research Measurement and Statistic Methods
Corresponding to Research Questions…………………………45
Table 4.1 Independent sample T-test of pretests…………………….48
Table 4.2 Paired sample T-test in the two groups………………49
Table 4.3 Independent sample T-test of posttest of high
achievers in the two groups ……………51
Table 4.4 Independent sample T-test of posttest of low
achievers in the two groups..51
Table 4.5 Results of Learners’ attitude on Data-driven
learning Value……………...60
Table 4.6 Results of Learners’ Feedback on Language Learning
Value…………….62
Table 4.7 Results of Learners’ Feedback on Teacher’s
teaching Value……………..67

 
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Pedagogic continuum from product to process
grammar learning through DDL………………………………8
Figure 2.2 Example ‘people’ for manual concordance lines
(extracted from BNC web Corpus)………………………………13
Figure 3.1 Research Structure………………………………………………………..24
Figure 3.2 Research Procedure……………………………………………………….29
Figure 4.1 Pre- and Post-test Scores………………………………………………….53
Figure 4.2 Pre- and Post-test Results of Progress Gains…54
Figure 5.1 Apple Daily English Column……………………………………………..80		zh_TW
dc.format.extent 2210201 bytes-
dc.format.mimetype application/pdf-
dc.language.iso en_US-
dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1005510191en_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 資料觀察學習法zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 近似詞zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) 以語料庫為本zh_TW
dc.subject (關鍵詞) data-driven learningen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) near-synonymen_US
dc.subject (關鍵詞) corpus-based approachen_US
dc.title (題名) 以語料庫為本之近似詞教學成效之研究:以台灣大學生為例zh_TW
dc.title (題名) The Effect of Teaching Near-synonyms to Taiwan EFL University Students: A Corpus-based Approachen_US
dc.type (資料類型) thesisen
dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) Alex, G. (2009). Using online corpora to develop students’
writing skills. ELT Journal, 63(4), 363-372.
Allan, R. (2009). Data-driven learning and vocabulary:
investigating the use of concordances with advanced learners of English. English Language Teaching
Journal, 63(1), 23-32.
Allen, B. (2012). Concordance lines without no fear.
Proceedings of the 19th International symposium on
English Teaching, 85-96. Taipei: Crane Publishing Company
Limited.
Batstone, R. (1995). Product and process: Grammar in the
second language classroom. In M. Bygate, A. Tonkyn, & E. William (Eds.), Grammar and the language teacher (pp. 224—
236). London: Prentice Hall.
Boulton, A. (2008). DDL: Reaching the parts other teaching
can’t reach? In A. Frankenberg-Garcia (Ed.), Proceedings
of the 8th Teaching and Language Corpora Conference (pp.
38—44). Portugal: Associação de Estudos e de Investigação
Cientifíca do ISLA-Lisboa.
Boulton, A. (2009). Data-driven learning: reasonable fears
and rationale reassurance.Indian Journal of Applied
Linguistics, 35(1), 81-106.
Boulton, A. (2010). Data-driven learning: taking the
computer out of equation.Language Learning, 60(3), 534-
572.
Chandrasegaran, A. (1980). Teaching the context clue
approach to meaning.Guidelines, 3, 61-68.
Chan, T. P., & Liou, H. C. (2005). Effects of CALL Approach on EFL College Students’ Learning of Verb-Noun Collocations. Computer-Assisted Language Learning, 18(3), 231-250.
Chang, M. L. (2013). The effects of decodable text instruction on word learning of fourth-grade EFL learners. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taipei University of Education, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chapelle, C. A. (2001). ELT, technology and change. In A. Pulverness (Ed.), IATEFL: 2001 Brighton conference selections (PP. 9—18). Whitstable: IATEFL
Chen, H. J. (2004). Developing an English Collocation Retrieval Web Site for ESL
Learners. The review of existing collocation teaching and learning resources,
25-34. National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chen, P. C. (2002). A corpus-based study of the collocaitonal errors in the writings of
the EFL learners in Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan
Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chief, L. C., Huang, C. R., Chen, K. J., Tsai, M. C., & Chang, L. L. (2000).What can near synonyms tell us? Computational Linguistics and Chinese Language Processing (1), 47-60.
Ciezielska-Ciupek, M. (2001). Teaching with the Internet and corpus materials:
Preparation of the ELT materials using the Internet and corpus resources. In B.
Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Ed.), PALC 2001: Practical Applications in
Language Corpora (pp. 521—531). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
Cobb, T. (1999). Breadth and depth of vocabulary acquisition with hand-on concordancing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 12 (4), 345-360.
