Çevrimiçi Kaynakları Kullanarak İngilizce Eşdizimliliklerin Veri Güdümlü ve Tümdengelimsel Öğrenimi: Yakınsak Karma Yöntemler Çalışması

Abstract

Bu yakınsak karma yöntemler çalışma, veri güdümlü ve tümdengelimsel öğrenme içeren üç farklı çevrimiçi İngilizce eşdizimlilik başvuru kaynağının, yabancı dil olarak İngilizce öğrenenlerince 18 adet İngilizce fiil-isim eşdizimlilik içeren etkinlikleri yapmak için kullanılmasının, hedef eşdizimliliklerin öğrenilmesine ve kalıcılık düzeylerine etkisini karşılaştırmayı amaçlar.. Bu amaçla, katılımcılar, aynı çevrimiçi hata düzeltme görevlerini ve boşluk doldurma alıştırmalarını tamamlamak için farklı sırayla üç farklı çevrimiçi kaynağa başvurdu. Uygulamadan önce, katılımcılara Sözcük Dağarcığı Testi (SDT) ve ön test olarak eşdizimlilik çeviri testi (EÇT) verildi. Uygulamadan hemen sonra ise, katılımcılar son test olarak aynı eşdizimlilik testini (EÇT) ve farklı kaynaklara yönelik yorumlarına yönelik açık uçlu bir soru da içeren derecelendirme ölçeğini yanıtladılar. EÇT'nin sonuçları, kullanılan üç kaynağın da, kaynaklar arasında önemli bir farklılık olmaksızın ön teste kıyasla anlamlı seviyede yüksek öğrenme ve kalıcılık oranları sağladığını göstermiştir. Sonuçlar katılımcıların kaynakları farklı derecelendirdiklerini ve farklı bilişsel süreçlerden geçtiklerini göstermiştir. SDT puanları, son test puanları ile pozitif bir korelasyon göstermiştir ve SDT puanının bir düzenleyici değişken olabileceğini düşündürmektedir. Nicel ve nitel bulgular, birbirlerine uyan ve farklılaşan noktalarıyla ve önceki araştırma sonuçlarıyla birlikte, veri güdümlü öğrenme çerçevesinde yorumlanmış ve tartışılmıştır.

Keywords

• İngilizce Eşdizimlilik
• Veriye Güdümlü Öğrenme
• Çevrimiçi Sözlük
• Çevrimiçi Bütünce
• Google arama motoru
• Yakınsak Karma Yöntemler Araştırması

Data-driven vs. Deductive Learning of English L2 Collocations Using Online Resources: A Convergent Mixed Methods Study

Abstract

This convergent mixed methods study aims to compare effectiveness of using three online consultation resources entailing deductive vs. data-driven learning on learning and retention of 18 verb-noun collocations by EFL learners. The participants (N=45) randomly assigned to treatment conditions consulted three different online resources in different orders to complete the same online error correction tasks and gap-fill exercises in three sessions. The participants were given the Vocabulary Size Test (VST), and a productive collocation translation test (CTT) as the pretest, the posttest and the retention test. A sub-set of the participants also performed think aloud protocols during the treatment. After the treatment, the participants were given the CTT and responded a rating scale and an open-ended question. The results indicated that all of the resources led to significantly higher learning and retention rates with no significant differences among the resources. It was also found that the participants rate the resources differently and go through different cognitive processes when consulting resources. The VST scores positively correlated with the posttest scores, suggesting that participants’ vocabulary sizes can be a moderating variable. The findings are discussed based on previous research and within the framework of data-driven learning.

Keywords

• L2 collocations
• online collocation dictionary
• Google search
• corpus
• data-driven learning
• convergent mixed methods design

References

1. Acar, A., Geluso, J., & Shiki, T. (2011). How Can Search Engines Improve Your Writing? CALL-EJ, 12 (1), 1-10. Retrieved from http://www.callej.org/journal/12-1/Acar_2011.pdf.
2. Başal, A. (2019). Learning collocations: Effects of online tools on teaching English adjective‐noun collocations. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(1), 342-356. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12562
3. Boulton, A. (2010, December). Language awareness and medium-term benefits of corpus consultation. In Proceedings of Eurocall 2009 conference: New trends in CALL-working together, (pp. 39-46). Macmillan ELT.
4. Boulton, A., & Cobb, T. (2017). Corpus use in language learning: A meta‐analysis. Language learning, 67(2), 348-393. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12224
5. Brezina, V. (2012). Use of Google Scholar in corpus-driven EAP research. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 11(4), 319-331. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2012.08.001
6. Chen, Y. (2017). Dictionary use for collocation production and retention: A CALL-based study. International Journal of Lexicography, 30(2), 225-251. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecw005
7. Chinnery, G. (2008). You’ve got some GALL: Google-assisted language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 12, 3−11. http://dx.doi.org/10125/44126
8. Cobb, T. (1997). Is there any measurable learning from hands-on concordancing? System, 25(3), 301-315. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0346-251x(97)00024-9

