See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/282355022

A teacher-training course on the use of corpora in language education:

Perspectives of the students

Chapter · January 2015

CITATIONS READS

14 8,086

1 author:

Agnieszka Leńko-Szymańska
University of Warsaw
35 PUBLICATIONS 422 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Agnieszka Leńko-Szymańska on 01 October 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

A teacher-training course on the use of corpora in language
education: Perspectives of the students

Agnieszka Leńko-Szymańska, University of Warsaw, Poland

ABSTRACT

The paper describes a semester-long teacher-training course on the use of corpora in

language education offered to graduate students at the Institute of Applied
Linguistics, University of Warsaw. It also presents the results of a questionnaire
administered to the students after the third edition of the course. The main aims of
the course are: to introduce the participants to the concept of a corpus and its
analysis; to familiarize them with a range of available corpora, corpus-based
resources and tools; and to demonstrate to them various applications of corpora in
language education, with special emphasis placed on the independent preparation of
courses, teaching materials and class activities.
The first part of the paper outlines the design, the syllabus and the outcomes of
the course. In the second part, the responses of the 18 students who participated in
the third edition of the course are analysed. The analysis indicates that on the whole
the students reacted positively to the course and they saw the benefits of corpus-
based materials and tools in language teaching. Yet, the responses from individual
students also reveal that data-driven learning does not suit all learners, and, by
extension, it may not appeal to all (prospective) teachers.

Keywords: corpora; teacher training; data-driven learning; questionnaire

1. Introduction

While the value of corpora in language education has long been acknowledged
(cf. Ghadessy et al. 2001, Sinclair 2004, Aijmer 2009, Campoy-Cubillo et al.
2010), to date linguistic databases have been exploited mainly in the production
of dictionaries (e.g. Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English 2003), and
reference grammars (e.g. Biber et al. 1999, Carter – McCarthy 2006), as well as
in the design of language materials and courses (Mascull 1995, McCarthy et al.
2005, Barlow – Burdine 2005, Lee – Swales 2006). The concept of data-driven
learning, advocated by Johns as early as in 1991, which recommends that
language learners have a direct contact with corpus citations and other
information derived from corpora, has not gained wide popularity in the foreign
language classroom.
136 A. Leńko-Szymańska

There are many reasons for language teachers’ reluctance to exploit corpora
in their work, including problems with hardware and computing skills as well as
the scarcity of resources which are easily available, free or inexpensive, reliable,
and user-friendly (Römer 2010, Tribble 2012). However, the problem which is
probably at the heart of teachers’ lack of enthusiasm about data-driven learning
is their shortage of knowledge about the different ways that corpora can be used
in the classroom (Römer [2009] 2010). Graduates of teacher-training
programmes might have heard about or even encountered corpora during their
linguistic education. However, this experience does not automatically imply that
they know how to apply corpora in their teaching (Tribble 2012). As it was
pointed out by Breyer (2009: 156), “recognising that there is a significant
difference between learning and teaching with corpora, as well as providing
student teachers with the required skills, is of great importance.” It can be
argued that there is a requisite for explicit instruction of pre-service and in-
service teachers in the potential applications of corpora in the language
classroom. A need for institutionalized teacher-training courses devoted to or
featuring the applications of corpora in language instruction has already been
voiced by several researchers (Breyer 2009, Römer 2010).

2. Description of the course

An answer to the need discussed above is the course on Corpora in Foreign

Language Teaching and Learning offered to graduate students at the Institute of
Applied Linguistics, University of Warsaw. The students have already received
training in teaching a foreign language at the B.A. level. The course is one of
several electives offered, thus it is not obligatory. It is taught in English and
attended by, depending on the year, from 12 to 18 participants. No BA-level
lectures or tutorials the students had previously attended were based on corpora
or featured corpus use, yet the students may have heard about corpus-based
research in their linguistics classes.

2.1. Design criteria

The course is intended to introduce the students to the concept of a corpus and
its analysis, and to familiarize them with various applications of corpora in
language education, with special emphasis placed on the independent
preparation of courses, teaching materials and class activities. The participants
are expected to have a good knowledge of language teaching methodology and
be familiar with various language teaching techniques. On the other hand, they
are assumed to have had no prior contact with corpora. Thus, the focus of the
course is not on the teaching procedures per se (such as planning a lesson) but
 A teacher-training course on the use of corpora... 137

on the presentation and exploration of various corpora, corpus-based resources,

tools and techniques, and on the demonstration of their potential in language
education. However, during the classes the students are constantly reminded
that corpus-based materials and DDL activities must be motivated by particular
teaching objectives and not become an end in themselves.

