English Academic Writing: Social constructivism and corpora. Janet-Marie McLaughlin

English Academic Writing: Social constructivism and corpora Janet-Marie McLaughlin

Linguistik Janet-Marie McLaughlin English Academic Writing: Social constructivism and corpora Shaker Verlag Aachen 2013

Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.d-nb.de. Zugl.: Hildesheim, Univ., Diss., 2012 Copyright Shaker Verlag 2013 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publishers. Printed in Germany. ISBN 978-3-8440-1964-3 ISSN 1613-4532 Shaker Verlag GmbH P.O. BOX 101818 D-52018 Aachen Phone: 0049/2407/9596-0 Telefax: 0049/2407/9596-9 Internet: www.shaker.de e-mail: info@shaker.de

Table of Contents List of Tables...vii List of Figures... viii 1. Introduction... 1 Part I: Social Constructivism... 5 2. Introducing Social Constructivism... 6 2.1. Changes in Theory, Practice and Learning to Learn... 6 2.2. Social Constructivism: The focus... 8 2.3. Social Constructivism and Communicative Language Learning and Teaching... 9 2.4. Development of Social Speech into Thought... 9 2.5. The Zone of Proximal Development... 13 2.6. The Role of Scaffolding and Decentering in the ZPD... 15 3. The Seven Principles of Social Constructivism... 17 3.1. Features of a Social Constructivist Classroom... 17 3.2. Collaboration: Theory and practice... 18 3.3. Learner Autonomy: Theory and practice... 22 3.3.1. Defining Autonomy... 23 3.3.2. Note Taking... 24 3.3.3. Report Back Phase... 26 3.3.4. Constraints that Affect Learner and Teacher Autonomy... 27 3.3.5. Need Analysis... 27 3.4. Generativity: Theory and practice... 28 3.5. Active Engagement: Theory and practice... 30 3.5.1. Inductive Learning... 31 3.5.2. Data Driven Learning... 33 3.5.2.1. Data Driven Language Learning and the ZPD... 34 3.5.2.2. Social Constructivism and Corpus... 34 3.6. Personal Relevance: Theory and practice... 36 3.7. Reflectivity: Theory and practice... 38 3.7.1. Encouraging Reflection... 38 3.7.2. Error Correction... 39 3.8. Pluralism: Theory and practice... 41 4. Summary of Part I... 43 i

Part II Corpus Linguistics... 44 5. Introducing Corpus Linguistics... 45 5.1. The Meaning of Corpus Linguistics... 45 5.2. Corpora and Technology... 46 5.3. Corpus Linguistics and English Language Teaching... 47 5.4. Corpora and Teaching Material... 49 5.5. Corpus, Language, and the Discourse Community... 50 5.6. Corpus Linguistics and Learner Dictionaries... 54 6. The Mental Lexicon... 57 6.1. Interconnections in the Mental Lexicon... 58 6.2. Concept Formation: Word meaning... 59 6.2.1. Corpus and Word Interconnections... 60 6.2.2. Learners Own Corpus Compilation... 61 7. Learning Vocabulary... 63 7.1. Neologisms... 64 7.2. Vocabulary Lists and Direct Translation Equivalents... 65 7.3. Factors that Aid Vocabulary Learning... 68 7.3.1. Noticing... 68 7.3.2. Elaboration: Input to Uptake... 69 7.4. Vocabulary Development and Acquisition... 71 8. Corpus and Knowing a Word... 72 8.1. Word Frequency... 73 8.2. Frequency of Words and Advanced Language Learners... 75 8.3. Communicative Competence... 75 8.4. Corpus and Sociolinguistic Competence... 76 8.5. Corpus and Cultural Associations... 77 8.5.1. Corpus and Register... 79 8.5.1.1. Register and Phrasal Verbs... 80 8.5.1.2. Politically Correct Language... 80 8.5.1.3. Corpus and the Cultural Associations of The Poor in British English... 81 8.5.1.3.1. The Passive Poor... 83 8.5.1.3.2. The Active Poor... 83 8.5.1.3.3. The Poor and their Associates... 85 8.5.2. Semantic Prosody... 86 ii

8.6. Synonyms... 88 8.7. Polysemy... 92 8.8. World Knowledge... 94 9. Relevance of Language Chunks... 96 9.1. Importance of Chunks for Language Learning and Teaching... 97 9.2. Language Patterning... 98 9.2.1. Binomials... 99 9.2.2. Learning English at an Advanced Level... 101 9.2.3. Corpus and Language Chunks... 102 9.3. Nativelike Selection... 103 9.3.1. Nativelike Selection: Finnegans Wake... 104 9.3.2. Nativelike Selection: Anthem... 106 9.3.3. Written and Spoken Academic Language... 108 9.4. Language Chunks... 109 9.4.1. Learning Language Chunks... 110 9.4.2. Comparison of Frequency of Single Words with the Frequency of Chunks... 110 9.4.2.1. First Step of the Comparison... 111 9.4.2.2. Second Step of the Comparison... 112 9.4.2.3. Third Step of the Comparison... 114 9.4.3. Evaluation of the Data... 119 9.5. Lexico-grammatical Patterning... 122 9.5.1. Chunks of Language... 123 9.5.2. Lexico-grammatical Patterns Containing Prepositions... 124 9.6. Investigating L2 Problems with Frequent Words such as Prepositions... 125 9.6.1. Description of the University Tests... 125 9.6.1.1. Single Word Test... 126 9.6.1.1.1. Designations... 126 9.6.1.1.2. Results of the Single Word Test and Frequency of these Words... 127 9.6.1.2. The Chunk Test... 130 9.6.1.2.1. Results of the Chunk Test... 133 9.6.1.2.2. Analysis of the Results of the Chunk Test... 135 9.6.1.3. Comparing the Results of the Single Word Test with those of the Chunk Test... 138 iii