9. Cobb, T. (1999). Breadth and Depth of Lexical Acquisition with Hands-on Concordancing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 12(4), 345-360. https://doi.org/10.1076/call.12.4.345.5699.
10. Cobb, T. (n.d.). Vocabulary Profilers [computer program]. Available at https://www.lextutor.ca/vp/
11. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
12. Craik, F. I., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671–684. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X
13. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2018). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
14. Daskalovska, N. (2015). Corpus-based versus traditional learning of collocations. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(2), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2013.803982
15. Flowerdew, L. (2015). Data-driven learning and language learning theories. In A. Leńko-Szymańska & A. Boulton (Eds.), Multiple affordances of language corpora for data-driven learning, 69, 15-36. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.69
16. Frankenberg-Garcia, A. (2012). Learners’ use of corpus examples. International Journal of Lexicography, 25(3), 273-296. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecs011
17. Geiller, L. (2014). How EFL Students Can Use Google to Correct Their" Untreatable" Written Errors. The EuroCALL Review, 22(2), 26-45. Retreived from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1055226.pdf.
18. Geluso, J. (2013). Phraseology and frequency of occurrence on the web: native speakers’ perceptions of Google-informed second language writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 26(2), 144-157. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2011.639786
19. Given, L. M. (2016). 100 questions (and answers) about qualitative research. SAGE Publications.
20. Han, S., & Shin, J.-A. (2017). Teaching Google search techniques in an L2 academic writing context. Language Learning & Technology, 21(3), 172–194.
21. Huang, Z. (2014). The effects of paper-based DDL on the acquisition of lexico-grammatical patterns in L2 writing. ReCALL, 26(02), 163–183. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344014000020
22. Hulstijn, J. H., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language learning, 51(3), 539–558. https://doi.org/10.1111/0023-8333.00164
23. Kartal, G., & Yangın Ekşi, G. (2018). The effects of using corpus resources on EFL student teachers' learning and production of verb-noun collocations. PASAA: Journal of Language Teaching and Learning in Thailand, 55, 100–125. Retreived from https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1191743
24. Kim, S. (2017). "Minimum input, maximum output, indeed!" Teaching collocations through collocation dictionary skills development. Lexikos, 27, 265-286. 10.5788/27-1-1403
25. Kim, S. (2018). EFL learners’ dictionary consultation behaviour during the revision process to correct collocation errors. International Journal of Lexicography, 31(3), 312-326. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecx009
26. Kotamjani, S. S., Razavi, O. F., & Hussin, H. (2017). Online Corpus Tools in Scholarly Writing: A Case of EFL Postgraduate Student. English Language Teaching, 10(9), 61-68. 10.5539/elt.v10n9p61
27. Kvashnina, O. S., & Sumtsova, O. V. (2018). Using Google to search language patterns in web-corpus: EFL writing pedagogy. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (iJET), 13(3), 173-179. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v13i03.7712
28. Lee, H., Warschauer, M., & Lee, J. H. (2019). The effects of corpus use on second language vocabulary learning: A multilevel meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 40(5), 721-753. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy012
29. Lew, R., & Radłowska, M. (2010). Navigating dictionary space: The findability of English collocations in a general learner’s dictionary (LDOCE4) and special-purpose dictionary of collocations (OCD). In A. Ciuk, & K. Molek-Kozakowska (Eds.), Exploring Space: Spatial Notions in Cultural, Literary and Language Studies, Volume 2: Space in Language Studies (pp. 34-47). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
30. Laufer, B. (2011). The contribution of dictionary use to the production and retention of collocations in a second language. International Journal of Lexicography, 24(1), 29–49. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecq039
31. Li, S. (2017). Using corpora to develop learners’ collocational competence. Language Learning & Technology, 21(3), 153-17. 10125/44625
32. Mizumoto, A., & Chujo, K. (2015). A meta-analysis of data-driven learning approach in the Japanese EFL classroom. English Corpus Studies, 22, 1-18.
33. Nation, P., & Beglar, D. (2007). A vocabulary size test. The language teacher, 31(7), 9–13.
34. Nesselhauf, N., & Tschichold, C. (2002). Collocations in CALL: An investigation of vocabulary-building software for EFL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15(3), 251-279. https://doi.org/10.1076/call.15.3.251.8190
35. Nurmukhamedov, U. (2016). The contribution of collocation resources to collocation correction in second language writing. International Journal of Lexicography, 4(8), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijl/ecw031
36. Peters, E. (2016). The learning burden of collocations: The role of interlexical and intralexical factors. Language Teaching Research, 20(1), 113–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362168814568131
37. Rezaee, A. A., Marefat, H., & Saeedakhtar, A. (2015). Symmetrical and asymmetrical scaffolding of L2 collocations in the context of concordancing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28(6), 532-549. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2014.889712
38. Robb, T. (2003). Google as a quick ‘n dirty corpus tool. TESL-EJ, 7(2). Retrived from: http://www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume7/ej26/ej26int/?wscr=
39. Shei, C.-C. (2008). Discovering the hidden treasure on the Internet: Using Google to uncover the veil of phraseology. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 21(1), 67−85. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588220701865516
40. Sha, G. (2010). Using Google as a super corpus to drive written language learning: a comparison with the British National Corpus. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 23(5), 377-393. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2010.514576
41. Sun, Y.-C., & Wang, L.-Y. (2003). Concordancers in the EFL classroom: Cognitive approaches and collocation difficulty. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16, 83–94. https://doi.org/10.1076/call.16.1.83.15528
42. Tsai, K. J. (2019). Corpora and dictionaries as learning aids: inductive versus deductive approaches to constructing vocabulary knowledge. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32(8), 805-826. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2018.1527366
43. Wu, Y. J. A. (2015). Utilizing corpus resources accompanied by other consultation resources in enhancing collocation accuracy and collocation richness in L2 writing. [Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California] ProQuest Dissertations Publishing.