The present study performs a meta-analysis to examine the effectiveness of corpus use in English as a second language (ESL) / English as a foreign language (EFL) writing. Data from 30 studies encompassing 56 effect sizes reported between 2000 and 2022 were collected for the analysis. Furthermore, multiple meta-regression analyses were conducted to explore the variables that may influence the observed effects. These variables are extracted from three groups of data: publication data, population data, and treatment data. The results demonstrate a large overall effect size (g = 0.95) for the impact of corpus use in ESL/EFL student writing performance. This finding suggests that utilizing corpora significantly enhances students’ writing abilities in these contexts. Moreover, the analyses of moderators reveal that the observed effects can be attributed to various variables within all three groups of data. Notably, learner factors such as language family, proficiency level, and educational level, as well as treatment factors including duration, corpus type, teaching activity, and teacher role, play significant roles in shaping the effects of corpus use. This study highlights the potential of corpus-based approaches as a valuable tool for enhancing student writing performance in ESL/EFL contexts.
AbdelWahabA. (2020). Using interactive and interactional metadiscourse markers to develop EFL first year special diploma students’ academic writing skills. Journal of Faculty of Education Assiut University, 36(2), 1–35.
2.
AdelA. (2010). Using corpora to teach academic writing: Challenges for the direct approach. In Campoy-CubilloM.Belles-FortunoB.Gea-ValorM. (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to English language teaching (pp. 39–55). Continuum International.
3.
AkhterS.NordinN. (2022). Exploring the role of collocation in creative writing among Pakistani learners at secondary level: A corpus-based study. World Journal of English Language, 12, 382–391.
4.
AlshaarA.AbuSeileekA. (2013). Using concordancing and word processing to improve EFL graduate students’ written English. The JALT CALL Journal, 9, 59–77.
5.
AppelbaumM.CooperH.KlineR.Mayo-WilsonE.NezuA.RaoS. (2018). Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: The APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. American Psychological Association, 73, 3–25.
6.
AssinkM.WibbelinkC. (2016). Fitting three-level meta-analytic models in R: A step-by-step tutorial. The Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 12, 154–174.
7.
BennetG.R. (2010). Using corpora in the language learning classroom: Corpus linguistics for teachers. University of Michigan Press.
8.
BiberD.JohanssonS.LeechG.ConradS.FineganE. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Pearson Education.
9.
BirhanA.TekaM.AsradeN. (2021). Effects of using corpus-based instructional mediation on EFL students’ academic writing skills improvement. Theory and Practice of Second Language Acquisition, 7, 133–153.
10.
BoersF. (2019). Factors affecting the learning of multiword items. In WebbS. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of vocabulary studies (pp. 143–157). Routledge.
11.
BoettgerR. (2016). Using corpus-based instruction to explore writing variation across the disciplines: A case history in a graduate-level technical editing course. Across the Disciplines, 13(1), 1–23.
12.
BorensteinM.HedgesL.V.HigginsJ.P.T.RothsteinH.R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley.
13.
BoultonA. (2009). Testing the limits of data-driven learning: Language proficiency and training. ReCall, 21, 37–54.
14.
BoultonA. (2012). Hands-on/hands-off: Alternative approaches to data-driven learning. In ThomasJ.BoultonA. (Eds.), Input, process and product: Developments in teaching and language corpora (pp. 152–168). Masaryk University Press.
15.
BoultonA.CobbT. (2017). Corpus use in language learning: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 67, 348–393.
16.
BoultonA.VyatkinaN. (2021). Thirty years of data-driven learning: Taking stock and charting new directions over time. Language Learning and Technology, 25, 66–89. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10125/73450 (accessed June 2024).
17.
BraunS. (2007) Integrating corpus work into secondary education: From data-driven learning to needs-driven corpora. ReCALL, 19, 307–328.
18.
BridleM. (2019). Learner use of a corpus as a reference tool in error correction: Factors influencing consultation and success. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 37, 52–69.
19.
BurstonJ.ArispeK. (2018). Looking for a needle in a haystack: CALL and advanced language proficiency. CALICO Journal, 35, 77–102.
20.
ChangJ.-Y. (2014). The use of general and specialized corpora as reference sources for academic English writing: A case study. ReCall, 26(2), 243–259.
21.
CharlesM. (2015). Same task, different corpus: The role of personal corpora in EAP classes. In Leńko-SzymańskaA.BoultonA. (Eds.), Multiple affordances of language corpora for data-driven learning (pp. 129–154). John Benjamins.
