簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 賴淑麗
Shu-li Lai
論文名稱： 線上單字查詢作為台灣大學生英文寫作工具之研究
Online References as Writing Tools for College Students in Taiwan
指導教授： 陳浩然
Chen, Hao-Jan
學位類別： 博士
Doctor
系所名稱： 英語學系
Department of English
論文出版年： 2010
畢業學年度： 98
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 233
中文關鍵詞： 語料檢索工具 、搭配詞檢索系統 、查詢行為 、刺激回憶訪談 、外語寫作
英文關鍵詞： corpus tools, collocation retrieval system, consultation behavior, stimulus recall interview, EFL writing
論文種類： 學術論文
相關次數： 點閱：213  下載：17 
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報

    • 許多的研究已經證實語料檢索工具（corpus tools）有助於外語寫作。然而，學生們在寫作過程中，會如何與這些工具互動，所知並不多。為了更了解這些過程，本研究探討台灣大學生使用線上語料檢索工具和字典時的行為，以及他們對這些寫作工具的看法。

    有十四位非英語系大學生參與為期十七週的研究。本研究提供學生四種線上語料檢索系統，包含單語、雙語「單字檢索系統」（concordancer）以及單語、雙語「搭配詞檢索系統」（collocation retrieval system），同時也給予線上字典供學生寫作時使用。最初的兩週用來幫助學生熟悉這四個語料庫檢索工具，並提供實際上機練習。接下來的三個月，學生在課堂上寫三次計時寫作。所有的寫作過程，都由螢幕錄影軟體錄下。學生並在每次的寫作活動後，接受一對一的刺激回憶訪談（stimulus recall interviews）和半開放性訪談（semi-structured interviews）。四十二次的回憶訪談是本研究最主要的資料分析來源。其他資料來源包括寫作過程的影像檔，學生的工具使用日誌，作文，及研究者的觀察筆記。

    本研究發現，學生最依賴雙語字典。在所提供的四個語料檢索工具中，學生認為雙語單字檢索系統幫助最大。從學生的查詢行為中發現，語料檢索工具和雙語字典的功能不同。當需要查詢字義（word meaning）和字的結構（word form）時，學生偏好雙語字典。當尋找有關字的用法（word usage），搭配詞（collocation information），或文法規則（grammar pattern）時，學生選用語料庫檢索工具的頻率高於雙語字典。此外，當字典提供的字義不清楚時，要查詢的中文是有關台灣當地的人、事、物（local Taiwanese referents）或是字串（word strings）時，以及當學生心中已經有想法，只是要做確認時，學生也會使用語料庫檢索工具查詢字義和字的結構。

    研究結果也顯示，學生的語料檢索行為有其策略性，而且是目標導向的。學生在工具的選擇與使用、語料的分析、歸納、以及應用，都使用了策略。此外，學生們均認為作為寫作工具，這些語料檢索工具與傳統雙語字典有互補作用。語料庫檢索工具提供大量的例句，補足了雙語字典這方面的缺失。學生也提到單語檢索工具凸顯關鍵字的表現方式，讓他們有意外的學習（incidental learning）。有了這些工具的幫助，學生們對英文寫作變的比較有信心。

    本研究同時也發現學生檢索語料時所遇到的困難，包括無法從索引句子中看出需要的資訊，做了錯誤的分析及歸納，以及錯誤的規則套用。資料顯示，這些問題多源自於語言能力的不足或受到先備知識（prior knowledge）的誤導。

    透過實地了解學生的語料檢索行為，以及字典的使用，本研究提供了豐富的實證資料，幫助了解外語寫作者在寫作過程如何與這些工具互動，以及這些工具對外語寫作提供的協助為何。這些發現進而提供了語言教學以及未來相關領域研究的方向。

    Many studies have confirmed the benefits of using corpus tools in EFL writing but little is known concerning how EFL writers interact with these tools during the writing process. To better understand this question, this study aimed to investigate Taiwanese college students’ consultation behavior while using the corpus tools and the dictionaries during the writing process, and their perception of these tools as writing references.