Cobb, T. (2003). Do Corpus-based Electronic Dictionaries Replace Concordances? In
B. Morrison, G, Green., & G. Motteram (Eds.), Directions in CALL: Experience,
experiments, evaluation (pp. 179—206). Polytechnic University: Hong Kong.
Conrad, S. (2000). Will corpus linguistics revolutionize grammar teaching in the 21th? TESOL Quarterly, 34 (3), 548-560.
Crail, F.I.M., & Lockart, R.S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.
Cummins, J. (2000). Academic language learning, transformative pedagogy, and
information technology: Toward a critical balance. TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 537-547.
Curse, D. A. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Deci, E. L., & Flaste, R. (1995). Why we do what we do. New York: Penguin.
DeKeyser, R. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules: An experiment with a
miniature language system. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 17(3),
379-410.
Divjak, D. (2006).Ways of intending: delineating and structuring near-synonyms. In
S. Th. Grice., & A. Stefanowitsch (Eds.), Corpora in cognitive linguistic: corpus-
based approaches to syntax and lexis (pp. 19—56). New York : Mouton de
Gruyter.
Divjak , D., & Gries, S. (2006). Ways of trying in Russian: clustering behavioral
profiles. Corpus linguistics and linguistics theory, 2(1), 23-60.
Dörnyei, Z., & Murphy, T. (2003). Group dynamics in the language classroom.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Doughty, C., & Varella, E. (1998). Communicative focus on form. In C. Doughty & J.
Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language acquisition (pp.
85—114).Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Edmonds, P., & Hirst, G. (2002). Near synonyms and lexical choice. Computational
linguistics, 28(2), 105-144.
Ellis, R. (1991). Second Language Acquisition and Second Language Pedagogy.
Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Ewa, D. J. (2011). The use of language corpora and concordancing software to
improve grammatical competence in teaching English as a foreign language. Sino-US English Teaching, 8(12), 754-765.
Fox, G. (1998). Using corpus data in the classroom. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Material
development in language teaching (pp. 25—43). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gaskell, D., & Cobb, T. (2004). Can learners use concordance feedback for writing
errors? System, 32(3), 301-319.
Hadley, G. (2004). Sensing the winds of change: An introduction to data-driven learning. Retrieved from April 24, 2013, from http://www.nuis.ac.jp/~hadley/publication/
/windofchange/windsofchange.htm.
Haller, C. R., Gallagher, V. J., Weldon, T. L., Weldon, T. L., & Felder, R. M. (2000).
Dynamics of peer education in cooperative learning workshops. Journal of
Engineering Education, 89(3), 285-293.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1976). Lexis as a linguistic level. In C. Bazell, J. Catford, M. A. K., Halliday, & R. Robins (Eds.): in memory of J. R. Firth. London: Longman.
Higa, M. (1963). Interference effects of intralist word relationships in verbal learning. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 2(2), 170–175.
Hill, J. (2000). Revising priorities: From grammatical failure to collocational success. In M. Lewis (Ed.), Teaching collocation: Further development in the lexical approach (pp. 47—69). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hsieh, W. L. (2008). “See”, “Watch” and “Look at”: Teaching Taiwanese EFL
students on a corpora-based approach. Unpublished master’s thesis, National
Chengchi University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Huang, C. R, Chung, S. F, & Su, I. L. (2008). Durative event: a comparison of 趕 gan3 and 搶 qiang3. Proceedings of the Chinese lexical semantic workshop
2008 (CLSW), Singapore, 42-50.
Huston, S., & Francis, G. (1998). Verbs observed: A corpus-driven pedagogical
grammar. Apply Linguistics, 19(1), 45-72.
Huston, S. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johns, T. F. (1986). Micro-concord: A language learners’ research tool. System, 14(2), 151-162.
Johns, T. F. (1991). Should you be persuaded: Two examples of data-driven learning.
English Language Research Journal, 1-16.
Johns, T. F. (1994). From printout to handout: Grammar and vocabulary teaching in
the context of data-driven learning. In Terence Odlin (Ed.), Perspective on pedagogical grammar (pp. 293—313). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johns, T. F. (1997). Contexts: The background, development and trialling a concordance-based CALL program. In A. Wichman, S. Fligelstone, T. McEnery, & G. Knowles (Eds.), Teaching and language corpora (pp. 100—115). London: Longman.
Johns, T. F. (2002). Data-driven learning: The perpetual challenge. In B. Kettemann
& G. Marko (Eds.), Teaching and learning by doing corpus analysis (pp.107—
117). Amsterdam and New York: Rodopi.