2.2. Content of the course

The course lasts one semester and covers, depending on the length of a
semester, from thirteen to fifteen 90-minute classes. It consists of three thematic
modules, each spreading over three or more meetings. The first module is an
introduction to corpora and corpus tools along with an overview of their
applications in language education. The second concentrates on the exploration
of large general corpora for teaching language elements and skills. The third is
devoted to the compilation and analyses of small specialized corpora and their
uses in syllabus design and the production of language teaching materials and
activities. Table 1 presents the course syllabus for the winter semester
2012/2013.

Table 1. Course syllabus for the winter semester 2012/2013

Class Module Class format Topic

1 Presentation
Module 1:
2 Workshop
Introduction
3 Presentation
4 Workshop
Module 2:
5 Skills and elements Workshop
Basic concepts – corpus and corpus tools
Politics – an example of a language lesson
Corpora in language teaching
Corpora for teaching vocabulary
Corpora for teaching phraseology

Corpora for LSP – overview

6 Presentation
of applications
Module 3:
7 Presentation Corpora for LSP – overview of tools
LSP
Corpora for LSP
8 Workshop
– building and analysing a corpus
9 Workshop Corpora for teaching grammar
10 Workshop Corpora for teaching discourse organization
Module 2 (cont.):
11 Workshop Corpora for practicing language skills
Skills and elements
Miscellaneous tools and activities.
12 Workshop
Projects due
13 Student Presentation Presentations of student projects
14 presentations Presentation Presentations of student projects
138 A. Leńko-Szymańska

Classes take place in a computer lab with twenty student computers connected
to the Internet and they are run from the Moodle platform. Except for four
classes featuring the instructor’s presentations (also available on the platform),
the students complete tasks on Moodle. The tasks guide them in studying
selected language points and include detailed step-by-step instructions on how
to manipulate the software. Exercises such as gap filling or matching are
presented as CALL activities prepared with the authorable software Hot
Potatoes1. If necessary, the instructor assists individual students, who can work
individually or in pairs to complete all the tasks and submit them through
Moodle. If they do not finish the tasks in class they have a week to complete
and submit them. The last 10-15 minutes of each session are devoted to the
class discussion of the activities with a focus on their pedagogical benefits.
At the end of the course the participant are requested to prepare a project
which involves the creation and analysis of a small corpus of specialized
language (c.a. 30 thousand words) on a chosen topic, as well as the preparation
of a state-of-the-art language lesson which will include materials and tasks
based on this corpus.
The Moodle content of the course can be viewed in the guest mode at
http://moodle.ils.uw.edu.pl/course/view.php?id=101. All the course materials
and activities (without the option of submitting completed tasks) have also been
made available to general public at http://corpora.blog.ils.uw.edu.pl/.

3. The questionnaire

The course described above was first offered to students in academic year
2010/2011. Since then it has been repeated in the winter semesters of the
following academic years and at the time of writing this chapter it is running for
the fourth time. At the end of each edition of the course students’ reactions to
the course were collected in order to evaluate its relevance and quality.
This paper presents the results of the questionnaire administered to the
students after the third edition of the course in January 2013. The questionnaire
offered to the participants on this occasion differed from the instrument used in
the previous year and analyzed elsewhere (Leńko-Szymańska in press). Unlike
the 2012 questionnaire, its focus was not on the quality of the course, but on the
respondents’ reactions to corpus-informed and corpus-based methods of
teaching a foreign language.
The questionnaire consisted of the total of 43 questions. It was divided to 5
parts each focusing on different information concerning 1) the students’
motivations for choosing the course, 2) their prior knowledge about corpora and

1 See Name? (YEAR?). LINK MOVED TO REFERENCES

 A teacher-training course on the use of corpora... 139

corpus linguistics, 3) their perception of the course results, 4) their attitudes to

the course content and 5) course evaluation.
The structure of the questionnaire is summarized in Table 2 below. The
individual questions are presented in the following section together with the
students’ responses.