    Fourteen non-English majors participated in this 17-week study. Four online corpus tools, including monolingual and bilingual concordancers and collocation retrieval systems, were provided along with two online dictionaries. The study began with two tool-training sections. In the following three months, the students performed three timed writing tasks online and received individual stimulus recall interviews after each writing task. The 42 recall interviews served as the main source of data for this study. Other data included video clips of the writing process, student tool logs, student writing samples, and the researcher’s notes.

    The results showed that the bilingual dictionary was the most relied-upon tool overall, and students considered the bilingual concordancer as the most helpful corpus tool. As their behaviors indicated, the students used corpus tools and the bilingual dictionary for different purposes. They tended to use a bilingual dictionary when information on word form and word meaning was needed. When searching for information related to word usage, collocation information, and grammar patterns, they chose corpus tools more often than the bilingual dictionary. Furthermore, they turned to corpus tools when the Yahoo dictionary failed to provide clear word meanings, when they needed English equivalents related to local Taiwanese referents or for a string of keywords, and when they needed to confirm an intuition regarding word form and word meaning.

    This study also found that the students’ use of corpus tools was goal-oriented and strategic, as could be seen in the process of selecting tools, analyzing concordance lines, generating rules, and transferring rules to the writing context. In general, the students perceived the corpus tools as a complement to a conventional bilingual dictionary. These corpus tools provided rich example sentences that compensated for the lack of such information in bilingual dictionaries. In addition, the students reported incidental learning as a consequence of the salient presentation of word patterns provided by the monolingual concordancer. With the support of corpus tools, the students also reported that they became more confident in their English writing.

    Various difficulties were also identified, such as failing to see word patterns in the concordance lines, generating incorrect rules, and making incorrect transfers. These problems were caused mostly by the students’ limited language proficiency and inappropriate prior knowledge of the foreign language.

    Overall, by examining the students’ consultation behavior in the three writing tasks, this study provides rich on-site data that helps to better understand how EFL writers interact with corpus tools and how these tools contribute to EFL writing. The findings also provide implications for instruction and direction to go for future research in relevant fields.