10. Summary of Part II... 141 Part III Pedagogical Action Research... 142 11. Introducing Pedagogical Action Research... 143 11.1. Definition of Pedagogical Action Research... 143 11.2. Description of Pedagogical Action Research Cycle... 144 11.3. The Difference Between Pedagogical Action Research and Action Learning... 144 11.4. Guidelines for Pedagogical Action Research... 145 11.4.1. Positivist Research versus Constructivist Research... 145 11.4.2. Specific Features of Pedagogical Action Research... 146 11.5. Ethics of Pedagogical Action Research... 147 11.6. Relevance of Pedagogical Action Research in Educational Settings... 148 11.6.1. Pedagogical Action Research as Reflective Teaching Practice... 150 11.6.2. The Relevance of Pedagogical Action Research at Tertiary Level... 151 12. Pedagogical Action Research Project: English Academic Writing... 152 12.1. Aims of the Pegagogical Action Research Project... 152 12.2. The Research Questions... 152 12.3. The Situation... 153 12.3.1. Brief Description of the Students who Study with the English Department... 154 12.3.2. Investigating the Problems of English Academic Writing... 155 12.3.2.1. Exploration of the English Academic Writing Skills which the Hildesheim University Students Bring to their Studies... 156 12.3.2.2. First Year Students Previous Experience of English Academic Writing... 157 12.3.2.3. Evaluation of the Questionnaire and of the Data Gathered... 159 12.4. Description of the Pedagogical Action Research Project... 161 12.4.1. Research Group... 161 12.4.2. Control Group... 161 12.4.3. The Teacher s/researcher s Role in the Project... 162 12.4.4. Data Collection... 162 12.4.5. Special Corpus Designed for the Project Classes... 162 13. The Pedagogical Action Research Project: Content and structure of English Academic Writing seminars... 164 13.1. Linking Practice and Theory... 165 13.2. Application of Seven Principles of Social Constructivism... 165 iv

13.2.1. Generativity: Practice and theory... 166 13.2.2. Personal Relevance: Practice and theory... 167 13.2.3. Collaboration: Practice and theory... 169 13.2.4. Active Engagement: Practice and theory... 172 13.2.5. Reflectivity: Practice and theory... 174 13.2.6. Autonomy: Practice and theory... 176 13.2.7. Pluralism: Practice and theory... 177 13.3. The First Tutorial... 178 13.3.1. Needs Analysis... 179 13.3.2. Materials for the Tutorials... 179 13.3.3. Finding the Focus... 179 13.3.4. Structure of the Homework of English Academic Writing Tutorials... 181 13.3.5. Error Correction... 181 13.3.5.1. Reformulation... 181 13.3.5.1.1. Example of Colour-coding for Reformulation... 181 13.3.5.1.2. The Importance of Reformulation... 182 13.3.5.1.3. Reformulation and Learner Autonomy... 184 13.3.5.2. Reconstruction... 185 13.3.5.2.1. Example of Colour-coding for Reconstruction... 185 13.3.5.2.2. Theoretical Rationale behind Reconstruction... 185 13.4. The Third Tutorial... 186 13.4.1. Examples of Error Corrections Using a Corpus... 188 13.4.2. Using a Corpus for English Academic Writing... 192 13.4.2.1. Corpus and Language Accurracy... 194 13.4.2.2. Social Constructivism and Corpora... 196 13.5. Second Tutorial: Structuring the text... 197 13.6. The Fourth Tutorial: Paragraphing... 199 13.6.1. Paragraphing: The first task... 199 13.6.2. Paragraphing: The second task... 200 13.6.3. Paragraphing: The third task... 200 13.6.4. Paragraphing: The fourth task... 201 13.6.5. Paragraphing: The fifth task... 201 13.6.6. Paragraphing: Conclusion of the lesson... 202 13.7. Difficulties of Teaching and Learning Paragraph Structures... 202 v