Table 2. The structure of the questionnaire

No. of
Part Focus
questions
I chose this course because … 4 Motivations
Before the course … 3 Prior knowledge
After the course … 24 Perceived results
In the future, if I become a teacher … 4 Attitudes
About the course 8 Course evaluation

The questionnaire was administered to the students during the last class and,
similarly to most of the course activities, it was completed through the Moodle
platform. The questionnaire was anonymous but obligatory. The instructor
could not link the responses to individual students but she could control who
had submitted the answers through log-in logs. The students who were absent
were urged to complete the questionnaire at home before they received the final
grades. Thus the questionnaire was completed by all the 18 students
participating in the course.
The questions were in English. The first 40 questions were closed and they
required the participants to rank statements using a 5-point scale ranging from
strongly disagree to strongly agree, with an option of no opinion. The next two
questions were open, encouraging the respondents to describe their own
unprompted reactions to the course. In the last question students were required
to mark the course using the 6-point Polish academic marking scale ranging
from fail to very good.
Below is the screenshot from the questionnaire.
140 A. Leńko-Szymańska

Figure 1. A screenshot from the questionnaire

4. Results

The results of the five parts of the questionnaire are presented in Tables 3-11
3
below. The acronyms used in the tables stand for strongly agree (SA), agree
(A), disagree (D), strongly disagree (SD) and no opinion (NO).
Table 3 presents the students’
students answers related to the reasons for choosing the
course. Contrary to the instructor’s
instructor prior assumptions,
sumptions, the practical issues such
as unavailability of other electives or the convenient course time were not the
main or only reason for signing up for this class. In fact, only for four students
the course was the second best choice. All but one student
student reported that they
had wanted to develop their teaching skills and 15 respondents declared that
they had had genuine interest in corpus linguistics. These answers indicate that
the students started the course with a good degree of motivation and curiosity
curiosi
about the subject.

Table 3. Results of Part 1

Q I chose this course because … SA A D SD NO

I wanted to find out about corpora and corpus
1 4 11 2 0 1
linguistics.
I wanted to find out about new methods
2 11 6 0 0 1
of teaching a foreign language.
 A teacher-training course on the use of corpora... 141

3 More attractive options were full. 1 3 8 5 1

4 The course fitted my weekly schedule well. 3 14 1 0 0

Table 4 demonstrates the students’ familiarity with corpora and corpus

linguistics at the outset of the course. Only 4 students had never before heard
about corpora. Half of the group (9 students) reported that they had had not only
a fair understanding of the concepts related to corpus linguistics but also a
practical experience of working with corpora in other classes. These results
suggest that most of the group had already had some background in corpus
linguistics and the course focusing on the application of corpora in teaching
could build of their previous knowledge related to linguistic databases.

Table 4. Results of Part 2

Q Before the course … SA A D SD NO

I had already heard about corpora and corpus
5 5 9 4 0 0
linguistics.
I had a fair understanding of corpora and corpus
6 2 7 8 1 0
linguistics.
I had already had a chance to use corpora in other
7 3 6 7 2 0
classes.

Tables 5-7 summarize the answers to the largest part of the questionnaire (Part
3) focusing of the students’ perceptions of the course results. The first section
(Questions 8-25) concerns the students’ confidence in using corpora as language
learners, whereas Questions 26-31 relate to the students’ familiarity with
corpora as resources for language teaching.
The answers to questions 8 to 10 demonstrate that the students were satisfied
with their technical knowledge and skills related to using and manipulating
corpus data, which they had gained during the course. Only one student reported
that he/she was still not comfortable with interpreting concordance lines.
Further answers to questions 11-14 reveal that on the whole students felt
confident in employing corpora to search linguistic information on lexis,
phraseology, grammar and discourse, yet in the case of grammar and discourse
the responses were not so unanimous: one student reported that he/she did not
know how to search information on grammar and 4 students (a little above
20%) stated that they found discourse-related uses of corpora problematic. Such
perceptions reflect well the strengths of corpus-based queries on relevant
linguistic information. The information on precise meanings, collocational
patterns or syntactic behaviours of individual words is easier to locate and
142 A. Leńko-Szymańska

interpret, whereas the information on general grammatical and discourse rules

and patterns is hardly ever explicit and unambiguous (Vannestål – Lindquist
2007).
While the previous questions in this section concentrated on the students’
perceptions of what they had learned during the course, Question 15 addressed
their actual practices of corpus consultation they had developed during the
course. 13 students (70%) reported that they used corpora to solve language
problems which they encountered in their other classes or with their everyday
use of English. The next six questions (Questions 16-21, Table 5) were
addressed only to these students in order to elicit the precise information on
their corpus consultation practices. However, one student still answered these
questions choosing the negative answers (strongly disagree). As with the
answers to the previous questions the respondents reported that they mainly
used corpora to search information on lexis (13 students, 100%) and
phraseology (11 students). Only 7 students used corpora for grammar-related
queries and only 5 performed discourse related searches. 11 students reported
consulting corpora during the writing process, but only 3 during the reading
process. That is not surprising, as the corpora may turn very useful when
looking for the right word or turn of the phrase to express a very specific
meaning, whereas it seems that dictionaries offer a quicker and more convenient
way of looking up the meaning of encountered words.