    中文摘要 I Abstract III Acknowledgements V Table of Conents VII List of Tables XI List of Figures XIII CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1 Statement of the Problem 3 Purpose of the Study 5 Significance of the Study 5 CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 7 Dictionaries and L2 Writing 7 Purposes of Dictionary Consultation 7 Strategies of Dictionary Consultation 8 Difficulties in Dictionary Consultation 8 Monolingual and Bilingual Dictionaries 9 Concordancers and Vocabulary Learning 11 Corpora and Concordancers 11 Corpus-Based Vocabulary Learning 13 Strengths of Corpus-Based Learning 13 Limitations of Corpus-Based Learning 14 The Integration of Concordancers Into L2 Writing 15 Concordancers and Academic Writing 15 Concordancers and Collocation Knowledge 17 Concordancers and Writing Revisions 20 The Processes, Strategies, and Difficulties of Corpus Consultation 22 CHAPTER THREE METHOD 27 The Research Design 27 The Participants 28 The Researcher's Role 32 The Six Web-Based Reference Tools 32 TotalRecall 33 VLC Web Concordancer (VLC) 35 Tango 36 NTNU Web-Based Collocation Retrieval System (NTNU CCRS) 37 The Yahoo Online Dictionary 38 Cambridge Advanced Learners' Dictionary (CALD) 38 Instruments 40 The Background Questionnaire 40 The GEPT Test 40 Three Worksheets for the Hands-On Exercises 41 Three Writing Tasks 41 The Tool Logs 41 The Stimulus Recalls and Semi-Structured Interviews 42 The Coding Scheme for Purposes of Tool Consultation 44 Data Collection Procedure 46 Data Source and Data Analysis 52 Data Source 52 Data Transcription and Analysis 53 CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 58 The Frequency of Tool Use 58 The Frequency of Tool Use in All Three Writing Tasks 58 The Frequency of Tool Use in Each Writing Task 58 Each Student's Use of the Four Corpus Tools in the Three Writing Tasks 60 Discussion 61 The Purpose of Tool Consultation 68 The Overall Purposes 69 Differences among the Four Corpus Tools 69 Discussion 71 Corpus Consultation Strategies 80 Tool Selection and Use 81 Concordance Analysis and Rule Generation 85 Application of Rules 92 Attention to Allotted Time 94 Discussion 94 Difficulties in Corpus Consultation 102 Problems in Tool Selection and Use 102 Problems in Corpus Analysis and Rule Formation 103 Frustration in Dealing with a Corpus 105 Discussion 105 Participants' Perceptions of the Tools 108 Corpus Tools Complement the Bilingual Dictionary 109 Sufficient Example Sentences Serve As Model Sentences in EFL Writing 111 The Bilingual Feature of Concordancer Eases the Consultation Process 112 The Unique Presentation of Search Results Highlights Word Patterns 113 The Frequency Counts of Ccrs Provide Valuable Information 114 Corpus Tools Help Students Gain Confidence in EFL Writing 117 Discussion 120 Detailed Reports of Four Cases 126 Case One: Allen 129 Case Two: Ray 139 Case Three: Jill 153 Case Four: Zan 162 Discussion 173 CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSION 176 Overview of the Study 176 Implications for Instruction 180 Suggestions for Future Research 182 Limitations 185 Reflections 186 REFERENCES 189 Appendix A Detailed Account of Each Student's Profile 201 Appendix B Background Questionnaire 203 Appendix C The Handout for the Hands-on Exercise One 205 Appendix D The Handout for the Hands-on Exercise Two 207 Appendix E The Handout for the Hands-on Exercise Three 209 Appendix F Writing Task One 211 Appendix G Writing Task Two 212 Appendix H Writing Task Three 213 Appendix I Tool Logs 214 Appendix J An Interview Guide 216 Appendix K Consent Form (in English) 218 Appendix L The E-Mail Notice 220 Appendix M Interview Time, Data and Length 221 Appendix N A Sample of Students' Tool Logs 222 Appendix O The Coding Sheet for Consultation Purposes 223 Appendix P A Sample of Coding Sheet for Consultation Purposes 225 Appendix Q Each Student's Use of the Six Tools in the Three Writing Tasks 226 Appendix R Purposes of the Use of Yahoo Dictionary and Cambridge Advanced Learners Dictionary in the Three Writing Tasks 227 Appendix S Allen's Writing Sample 228 Appendix T Ray's Writing Sample 229 Appendix U Jewel's Writing Sample 230 Appendix V Zan's Writing Sample 232 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Participants' Profiles 