Along with the growing interests in corpus linguistics and its influence on language education, the present study aims to analyze the actual use of corpus with online dictionaries in the EFL writing of Korean high school students in composition and re...
Along with the growing interests in corpus linguistics and its influence on language education, the present study aims to analyze the actual use of corpus with online dictionaries in the EFL writing of Korean high school students in composition and revision processes. Three research questions are discussed to accomplish this aim: (1) How do Korean learners of English use corpus technology in EFL writing, in terms of the frequency, purposes, and success ratios? (2) How differently do the successful and unsuccessful corpus users utilize corpus? (3) What are the responses of Korean learners of English to the use of corpus with online dictionaries for EFL writing?
To investigate the three questions, six participants wrote ten essays and revised them with the feedback provided in the form of underlining, using Brown corpus and online dictionaries. The analysis of the students’ writing products, corpus use logs, interviews and surveys produced the following results for each research question.
First, the participants utilized the corpus for composition and revision in different ways. While they focused their corpus use on the search for a few categories of linguistic information during composition, a wider range of linguistic information was retrieved more frequently for revision. The success ratios of using corpus, interestingly, were higher in the composition than in the revision process, but the learners experienced success in a greater range of linguistic categories during the revision process.
Second, the student writers’ corpus use strategies and behaviors were found to be associated with their successfulness. While the successful group of students utilized the corpus complementarily with online dictionaries, clearly acknowledging the benefits and limitations of using corpus, the unsuccessful group tended to rely on one resource at a time for their linguistic decisions, either online dictionaries or corpus. The successful users also employed varied strategies according to their needs, which was different from the opposite group, who often abandoned the results when faced obstacles. Other affective and cognitive factors also appear to have influenced the frequency and successfulness of their corpus use.
Third, most participants found dictionary use more beneficial in composition and corpus use in revision process. The detailed description of the advantages and disadvantages of the two reference sources by the participants also indicate that many of them recognized that online dictionaries and corpus could play their own roles to enhance their writing.
The results above offer pedagogical implication for the implementation of corpora into EFL writing classes. Student writers need to be encouraged to utilize corpora complementarily with other writing resources, through appropriate training courses. The explicit instruction on the effective corpus use strategies would enable learners to benefit from corpora and concordance tools. Other individual affective and cognitive factors should also be considered for successful incorporation of corpus technology.