22.
CharlesM. (2018). Using do-it-yourself corpora in EAP: A tailor-made resource for teachers and students. The Journal of Teaching English for Specific and Academic Purposes, 6, 217–224.
23.
CharlesM. (2022). The gap between intentions and reality: Reasons for EAP writers’ non-use of corpora. Applied Corpus Linguistics, 2, 1–9.
ChenM.FlowerdewJ. (2018a). A critical review of research and practice in data-driven learning (DDL) in the academic writing classroom. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 23, 335–369.
26.
ChenM.FlowerdewJ. (2018b). Introducing data-driven learning to PhD students for research writing purposes: A territory-wide project in Hong Kong. English for Specific Purposes, 50, 97–112.
27.
CobbT.BoultonA. (2015). Classroom applications of corpus analysis. In BiberD.ReppenR. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of English corpus linguistics (pp. 478–497). Cambridge University Press.
28.
CotosE. (2014). Enhancing writing pedagogy with learner corpus data. ReCall, 26, 202–224.
29.
CrossleyS. (2013). Advancing research in second language writing through computational tools and machine learning techniques: A research agenda. Language Teaching, 46, 256–271.
30.
CrosthwaiteP.StorchN.SchweinbergerM. (2020). Less is more? The impact of written corrective feedback on corpus-assisted L2 error resolution. Journal of Second Language Writing, 49, 1–16.
31.
DaviesM. (2015). Corpora: An introduction. In BiberD.ReppenR. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of English corpus linguistics (pp. 11–31). Cambridge University Press.
32.
DongJ.ZhaoY.BuckinghamL. (2023). Charting the landscape of data-driven learning using a bibliometric analysis. ReCALL, 35, 339–355.
33.
EllisP. (2010). The essential guide to effect sizes: Statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpretation of research results. Cambridge University Press.
34.
EllisR. (1997). Second language acquisition. Oxford University Press.
35.
FarahaniM.PahlevansadeghV. (2019). Teaching metadiscourse features and IELTS writing performance of Iranian EFL learners: A learner corpus-based perspective. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 11, 538–558.
36.
FriedlanderA. (1990). Composing in English: Effects of a first language on writing in English as a second language. In KrollB. (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 109–125). Cambridge University Press.
37.
GarnerJ. (2013). The use of linking adverbials in academic essays by non-native writers: How data-driven learning can help. CALICO Journal, 30, 410–422.
38.
HarrerM.CuijpersP.FurukawaT.EbertD. (2021). Doing meta-analysis with R: A hands-on guide. Chapman & Hall / CRC Press.
39.
HedgesL.OlkinI. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic Press.
40.
HunstonS. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
41.
HylandK. (2019). Second language writing (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
42.
HylandK. (with Richards, J.) (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge University Press.
43.
JohnsT. (1991). Should you be persuaded: Two examples of data-driven learning. English Language Research Journal, 4, 1–16.
44.
KartalG.YangineksiG. (2018). The effects of using corpus tools on EFL student teachers’ learning and production of verb–noun collocations. PASAA, 55, 100–125.
45.
KimH.ChunS. (2008). Fostering lexis awareness and autonomy by corpus-based data-driven learning. English Teaching, 63, 213–235.
46.
Larsen-WalkerM. (2017). Can data driven learning address L2 writers’ habitual errors with English linking adverbials?System, 69, 26–37.
47.
LeeD.SwalesJ. (2006). A corpus-based EAP course for NNS doctoral students: Moving from available specialized corpora to self-compiled corpora. English for Specific Purposes, 25, 56–75.
48.
LeeH.WarschauerM.LeeJ. (2019). The effects of corpus use on second language vocabulary learning: A multilevel meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics, 40, 721–753.
49.
LeferM.-A. (2020). Parallel corpora. In PaquotM.GriesS. (Eds.), A practical handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 257–282). Springer.
50.
LiM. (2021). Researching and teaching second language writing in the digital age. Palgrave Macmillan.
51.
LiS. (2017). Using corpora to develop learners’ collocational competence. Language Learning & Technology, 21, 153–171.
52.
LiouH.-C.ChenC.-C. (2020). Motivation and concordancing for EFL writing revision: A year-long investigation of group patterns and case studies. Journal of Applied Language, 12, 1–25.
LongM. (1990). The least a second language acquisition theory needs to explain. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 649–666.
55.