30 Table 2 Results from Background Questionnaire 31 Table 3 Dictionaries Students Used Before the Study Began 31 Table 4 The Four Corpus Tools 33 Table 5 The Two Dictionaries 33 Table 6 The Schedule and the Writing Prompts 42 Table 7 The Data Collecting Procedure 48 Table 8 The Process of Transcribing and Analyzing the Data Obtained from Stimulus Recalls and the Semi-structured Interviews 56 Table 9 Frequency of Tool Use in All Three Writing Tasks 59 Table 10 the Distribution of Tool Use in Each Writing Task 59 Table 11 Each Student's Use of the Four Corpus Tools over the Three Writing Tasks 61 Table 12 Purposes of Bilingual Dictionary and Corpus Tool Use in the Three Writing Tasks 70 Table 13 the Purposes of Consulting the Four Corpus Tools 71 Table 14 Consultation Purposes and Aspects of Word Knowledge for Productive Use 72 Table 15 Combination of the Yahoo Dictionary and Total Recall 82 Table 16 Combination of TotalRecall, Yahoo, NTNU and VLC 83 Table 17 Summaries of Students' Corpus Consultation Strategies 95 Table 18 Learning Strategies and Corpus Consultation Strategies 96 Table 19 Difficulties/Problems in Corpus Searches 106 Table 20 A Summary of Students' Perceptions of the Corpus Tools 121 Table 21 The Four Cases 128 Table 22 Frequency of Allen's Tool Use over the Three Writing Tasks 131 Table 23 Purposes of Allen's Tool Consultations over the Three Writing Tasks 132 Table 24 Patterns of Allen's Cross-Referencing over the Three Writing Tasks 134 Table 25 Frequency of Ray's Tool Use over the Three Writing Tasks 143 Table 26 Purposes of Ray's Tool Consultation over the Three Writings Tasks 144 Table 27 Patterns of Ray's Cross-Referencing over the Three Writing Tasks 148 Table 28 Frequency of Jill's Tool Use over the Three Writing Tasks 155 Table 29 Purposes of Jill's Tool Consultation over the Three Writing Tasks 156 Table 30 Patterns of Jill's Cross-referencing over the Three Writing Tasks 158 Table 31 Frequency of Zan's Tool Use in the Three Writing Tasks 165 Table 32 Purposes of Zan's Tool Consultation in the Three Writing Tasks 166 Table 33 Patterns of Zan's Cross-referencing over the Three Writing Tasks 168 Table 34 The Distribution of Zan's Cross-referencing of Pattern One 169 Table 35 The Distribution of Zan's Cross-referencing of Pattern Two. 170 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. A search for 蚵仔煎 in TotalRecall. 34 Figure 2. A search for the target word "cause" in TotalRecall. 34 Figure 3. The interface of the online VLC concordancer. 35 Figure 4. A search for "cause" in VLC. 36 Figure 5. A search for the target word "cause" in Tango. 37 Figure 6. The interface of the NTNU Collocation Retrieval System. 38 Figure 7. The interface of the online Yahoo Dictionary. 39 Figure 8. The interface of the Cambridge Advanced Learners’ Dictionary. 39 Figure 9. A screen shot of S13’s writing process by PowerCam. 51 Figure 10. The major data collecting procedure. 52 Figure 11. A screen shot of the transcriber. 53 Figure 12. The percentages of the use of dictionaries and corpus tools in the three writing tasks. 60 Figure 13. A search for "talk" in VLC. 77 Figure 14. The interface of NTNU Collocation Retrieval System. 79 Figure 15. The interface of Tango. 80 Figure 16. A search for 八卦 from Total Recall. 86 Figure 17. A search for "worth" in VLC. 89 Figure 18. A search for "in addition" in the VLC concordancer. 90 Figure 19. A search for 成長 in TotalRecall. 90 Figure 20. A search for 紀念 in TotalRecall. 93 Figure 21. A search for 灌輸 in TotalRecall. 93 Figure 22. A search for 功績 in the Yahoo dictionary. 110 Figure 23. A search for the target word "worth" in VLC. 114 Figure 24. A search for "conflict" in the NTNU Collocation Retrieval System. 116 Figure 25. The search result for 吃到飽 in TotalRecall. 133 Figure 26. A search for 比較便宜 in TotalRecall. 136 Figure 27. The search for 探討 in TotalRecall. 137 Figure 28. The search for 公館 in TotalRecall. 145 Figure 29. A search for 大排長龍 in TotalRecall. 147 Figure 30. A search of 口水戰 in TotalRecall. 147 Figure 31. A search for 剛出爐 in TotalRecall 148 Figure 32. A search for 走紅 in TotalRecall. 157 Figure 33. A search for 蚵仔煎 in Total Recall. 161 Figure 34. A search for 賄賂 in TotalRecall. 167 Figure 35. A search for 軒然大波 in the TotalRecall. 168