Table 5. Results of Part 3

Q After the course … SA A D SD NO

I am aware of the variety of corpus resources
8 14 4 0 0 0
and tools available.
I know how to use (manipulate) a variety
9 4 14 0 0 0
of corpus resources and tools.
I am comfortable to read and interpret
10 6 11 1 0 0
concordance lines.
I know how to use corpora to search information
11 8 10 0 0 0
on words.
I know how to use corpora to search information
12 8 10 0 0 0
on phrases.
I know how to use corpora to search information
13 3 14 1 0 0
on grammar.
I know how to use corpora to search information
14 4 10 3 1 0
on discourse.
 A teacher-training course on the use of corpora... 143

I use corpora to solve language problems which

15 I encounter in other classes or with my everyday 3 10 5 0 0
use of English.

Table 6. Results of Part 3 (cont.)

Only if: I use corpora to solve language

problems which I encounter in other classes
Q SA A D SD NO
or with my everyday use of English.
(otherwise click NO)
16 I use corpora to look up information on words. 5 8 1 0 4
17 I use corpora to look up information on phrases. 5 6 3 0 4
18 I use corpora to look up information on grammar. 1 6 5 2 4
19 I use corpora to look up information on discourse. 2 3 7 2 4
20 I use corpora to assist me in writing. 4 7 2 1 4
21 I use corpora to assist me in reading. 0 3 7 3 5

Only the five students who reported not using corpora outside the course were
supposed to answer Questions 22-25 (Table 7) which aimed to elicit the reasons
for their reluctance to exploit these resources. However, 5 and even 6 remaining
students also answered these questions choosing the negative responses.
Only one student reported not having easy access to the Internet which is
necessary for using corpus resources presented in class. Two participants stated
they did not feel confident handling corpora. These responses are puzzling as in
the previous sections all students declared that they knew how to manipulate
corpus resources and tools (Question 9). Thus, it seems that even though the
students know how to work with linguistic databases, some do not feel
comfortable with the procedures yet. Two students reported not finding the
results of corpus queries particularly relevant and useful and three students
attested to preferring more traditional resources.

Table 7. Results of Part 3 (cont.)

Only if: I DON’T use corpora to solve language

problems which I encounter in other classes
Q SA A D SD NO
or with my everyday use of English, because:
(otherwise click NO)
144 A. Leńko-Szymańska

22 I don’t have easy access to the Internet. 0 1 2 7 8

23 I am not comfortable using (manipulating) corpora. 0 2 5 3 8
24 I don’t find corpus results particularly informative. 0 2 4 3 9
I find corpora too cumbersome, I prefer to use
25 0 3 4 2 9
more traditional references.

Overall, the responses to Part 3 of the questionnaire can be interpreted as

showing that the great majority of participants learned to manipulate corpora
and appreciated their value as a source of linguistic information.
Questions 26-31 (Table 8) were to elicit the students’ perceptions of the
outcomes of the course in relation to language teaching. All the students
reported that during the course they had learned the different ways of exploiting
corpora in language instruction, such as the preparation of classroom materials
and activities and integrating them into regular class procedures. At the same
time 3 students admitted that they did not see the benefit of exploiting corpora
in the classroom.

Table 8. Results of Part 3 (cont.)

Q After the course … (cont.) SA A D SD NO

I see the benefit of exploiting corpora in language
26 8 7 3 0 0
teaching.
I am aware of different ways of exploiting corpora
27 8 10 0 0 0
in language teaching.
I know how to use corpora to prepare classroom
28 4 14 0 0 0
materials.
I understand how to integrate corpus-based
29 5 13 0 0 0
materials into regular teaching.
I know how to design corpus-based activities for
30 6 12 0 0 0
students.
I know how to integrate corpus-based activities
31 3 15 0 0 0
for students in a language class

Part 4 of the questionnaire builds on Question 26 about the perceived benefit of

corpora in language education and relates to the students’ attitudes to the
usefulness of corpora for language teaching. It seems that the students see
greater value of corpora as a tool for teachers in creating general language and
ESP teaching materials (14 students for both questions) than having language
learners engage directly in data-driven activities to study general language (12
 A teacher-training course on the use of corpora... 145

students) and ESP (7 students). This last response is particularly unexpected, as

it seems that specialized purpose-built corpora are especially relevant to specific
needs of ESP learners.