13.8. The Fifth Tutorial: Reporting/Referring verbs... 205 13.9. Rationale Behind Tutorial on Reporting/Referring Verbs... 207 13.10. Critical Thinking... 209 13.11. Summary of the Pedagogical Action Research Classes... 209 14. Results of the Pedagogical Action Research Project... 210 14.1. The Structure of the Editing Process... 211 14.2. Working Towards Accuracy... 212 14.3. The Process... 214 14.3.1. Students Progress Towards Accuracy over the Course of the Semester... 214 14.3.1.1. Collecting the Data... 214 14.3.1.2. Results of the Data Collection... 217 14.3.1.3. Justification for Counting Errors per Word... 217 14.3.1.4. Analysis of the Students Progress Towards Accuracy... 224 14.3.2. Feedback on Written Academic Work... 224 14.3.2.1. Students Response to Feedback... 226 14.3.2.2. Students Difficulties with Colour-coding... 227 14.4. The Product... 228 14.4.1. Evaluating the Product of the Students English Academic Writing... 228 14.4.1.1. Criteria for Marking the Papers... 228 14.4.1.2. Marking the Papers... 228 14.4.2. Analysis and Evaluation of the Results... 230 14.4.3. Investigating the Low Mark Awarded to a Research Class Student... 232 14.4.4. Analysis of the three Areas Graded: Content, Use of Language and Adherence to Academic Conventions.... 234 14.4.4.1. Content... 235 14.4.4.2. Use of Language... 236 14.4.4.3. Adherence to Academic Conventions... 237 14.5. Discussion of the Results of the Pedagogical Action Research Project... 238 15. Conclusion... 241 Bibliography... 243 References... 245 Appendices... 258 vi

List of Tables Table 1: Disciplines in which German academics claim English as their working language... 51 Table 2: Vocabulary size and coverage... 73 Table 3: Rank of frequency of top 10 words in the CIC... 74 Table 4: Varieties of idiomaticity.... 97 Table 5: Known and unknown words from an extract of Finnegans Wake... 105 Table 6: Chunks of text in Anthem and their frequencies in ukwac... 107 Table 7: Frequency of words in Sinclair s text... 111 Table 8: Frequency of single words from Sinclair s text in the ELT Journal Corpus... 113 Table 9: Frequency of the chunks from Sinclair s text found in the ELT Journal Corpus... 115 Table 10: Frequency of the chunks from Sinclair s text in the BAWE Corpus... 116 Table 11: Frequency of chunks from Sinclair s text found in the BNC Corpus... 117 Table 12: Frequency of chunks found in ukwac... 118 Table 13: Results of the single word test... 127 Table 14: Frequency of the prepositions and the frequency of the single words... 132 Table 15: Frequency of words in ukwac and percentage of correct answers from HUS... 139 Table 16: Amount of written work expected from students in English Department over the course of one semester... 168 Table 17: Tenses of reporting verbs in ELT Journal Corpus... 206 Table 18: Years of use of stated in BAWE... 207 Table 19: Frequency with which students state they ask for feedback on their written work... 225 Table 20: Students opinion as to the usefulness of feedback received... 225 Table 21: Results of the grading of the papers... 230 Table 22: Percentage received by all students in descending order... 231 Table 23: Comparison of results of different years of study... 232 Table 24: Percentages given for Content of papers... 235 Table 25: Percentages given for Use of Language in papers... 237 Table 26: Percentages given for Adherence to Academic Conventions in papers... 238 Table 27: Comparison of marks for Adherence to Academic Conventions with length of time studying... 239 vii

List of Figures Figure 1: Interconnections of the seven principles of social constructivism... 17 Figure 2: A social constructivist model of the teaching-learning process... 18 Figure 3: Material for inductively finding a rule for the use of italics... 39 Figure 4: Kachru s three concentric circles of English (1985)... 52 Figure 5: Worksheet for Creating you own Corpus... 62 Figure 6: Example of the highlighting of a KWIC... 69 Figure 7: The functions of formulaic sequences... 100 Figure 8: Results of the gap test 1-11... 134 Figure 9: Results of the gap test 12-22... 134 Figure 10:Results of the gap test 23-33... 134 Figure 11:Example of new text incorporated into the old text... 212 Figure 12:Example of the tagged student s work... 215 Figure 13:Concordance of the tagged text for the number 1 in a student s second text... 216 Figure 14:Students progress toward accuracy in EAW over the course of the semester... 217 Figure 15:The three stages of a student s text... 218 Figure 16:Changes made to an already corrected text after seminar on personal pronouns... 219 Figure 17:Student s re-writing of corrected text... 219 Figure 18:Example of concordance supplied for corpus query error correction... 221 Figure 19:Incorporation of newly learned material in a student s text... 223 Figure 20:Examples of grid for tutors results... 229 Figure 21:Text returned to student who had difficulty using a corpus to correct her own errors... 233 viii

Acknowlegements I would like to thank the following people who helped me, in one way or another, to write this thesis. First and foremost, I would like to thank the students who participated in the research classes and made them such an enjoyment to teach. Thanks go to Dr. Saskia Kersten for both her technical and moral support. To Sylke Schmeißing for support and cups of tea. To all the members of the English Department of Hildesheim University who cheerfully listened to my moaning while writing this work, I appreciate your support and help. I would like to thank Professor Lenz who made the research possible and for all his suggestions and his patience along the way. Finally, I would like to thank Ramesh Krishnamurthy who sparked off the initial ideas for the research, encouraged my enthusiasm for corpus linguistics and who is the best teacher I know.