    Atkins, B. T., & Varantola, K. (1997). Monitoring dictionary use. International Journal of Lexicography, 10, 1-45.
    Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G.., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.
    Barlow, M. (1996). Corpora for theory and practice. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 1(1), 1-37.
    Bernardini, S. (2002). Exploring new directions for discovery learning. In B. Kettemann & G. Marko (eds.), Teaching and learning by doing corpus analysis (pp. 165-182). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    Bernardini, S. (2004). Corpora in the classroom. In J. Sinclair (ed.), How to use corpora in language teaching (pp. 15-36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    Biber, D. & Conrad, S. (2001). Quantitative corpus-based research: Much more than bean counting. TESOL Quarterly, 35, 331-336.
    Biber, D. Conrad, S. & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Carter, R. (1998). Vocabulary: Applied linguistic perspectives (2ed). New York: Routledge.
    Chambers, A. (2005). Integrating corpus consultation in language studies. Language Learning & Technology, 9(2), 111-125.
    Chan, T. P., & Liou, H. C. (2005). Effects of web-based concordancing instruction on EFL students’learning of verb-noun collocations. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18, 231-250.
    Chapelle, C. A. (1998). Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed SLA. Language Learning & Technology, 2(1), 22-34.
    Chapelle, C. A. (2009). The relationship between second language acquisition theory and computer assisted language learning. The Modern Language Journal, 93,741-753.
    Cheng, W., Warren, M., & Xun-feng, Xu. (2003). The language learner as language researcher: Putting corpus linguistics on the timetable. System, 31, 173-186.
    Coady, J. (1993). Research on ESL/EFL vocabulary acquisition: Putting it in context. In T. Huckin, M. Haynes, & J. Coady (Eds.). Second language reading and vocabulary learning (pp. 3-23). Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corp.
    Christianson, K. (1997). Dictionary use by EFL writers: What really happens? Journal of Second Language Writing, 6, 23-43.
    Chujo, K., Utiyama, M., & Miura, S. (2006). Using a Japanese-English parallel corpus for teaching English vocabulary to beginning-level students. English Corpus Studies, 13, 153-172. Retrieved January 4, 2007, from http://muse.doshisha.ac.jp/JAECS/ECS/ECS13/chujo-utiyama-miura.pdf
    Chujo, K., Utiyama, M., & Nishigaki, C. (2005). A Japanese-English parallel corpus and CALL: A powerful tool for vocabulary learning. In the Proceedings of FLEAT 5 (pp. 16-19). Utah: Brigham Young University. Retrieved January 4, 2007, from http://fleat5.byu.edu/_files/95Chujo.pdf
    Cobb, T. (1997). Is there measurable learning from hands-on concordancing? System, 25(3), 301-315.
    Cobb, T. (1999). Breadth and depth of lexical acquisition with hands-on concordancing. Computer Assisted Language Learning. 12, 345-360.
    Conrad, S. (2000). Will corpus linguistics revolutionize grammar teaching in the 21st century? TESOL Quarterly, 34, 548-560.
    Coxhead, A. (2000). A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly, 32, 213-238.
    Daughty, C., & Williams, J. (Eds). (1999). Focus on form in second language acquisition. New York: CUP.
    Diab, T. A., & Hamdan, J. M. (1999). Interacting with words and dictionaries: The case of Jordanian EFL learners. System, 12, 281-305.
    Dornyei, Z. (2005). Language learning strategies and student self-regulation. In Z. Dornyei. The psychology of the language learner: Individual differences in second language acquisition (pp.162-196). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    Ellis, N. (1997). Vocabulary acquisition: Word structure, collocation, word-class, and meaning. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 122-139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Ellis, R. (1999). The study of second language acuquisition (6ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Engber, C. A. (1995). The relationship of lexical proficiency to the quality of ESL composition. Journal of Second Language Writing, 4, 139-155.
    Faerch, C., Hasstrup, K., & Phillipson, R. (1984). Learner language and language learning. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
    Fan, M., & Xun-feng, Xu. (2002). An evaluation of an online bilingual corpus of the self-learning of legal English. System, 30, 47-63.
    Farghal, M., & Obiedat, H. (1995). Collocations: A neglected variable in EFL. IRAL, 33, 315-331.
    Ferris, D., & Roberts, B. (2001). Error feedback in L2 writing classes: How explicit does it need to be? Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(3), 161-184.
    Fischer, R. A. (1979). The inductive-deductive controversy revisited. The Modern Language Journal, 63, 98-105.