LuoQ. (2016). The effects of data-driven learning activities on EFL learners’ writing development. SpringerPlus, 5, 1–13.
56.
MizumotoA.ChujoK. (2015). A meta-analysis of data-driven learning approach in the Japanese EFL classroom. English Corpus Studies, 22, 1–18.
57.
MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD.G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151, 264–269.
58.
MoonS.OhS.-Y. (2017). Unlearning overgenerated be through data-driven learning in the secondary EFL classroom. ReCALL, 30, 48–67.
59.
NgoT.ChenH.LaiK. (2024). The effectiveness of automated writing evaluation in EFL/ESL writing: A three-level meta-analysis. Interactive Learning Environment, 32, 727–744.
60.
O’KeeffeA.McCarthyM. (2022). The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (2nd ed.). Routledge.
61.
O’SullivanI.ChambersA. (2006). Learners’ writing skills in French: Corpus consultation and learner evaluation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15, 49–68.
62.
OveshkovaA. (2018). Work with English corpora as a means of promoting learner autonomy. The Education and Science Journal, 20, 66–87.
63.
Pérez-ParedesP. (2022). A systematic review of the uses and spread of corpora and data-driven learning in CALL research during 2011–2015. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35, 36–61.
64.
Pérez-ParedesP.Sánchez-TornelM.Alcaraz CaleroJ. (2012). Learners’ search patterns during corpus-based focus-on-form activities: A study on hands-on concordancing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 17, 483–515.
65.
PetersE. (2019). Factors affecting the learning of single word items. In WebbS. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of vocabulary studies (pp. 125–142). Routledge.
66.
PigottT.PolaninJ. (2020). Methodological guidance paper: High-quality meta-analysis in a systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 90, 24–46.
67.
PlonskyL. (2011). The effectiveness of second language strategy instruction: A meta-analysis. Language Learning, 61(4), 993–1038.
68.
PlonskyL.OswaldF. (2014). How big is ‘big’? Interpreting effect sizes in L2 research. Language Learning, 64, 878–912.
69.
QuinnC. (2015). Training L2 writers to reference corpora as a self-correction tool. ELT Journal, 69, 165–177.
70.
RahimiM.MomeniG. (2012). The effect of teaching collocations on English language proficiency. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences, 31, 37–42.
71.
SamoudiN.ModirkhameneS. (2022). Concordancing in writing pedagogy and CAF measures of writing. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 60, 699–722.
72.
SunY.-C.WangL.-Y. (2003). Concordancers in the EFL classroom: Cognitive approaches and collocation difficulty. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16, 83–94.
73.
TiptonE.PustejovskyJ.E.AhmadiH. (2019). A history of meta-regression: Technical, conceptual, and practical developments between 1974 and 2018. Research Synthesis Methods, 10, 161–179.
74.
TsaiY.-R. (2021). Exploring the effects of corpus-based business English writing instruction on EFL learners’ writing proficiency and perception. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 33, 475–498.
75.
UzawaK.CummingA. (1989). Writing strategies in Japanese as a foreign language: Lowering or keeping up the standards. The Canadian Modern Language Review, 46, 178–194.
76.
VuoganA.LiS. (2022). Examining the effectiveness of peer feedback in second language writing: A meta-analysis. TESOL Quarterly, 57(4), 1115–1138.
77.
WenX.WaltersS. (2022). The impact of technology on students’ writing performances in elementary classrooms: A meta-analysis. Computer and Education Open, 3, 100082.
78.
WoodallB. (2002). Language-switching: Using the first language while writing in a second language. Journal of Second Language Writing, 11, 7–28.
79.
XuZ.BanerjeeM.RamirezG.ZhuG.WijekumarK. (2019). The effectiveness of educational technology applications on adult English language learners’ writing quality: A meta-analysis. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 32, 132–161.
80.
YahyaN.AlotaibiH.El-DakhsD. (2020). Parallel corpora in EFL writing classrooms: Are they effective?International Journal of Computer-Assisted Language Learning and Teaching, 10, 23–39.
81.
YoonC. (2011). Concordancing in L2 writing class: An overview of research and issues. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10, 130–139.
82.
YoonH.JoJ.W. (2014). Direct and indirect access to corpora: An exploratory case study comparing students’ error correction and learning strategy use in L2 Writing. Language Learning and Technology, 18, 96–117.
83.
YuS.LeeI. (2016). Peer feedback in second language writing (2005–2014). Language Teaching, 49(4), 461–493.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