Kilgarriff, A. (2009). Corpora in the classroom without scaring the students. In Leung,
Y. N. (Ed.), The Proceedings of the 18th international symposium on English Teaching, 35—45. Taipei: Crane Publishing Company Limited.
Kennedy, G. D. (1990). Collocations: The missing link in vocabulary acquisition
Amongst EFL learners. Papers and Studies in Contrastive Linguistics, 26, 123-136.
Kettermann, B. (1995). Concordancing in English language teaching. TELL and
CALL, 4, 4-15.
Koosha, M., & Jafarpour, A. A. (2006). Data-driven learning and teaching collocation of prepositions: the case of Iranian EFL adult learners. Asian EFL Journal, 8(4),
192-209.
Krashen, S. (1981). The input hypothesis. London: Longman.
Laufer, B. (1990). Words you know: How they affect the words you learn. In J. Fisiak (Ed.), Further insights into contrastive linguistics (pp. 573—593). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Leech, G. (1994). Students’ grammar, teachers’ grammar, learners’ grammar. In
M. Bygate, A. Tonkyn, & E. Williams (Eds.) Grammar and the Language Teacher (pp. 17—30). London: Prentice Hall.
Lehmann, H. M., Schneider, P., & Hoffmann, S. (2000). BNCweb. In J, Kirk (Ed.),
Corpora Galore: Analysis and Techniques in Describing English (pp. 259—266). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Lewis, M. (1993). The lexical approach: The state of ELT and away forward. Hove,
England: Language Teaching Publications.
Lewis, M. (2000). Teaching collocation: further developments in the lexical approach.
Hove, England: Language Teaching Publications.
Li, C. C. (2005). A study of collocational error types in ESL/EFL college learners’
writing. Unpublished master’s thesis, Ming Chuan University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Lin, C. C., Chan, H. J., & Hsiao, H. S. (2011). EFL students’ perceptions of learning vocabulary in a computer-supported collaborative environment. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 10(2), 91-99.
Lin, Y. P. (2002). The effects of collocation instruction on English vocabulary
development of senior high students in Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis,
National Kaohsiung Normal University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan.
Liu, C. P. (1999 a). A study of Chinese Culture University freshman’s collocational;
competence: “Knowledge” as an example. Hwa Kang Journal of English Language & Literature, 5, 81-99.
Liu, C. P. (1999 b). An analysis of collocational errors in EFL writings. The proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on English Teaching, 483-494. Taipei: Crane.
Liu, D. (2010). Is it a chief, main, major, primary, or principal concern? A corpus-based behavioral profile study of the near-synonyms. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 15(1), 56-87.
Liu, L. E. (2002). A Corpus-based lexical semantic investigation of verb-noun
miscollocations in Taiwan learners’ English. Unpublished master’s thesis,
TamkangUniversity, Taipei, Taiwan.
Long, M. H., & Porter, P. A. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quartely, 19(2), 207-228.
Mindt, D. (1997). Corpora and the teaching of English in Germany. In A. Wichmann,
S. Fligelstone, A. M. McEnery, & G. Knowles (Eds.), Teaching and Language
Corpora (pp. 40—50). London: Longman.
Nesselhauf, N. (2003). The use of collocations by advanced learners of English and some implications for teaching. Applied Linguistics, 24 (2), 223-242.
O’Keefe, A., McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (2007). From corpus to classroom.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Richards. J.C., & Bohlke. D. (2012). Four Corners Level 4. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Room, A. (1981). Room’s dictionary of distingusihables. Boston: Routhledge &
Kegan Paul.
Rutherford, W., & Smith, M. (1988).Consciousness raising and universal grammar.
In Rutherford, W., & Smith, M (Eds.), Grammar and Second Language Teacher:
A Book of Readings (pp. 107—116). Boston: Heinle and Heinle.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
Schmitt, N. (2012). Researching Vocabulary: A Vocabulary Research Manual.
Palgrave MacMillan.
Scott, M., & Tribble, C. (2006). Textual patterns: Key words and corpus analysis in
language education. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Sealey, A., & Thompson, P. (2007). Corpus, concordance, classification: young
learners in the L1 classroom. Language awareness, 16(3), 208-216.
Serkan, C. (2011). Developing collocational competence through web-based
concordance activities. Novitas-ROYAL (Research on Youth and
Language), 5(2), 273-286.
Shin, S., & Wang, H. (2006). The relationship between EFL learners’ depth of
vocabulary knowledge and oral collocation errors. In The 23rd International
Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China, 964-977.