    Flowerdew, J. (1996). Concordancing in language learning. In M. C. Pennington (ed.). The Power of CALL (pp. 97-115). Houston: Athelstan Publications
    Flowerdew, J. (2002). Ethnographically inspired approaches to the study of academic discourse. In J. Flowerdew (ed.). Academic Discourse. (pp. 235-254). London: Pearson.
    Frankenberg-Garcia, A. (2005a). Pedagogical uses of monolingual and parallel concordances. ELT Journal, 59, 189-198.
    Frankenberg-Garcia, A. (2005b). A peek into what today’s language learners as researchers actually do. International Journal of Lexicography, 18 (3), 335-355.
    Gabel, S. (2001). Over-indulgence and under-representation in interlanguage: Reflections on the utilization of concordancers in self-directed foreign language learning. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 14, 269-288.
    Gaskell, D. & Cobb, T. (2004). Can learners use concordance feedback for writing errors? System, 32, 301-319.
    Gass, S. (1997). Input, interaction, and the second language learner. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    Gass, S., & Macky, A. (2000). Stimulated recall methodology in second language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    Gass, S., & Mackey, A. (2007). Data elicitation for second and foreign language research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    Granger, S. (2003). The international corpus of learner English: A new resource for foreign language learning and teaching and second language acquisition research. TESOL Quarterly, 37, 538-546.
    Granger, S., & Tribble, C. (1998). Learner corpus data in the foreign language classroom: Form-focused instruction and data-driven instruction and data-driven learning. In S. Granger, Learner English on computer (pp. 199-209). New York: Longman.
    Hales, T. (1997). Exploring data-driven language awareness. ELT Journal, 51, 217-223.
    Harvey, K., & Yuill, D. (1997). A study of the use of a monolingual pedagogical dictionary by learners of English in writing. Applied linguistics, 18, 253-278.
    Hill, J. (2001). Revising priorities: from grammatical failure to collocational success. In M. Lewis (Ed.), Teaching collocation: Further development in the lexical approach. Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
    Horst, M., Cobb, T., & Nicolae, I. (2005). Expanding academic vocabulary with an interactive online database. Language Learning & Technology, 9(2), 90-110.
    Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: CUP.
    Hunston, S., & Francis G. (2000). Pattern grammar: A corpus-driven approach to the lexical grammar of English. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. New York: CUP.
    Johns, T. (1991). From printout to handout: Grammar and vocabulary learning in the context of data driven learning. English Language Research Journal, 4, 27-45.
    Johns, T. (2002). Data-driven learning: The perpetual challenge. In B. Kettemann & G. Marko (eds). Teaching and learning by doing corpus analysis: Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Teaching and Language Corpora, Graz, 19-24, July, 2000 (pp. 107-117). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
    Johansson, S. (2009). Some thoughts on corpora and second-language acquisition. In K. Aijmer (ed), Corpora and language teaching (pp. 33-44). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    Jian, J. Y., Chang, Y. C., & Change, J. S. (2004). Tango: Bilingual collocational concordancer. Proceedings of 42nd Annual Meeting of the Associational Linguistics (pp.166-169). Spain, Association for Computational Linguistics. Retrieved Feb. 8, 2007, from http://acl.ldc.upenn.edu/P/P04/P04-3019.pdf
    Kaur, J., & Hegelheimer, V. (2005). ESL students’ use of concordance in the transfer of academic word knowledge: An exploratory study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18, 287-310.
    Kennedy, C., & Miceli, T. (2001). An evaluation of intermediate students’ approaches to corpus investigation. Language Learning & Technology, 5(3), 77-90.
    Kennedy, C., & Miceli, T. (2010). Corpus-assisted creative writing: Introducing intermediate Italian learners to a corpus as a reference resource. Language Learning & Technology, 14(1), 28-44.
    Kern, R. (2006). Perspectives on technology in learning and teaching languages. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 183-210.
    Koo, K. (2006). Effects of using corpora and online reference tools on foreign language writing: A study of Korean learners of English as a second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, Iowa.
    Lai, C., & Zhao, Y. (2006). Noticing and text-based chat. Language Learning & Technology, 10(3), 102-120.
    Laufer, B., & Hadar, L. (1997). Assessing the effectiveness of monolingual, bilingual, and “bilingualised” dictionaries in the comprehension and production of new words. The Modern Language Journal, 81, 189-196.
