This study of 52 undergraduates of English as a foreign language (EFL) involves an empirical assessment of the pedagogical suitability of data-driven learning (DDL) in three Taiwanese grammar classes. One class (16 students) was taught using a traditional deductive approach (TDA), and the others (one of 17 and one of 19 students) were taught using blends of DDL and TDA. The participants’ performance in grammar and their judgments of the teaching effects of DDL were both collected for analysis. Using a covariance analysis, the study results indicate no significant differences between the three classes in grammar proficiency, although paired-sample t-tests reveal significant gains for each class. However, the results of quantifying participants’ perceptions of the treatments over time show clear changes as the experiment proceeded; there was a growing preference for DDL-integrated treatments but a disinclination towards the TDA. Although it seems premature to claim DDL’s pedagogical suitability here, the overall results lend support to the legitimacy of practicing DDL in different educational areas. This is particularly notable for Taiwan’s EFL context, given that most of its grammar classrooms are still employing conventional approaches, including the Grammar Translation method, even if they are not inclined towards them. The article concludes with a discussion of DDL’s effects on future EFL grammar classes and possible avenues for further studies.
AkanoI.HoriM.TonoY. (2014), Eigo kyoshi no tameno koupasu katsuyou gaido [A practical guide to using corpora in English language teaching]. Tokyo: Taishukan.
2.
BoultonA. (2009). Testing the limits of data-driven learning: Language proficiency and training. ReCALL, 21, 37–51.
3.
BoultonA. (2010). Data-driven learning: Taking the computer out of the equation. Language learning, 60, 534–572.
4.
CampoyM.C.CubilloM.C.C.Belles-FortunoB.Gea-ValorM.L. (Eds.). (2010). Corpus-based approaches to English language teaching. New York: Bloomsbury.
5.
CharlesM. (2014). Getting the corpus habit: EAP students’ long-term use of personal corpora. English for Specific Purposes, 35, 30–40.
6.
ChenL.-M. (2002). Washback of a public exam on English teaching. ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 472167. Washington, DC: Education Resources Information Center.
7.
ChengL. (1999). Changing assessment: washback on teacher perceptions and actions. Teaching and Teacher Education, 15, 253–271.
8.
ChengW. (2012). Exploring corpus linguistics: Language in action. Banbury: Routledge.
9.
ChouM.H. (2015). Impacts of the test of English listening comprehension on students’ English learning expectations in Taiwan. Language, Culture and Curriculum, 28, 191–208.
10.
ChungI.F. (2013). Are learners becoming more autonomous? The role of self-access center in EFL college students’ English learning in Taiwan. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 22, 701–708.
11.
Collins COBUILD. (2011). Collins Cobuild English Grammar. 3rd edition.Glasgow: HarperCollins.
12.
CresswellA. (2007). Getting to ‘know’ connectors? Evaluating data-driven learning in a writing skills course. Language and Computers, 61, 267–287.
13.
DaskalovskaN. (2015). Corpus-based versus traditional learning of collocations. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28, 130–144.
14.
FlowerdewL. (2011). Corpora and language education. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
15.
FlowerdewL. (2012). Corpora in the classroom: An applied linguistic perspective. In HylandK.HuatC.M.HandfordM. (Eds.), Corpus applications in applied linguistics (pp. 208–224). New York: Bloomsbury.
16.
FlowerdewL. (2015). Data-driven learning and language learning theories. In Leńko-SzymańskaA.BoultonA. (Eds.). Multiple affordances of language corpora for data-driven learning (pp. 15–36). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
17.
GelusoJ.YamaguchiA. (2014). Discovering formulaic language through data-driven learning: Student attitudes and efficacy. ReCALL, 26, 225–242.
18.
GilquinG.GrangerS. (2010). How can data-driven learning be used in language teaching? In O’KeeffeA.McCarthyM. (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 359–369). London: Routledge.
19.
HirataY.HirataY. (2013). Data-driven learning and learner interviews in a Japanese context. In CheungS.K.S.FongJ.FongW.WangF.L.KwokL.F. (Eds.), Hybrid learning and continuing education (pp. 122–133). Berlin: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.
20.
HuangL.S. (2011). Language learners as language researchers: The acquisition of English grammar through a corpus-aided discovery learning approach mediated by intra- and interpersonal dialogues. Language and Computers, 73, 91–122.
21.
HuangZ. (2014). The effects of paper-based DDL on the acquisition of lexico-grammatical patterns in L2 writing. ReCALL, 26(2), 163–183.
22.
HunstonS. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
23.
JohnsT.F. (1986). Micro-concord: A language learner’s research tool. System, 14, 151–162.
24.
JohnsT.F. (1991). Should you be persuaded: Two samples of data-driven learning materials. ELR Journal, 4, 1–16.
25.
KarrasJ.N. (2016). The effects of data-driven learning upon vocabulary acquisition for secondary international school students in Vietnam. ReCALL, 28, 166–186.
26.
KennedyC.MiceliT. (2001). An evaluation of intermediate students’ approaches to corpus investigation. Language Learning and Technology, 5, 77–90.
27.
KılıçkayaF. (2015). Computer-based grammar instruction in an EFL context: Improving the effectiveness of teaching adverbial clauses. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28, 325–340.
28.