Taipei, Taiwan: Jaun Tang International Publishing Ltd.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus concordance collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Skehan, P. (2000). A Cognitive Approach to Language Learning. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Stern, H. H. (1986). Fundamental Concepts of Language Teaching. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Sun, H. C., & Wang, C. Y. (2003). Concordances in the EFL Classroom: Cognitive
Approaches and Collocation Difficulty. Computer Assisted Language Learning,
16(1), 83-94.
Supatranont, P. (2005). A Comparison of the Effects of the Concordance-Based and the Conventional Teaching Methods on Engineering Students` English Vocabulary
Learning. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Graduate School Chulalongkorn University, Thailand.
Swan, M. (1985). A critical look at the communicative approach. ELT Journal, 39(1), 2-12.
Takač, V. P. (2008). Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Foreign Language
Acquisition. British: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Taylor, J. R. (2003). Near synonym as co-extensive categories: high and tall revised. Language sciences, 25(3), 263-284.
Taylor, J. R. (2007). Semantic categories of cutting and breaking: Some final thoughts. Cognitive Linguistics, 18(2), 331–337.
Tian, S. (2005). The impact of learning tasks and learner proficiency on
the effectiveness of data-driven learning. Journal of Pan-Pacific Association of
Applied Linguistics, 9(2), 263-75.
Tomlinson, B. (1998). Introduction. In B. Tomlinson (Ed.), Materials development in
language teaching (pp. 1—24). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Touraj, T., & Zahra, F. (2012). Data-driven learning: A student-centered technique for
language learning. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 2(7), 1526-1531.
Tribble, C., & Jones, G. (1990). Concordances in the classroom: A resource guide for
teachers. Essex: Longman.
Tribble, C. (1996). Corpora, concordances and ELT. IATEFL Newsletter, 130, 25-26.
Tseng, F. P. (2002). A study of effects of collocation instruction on the collocational competence of senior high school students in Taiwan. Master Thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Tsui, A. B. M. (2005). ESL teachers’ questions and corpus evidence. International
Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 10(3), 335-356.
Vygotski, L. S. (1963). Learning and mental development at school age. In B.
Simon & J. Simon (Eds.), Educational psychology (pp. 21—34). London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Wang, X. W. (2012). The study of using data-driven learning in English grammar
teaching in elementary school. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taipei
University of Education, Taipei, Taiwan.
Warschaucer, M. (2000). The changing global economy and the future of English
teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 511-535.
Webb, S. (2005). Receptive and productive vocabulary learning: The effects of reading and writing on word knowledge. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 27(1), 33-52.
Willis, D. (1990). The Lexical Syllabus: A New Approach to Language Teaching.
London: HarperCollins.
Willis, D., & Willis, J. (1996). Consciousness-raising activities in the language
classroom. In J. Willis & D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and Change in Language Teaching (pp. 63—76). Oxford: Heinemann.
Willis, J. (1998). Concordances in the classroom without a computer: assembling and exploiting concordances of common words. In Brian Tomlinson (Ed.), Material development in language teaching (pp. 44—66). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Woodward, T. (1996). Paradigm shift and the language teaching profession. In J. Willis and D. Willis (Eds.), Challenge and Change in Language Teaching (pp. 4—
9). Oxford: Heinemann.
Wu, W. S. (1996). Lexical collocations: One way to make passive vocabulary active. Paper from the eleventh conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China (pp. 461—480). Taipei: Crane.
Wu, W. S. (2010). The integration of corpus-based data into grammar instruction:
Using advise, recommend, and suggest as an example. Retrieved from May, 10,
from http://web.chu. edu.tw/ ~wswu/ publications/papers/journals/07.pdf.
Xiao, R. Z., & McEnery, A. M. (2006). Collocation, semantic prosody and near synonymy: A cross-linguistic perspective. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 103-129.
Yeh, H. Y. (2013). The effect of video production project on freshman learners’ English learning motivation. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taipei
University of Education, Taipei, Taiwan.
Yeh,Y. Y., Liou, H. C., & Li, Y. H. (2007). Online synonym materials and concordancing for EFL college writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(2), 131-152.
Yoon, H. & Hirvela, A. (2004). ESL student attitudes toward
corpus use in L2.Journal of Second Language Writing,
13(4), 257-283.
Young, R., & Perkins, K. (1995). Cognition and conation in
second language acquisition theory. IRAL 33(2), 142-164.
Zhang, X. (1993). English collocations and their effect on
the writing of native and non-native college freshman.
Publishes doctoral dissertation, Indiana University of
Pennsylvania, Pennsylvan.		zh_TW