    Laufer, B., & Hill, M. (2000). What lexical information do L2 learners select in a call dictionary and how does it affect word retention? Language Learning and Technology, 3(2), 58-76.
    Laufer, B., & Levitzky-Aviad, T. (2006). Examining the effectiveness of ‘Bilingual Dictionary Plus”: A dictionary for production in a foreign language. International Journal of Lexicography, 19, 135-155.
    Laufer, B., & Nation, P. (1995). Vocabulary size and use: Lexical richness in L2 written production. Applied Linguistics, 16, 307-322.
    Laufer, B., & Shmueli, K (1997). Memorizing new words: Does teaching have anything to do with it? RELC Journal, 28, 89-108.
    Lee, C. H., Lin, S. Y., & Liou, H. C. (2006). Learning product and process of how English learners as researchers actually produce with scaffolds of three web-based referencing tools: research with mixed methods. Proceedings of 2006 International Conference and Workshop on TEFL and Applied Linguistics (pp. 204-212). Taipei: Crane.
    Lee, S. H. (2003). ESL learners’ vocabulary use in writing and the effects of explicit vocabulary instruction. System,31, 537-561.
    Lee, S. H., & Muncie, J. (2006). From receptive to productive: Improving ESL learners’ use of vocabulary in postreading composition task. TESOL Quarterly, 40, 295-320.
    Lewis, M. (2001). There is nothing as practical as a good theory. In M. Lewis (Ed.), Teaching collocation: Further developments in the lexical approach (pp. 10-27), London: LTP.
    Lewis, M. (2002). The lexical approach: The state of ELT and a way forward. Boston: Thomson & Heinle.
    Li, Y. C. , & Yeh, Y. L. (2005). Online learning units on underused adjectives for college EFL students. Proceedings of the 14th Int’l Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 157-165), 2. Taipei: Crane.
    Lin, M. C., & Liou, H. C. (2009). Expansion of EFL Academic Vocabulary for Writing via Web-Enhanced Lexical Instruction. English Teaching & Learning,33(2), 95-146.
    Liou, H. C., Chang, J., Chen, H. J., Lin, C. C., Liaw, M. L., Gao, Z. M., Jang, J. S., Yeh, Y., Chuang, T. C., & You, G. N.(2006) Corpora processing and computational scaffolding for an innovative web-based English learning environment: The CANDLE project, CALICO Journal, 24(1), 77-95.
    Liou, H. C., Chang, J., Yeh, Y., Liaw, M., Lin, C., Chen, H., You, G., Chuang, C., & Gao, Z. (2003). Using corpora and computational scaffolding to construct an advanced digital English learning environment: The CANDALE project. Proceedings of APAMALL 2003 and ROCMELIA 2003 (pp. 62-77). Taipei, Taiwan: The Crane Publishing Co.
    Liou, H. C., & Lee, C. H. (2006). Another peek into what today’s English learners as researchers actually do in production with the scaffolding of three web-based referencing tools. Paper presented at CALICO 2006 annual symposium: Online learning, come ride the wave, University of Hawaii at Manoa, May 16-20.
    Liu, C. P. (1999). An analysis of collocational errors in EFL writings. Proceedings of the Eighth International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 483-494). Taipei, Taiwan: The Crane Publishing Co.
    Long, M. H. (1991). Focus on form: A design feature in language teaching methodology. In K. de Bot, R. Ginsberg, & C. Kramsch (Eds.), Foreign language research in cross-cultural perspective (pp. 39-52). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1999). Focus on form: Theory, research, and practice. In C.Doughty & J. Williams (Eds), Focus on form in second language acquisition(pp. 15-41). New York, CUP.
    Martin-Rutledge, V. (1997). Use of examples in the bilingual dictionary: An empirical study. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Ottawa, Canada.
    McCarthy, M. (1996). Vocabulary (5ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    Meunier, F. (1998). Computer tools for the analysis of learner corpora. In S. Granger, Learner English on computer (pp. 19-37). New York: Longman.
    Michael, L. (2001). Materials and resources for teaching collocation. In M. Lewis (ed.), Teaching collocation: Further developments in the lexical approach (pp. 186-204). Hove: Language Teaching Publications.
    Moseley, D. S. (2003). Vocabulary instruction and its effects on writing quality. Unpublished master’s thesis. Louisiana Tech University.
    Nation, P. (2003). Learning vocabulary in another language (4ed.). New York: CUP.
    Nesi, H., & Haill, R. (2002). A study of dictionary use by international students at a British university. International Journal of Lexicography, 15, 277-305.
    Nesi, H., & Meara, P. (1994). Patterns of misinterpretation in the productive use of EFL dictionary definitions. System, 22, 1-15.
    Nesselhauf, N. (2003). The use of collocations by advanced learners of English and some applications for teaching. Applied Linguistics, 24, 223-242.