LeeH.C. (2011). In defense of concordancing: An application of data-driven learning in Taiwan. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 12, 399–408.
29.
LeeH.C. (2013). Investigating the effects of student learning of English using COL approach based on situational theories. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2211–2217.
30.
Leńko-SzymańskaA.BoultonA. (2015). Introduction: data-driven learning in language pedagogy. In Leńko-SzymańskaA.BoultonA. (Eds.). Multiple affordances of language corpora for data-driven learning (pp. 1–14). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
31.
LinF.-L. (2009). ‘Harmony, east attainment and thoughtfulness’: Teaching and learning in mathematics. In Paper Presented at the Seminar on Mathematics Education-Theory and Perspective of Mathematics Learning and Theory from the East, Hong Kong.
32.
LinM.H. (2016). Effects of corpus-aided language learning in the EFL grammar classroom: A case study of students’ learning attitudes and teachers’ perceptions in Taiwan. TESOL Quarterly, 50, 871–893.
33.
LinM.H.ChenW.-T. (2015, May). Corpus-aided discovery learning: Changing the EFL grammar classroom. Paper presented at the 2015 Innovations in Language Teaching and Business Communication Conference, Taichung, Taiwan.
34.
LinM.H.LeeJ.-Y. (2015). Data-driven learning: Changing the teaching of grammar in EFL classes. ELT Journal, 69, 264–279.
35.
McCarthyM.McCartenJ.SandifordH. (2005). Touchstone 1: Student’s book. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36.
MessickS. (1996). Validity and washback in language testing. Language Testing, 13, 241–256.
37.
MeyerJ.F. (1988). Moral education in Taiwan. Comparative Education Review, 32, 20–38.
38.
MishanF. (2004). Authenticating corpora for language learning: A problem and its resolution. ELT Journal, 58, 219–227.
O’KeeffeA.McCarthyM. (2010). The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics. London,: Routledge.
41.
O’KeeffeA.McCarthyM.CarterR. (2007). From corpus to classroom: Language use and language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42.
PlonskyL.OswaldF.L. (2014). How big is ‘big’? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.
43.
ReppenR. (2010). Using corpora in the language classroom. New York: Cambridge University Press.
44.
RezaeeA.A.MarefatH.SaeedakhtarA. (2015). Symmetrical and asymmetrical scaffolding of L2 collocations in the context of concordancing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 28, 532–549.
45.
RundellM. (2007). Macmillan English dictionary. 2nd edition.Oxford: Macmillan.
46.
SchmidtR. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied Linguistics, 11, 129–58.
47.
ShihC.M. (2010). The washback of the General English Proficiency Test on university policies: A Taiwan case study. Language Assessment Quarterly, 7, 234–254.
48.
SinclairJ.M. (1991). Corpus concordance collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
49.
SinclairJ.M. (Ed.). (2004). How to use corpora in language teaching. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
50.
SmartJ. (2012). Innovative approaches to ESL grammar instruction. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University, USA.
51.
SmartJ. (2014). The role of guided induction in paper-based data-driven learning. ReCALL, 26, 184–201.
52.
SmithS. (2011). Learner construction of corpora for general English in Taiwan. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 24, 291–316.
53.
TamneyJ.B.ChiangH.L. (2002). Modernization, globalization, and Confucianism in Chinese societies. Westport, CT: Praegar.
54.
TianS. (2005). Data-driven learning: do learning tasks and proficiency make a difference? In Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics (pp. 360–71). Tokyo: Waseda University Media Mix Corporation.
55.
TimmisI. (2015). Corpus Linguistics for ELT. New York: Taylor & Francis.
56.
UçarS.YükselirC. (2015). The effect of corpus-based activities on verb–noun collocations in EFL classes. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 14, 195–205.
57.
VyatkinaN. (2016). Data-driven learning for beginners: The case of German verb–preposition collocations. ReCALL, 28, 207–226.
58.
WalkerC.P. (2011). A corpus-based study of the linguistic features and processes which influence the way collocations are formed: Some implications for the learning of collocations. TESOL Quarterly, 45, 291–312.
59.
WangH.-Y.TsaiC.-C. (2012). An exploration of elementary school students’ conceptions of learning: A drawing analysis. The Asia-Pacific Education Researcher, 21, 610–617.
60.
WhistleJ. (1999). Concordancing with students using an ‘off-the-Web’ corpus. ReCALL, 11, 74–80.
61.
XiaoR.McEneryT. (2006). Collocation, semantic prosody, and near synonymy: A cross-linguistic perspective. Applied Linguistics, 27, 103–129.
62.
YangY.F.WongW.K.YehH.C. (2013). Learning to construct English (L2) sentences in a bilingual corpus-based system. System, 41, 677–690.
63.
YoonH. (2008). More than a linguistic reference: The influence of corpus technology on L2 academic writing. Language Learning & Technology, 12, 31–48.
64.
YoonC. (2011). Concordancing in L2 writing class: An overview of research and issues. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10, 130–139.
65.
YoonC. (2016). Concordancers and dictionaries as problem-solving tools for ESL academic writing. Language Learning & Technology, 20, 209–229.
66.
YoonH.HirvelaA. (2004). ESL student attitudes toward corpus use in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13, 257–283.