    Nesselhauf, N., & Tschichold, C. (2002). Collocation in CALL: An investigation of vocabulary-building software for EFL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15, 251-279.
    O’Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (2007). From corpus to classroom: Language use and language teaching. Cambridge: CUP.
    Olsen, S. (1999). Errors and compensatory strategies: A study of grammar and vocabulary in texts written by Norwegian learners of English. System, 27, 191-205.
    O’Sullivan, I. (2007). Enhancing a process-oriented approach to literacy and language learning: The role of corpus consultation literacy. ReCALL, 19, 269-286.
    O’Sullivan, I., & Chambers, A. (2006). Learners’ writing skills in French: Corpus consultation and learner evaluation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 49-68.
    Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should know. New York: Newbury House.
    Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and achievement in writing: A review of the literature. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 19(2), 139-158.
    Riding, R., & Rayner, S. (1998). Cognitive styles and learning strategies: Understanding style differences in learning and behaviour. London: David Fulton Publishers.
    Rundell, M. (1998). Recent trends in English pedagogical lexicography. International Journal of Lexicography, 11, 315-342.
    Santos, T. (1988). Professors’ reactions to the academic writing of nonnative-speaking students. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 69–88.
    Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge.
    Schmidt, R. (1995). Consciousness and foreign language learning: A tutorial on the role of attention and awareness in learning. In R.W. Schmidt (ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning and teaching (pp. 1-62). Honolulu, Ha:University of Honolulu.
    Schmidt, R. (2001). Attention. In P.J. Robinson (ed.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 3-32). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Scholfield, P. (1997). Vocabulary reference works in foreign language learning. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp.279-302). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    Shei, C. C., & Pain, H. (2000). An ES writer’s collocational aid. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 13(2), 167-182.
    Sokmen, A. J. (1997). Current trends in teaching second language vocabulary. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy, (Eds.), Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 237-257). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    St. John, E. (2001). A case for using a parallel corpus and concordancer for beginners of a foreign language. Language Learning & Technology, 5(3), 185-203.
    Steven, V. (1995). Concordancing with language learners: Why? When? What? CAELL Journal, 6(2), 2-10. Retrieved January, 8, 2007 http://www.eisu.bham.ac.uk/johnstf/stevens.htm
    Sun, Y. C. (1999). Web-based concordancing: Challenges and opportunities for English language teaching. Proceedings for the English International Symposium on English Teaching, 517-524. Taipei: Crane.
    Sun, Y. C. (2003). Learning process, strategies and web-based concordancers: A case study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 34, 601-613.
    Sun, Y. C., & Wang, L. Y. (2003). Concordancers in the EFL classroom: Cognitive approaches and collocation difficulty. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16, 83-94.
    Thurstun, J., & Candlin, C. N. (1998). Concordancing and the teaching of vocabulary of academic English. English for Specific Purposes, 17, 267-280.
    Tribble, C. (2002). Corpora and corpus analysis: New windows on academic writing. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.). Academic discourse (pp.131-149), Harlow, UK: Longman.
    Varantolo, K. (1998). Translators and their use of dictionaries: User needs and user habits. In S. Atkins (Ed.). Using dictionaries: Studies of dictionary use by language learners and translators (pp.179-192), Tubingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
    Varley, S. (2009). I’ll just look that up in the concordancer: Integrating corpus consultation into the language learning environment. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 22, 133-152.
    Vinther, J. (2005). Cognitive processes at work in CALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18, 251-271.
    Wolfe-Quintero, K., Inagaki, S, & Kim, H. Y. (1998). Second language development in writing: Measures of fluency, accuracy & complexity. Honolulu: University of Hawaii.
    Yoon, H., & Hirvela, A. (2004). ESL student attitudes toward corpus use in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 257-283.

    下載圖示
    QR CODE