Table 9. Results of Part 4

Q In the future, if I become a teacher … SA A D SD NO

I will use large general corpora to create teaching
32 4 10 3 0 1
materials.
I will have my students consult large general
33 3 9 3 2 1
corpora.
I will build my own specialized corpora to create
34 5 9 1 0 3
ESP material.
I will have students consult specialized corpora
35 3 4 7 0 4
compiled by myself.

The last part repeated the main points of the questionnaire distributed to the
previous group of students a year before and concerned the evaluation of the
course. As in the previous year, the present participants evaluated the course
positively. All of them found the course useful and informative, and most of
them (15 students, above 80%) thought the classes had been interesting and
enjoyable. As in the previous year most of the students found the course
demanding in terms of workload (14 answers). All but one participant
appreciated the workshop format of the classes and all of the students liked the
end-of-the-semester project.

Table 10. Results of Part 5

Q About the course SA A D SD NO

36 I found the course useful and informative. 10 8 0 0 0
37 I found the course interesting and enjoyable. 8 7 1 0 2
I found the course demanding in terms of the
38 4 10 3 0 1
workload.
I liked the workshop format of the course
39 6 11 0 0 1
(working individually/in pairs on activities).
40 I liked the end-of-the-semester project. 3 14 0 0 0

Questions 41 and 42 were open and they required the students to list three
things they liked and disliked about the course. The participants gave a variety
of answers, a few of which were not very clear (e.g. “Easy way to process text”
146 A. Leńko-Szymańska

as a one of three things a student liked). The most frequently repeated positive
points were:

• learning about corpora, how to use them, as well as information about

various resources available (11 students)
• new ideas for teaching (8 students)
• workshop format and not much homework (7 students)
• project, individual choice of topics and presentations (5 students)
• well-structured classes, clear instructions, friendly atmosphere (4
students)

The positive aspect of the course highlighted by one of the participants deserves
attention because it reflects the idea that lay at the heart of designing the course.
This student particularly appreciated “learning about corpora and teaching at the
same time”.
The students’ complaints were more varied and often stayed in contradiction
both to the positive comments discussed above as well as the participants’
responses to the closed questions. The most frequent negative comment was
that the Moodle activities were too long and monotonous, and there was not
enough discussions (8 students) and two students complained about working
with the computer all the time. These responses may indicate that too much
focus in the course was placed on the presentation of a whole range of corpus-
based tasks and the technicalities of manipulating corpora, and that the students
were given too few opportunities to give and receive feedback and to share and
discuss their ideas in class. At the same time, three students thought there had
been too few examples of actual use of corpora in language teaching. In
addition, four students thought the end-of-the-course project had been too time-
consuming, and the instructions had not been clear. One student also claimed
that the project should have been divided into stages. Interestingly, two students
complained that there had been too many activities which they had never been
able to complete in class and had to finish at home (as opposed to 3 students
who saw no homework as one of the positive aspects of the course).
Two quotes from the questionnaire are particularly potent in showing the
contrast in the students’ perceptions of the usefulness of corpus-based activities.
One student listed the following positive comment about the course: “[I]t was
very practical, it really showed us how to use corpora as a teaching aid. I’ve
already used exercises based on corpora during my private lessons with
students”, whereas another student wrote: “It may not come in handy in real
life, I tried to work with the ideas from the course but all students responded
negatively to them”. These comments demonstrate that both the students felt
inspired to try out corpus-based activities in their language tutoring, yet their
 A teacher-training course on the use of corpora... 147

experience was very different. The former student did not state explicitly if the
corpus-based techniques s/he had used with his/her learners had been
successful, but since this comment was listed as a positive reaction, it can be
assumed that that new activities had proven effective in his/her classes. In
contrast, the experience of the latter student was clearly negative. It is
impossible to speculate for the reasons for such contrasting experiences but they
may have been decisive in forming the students’ perceptions of the value of
corpora in language pedagogy.
In the final question the students were requested to assess the course using
the Polish academic rating scale. This was done with the hope that one mark
will summarize best the participants’ reaction to the course and their perception
of its content. The Polish academic marking scale was chosen because the
students themselves are evaluated on this scale. The final marks for the course
were spread almost evenly between very good (6 student), good plus (5
students) and good (7 students) No student rated the course as merely
satisfactory (marks 3 or 3+) or unsatisfactory (mark 2). This shows that in spite
of all the criticism the students for the most part found the course useful.

Table 11. Results of Part 5 (cont.)

Q 5 4+ 4 3+ 3 2
On the Polish academic scale I grade
43 6 5 7 0 0 0
the course as…

5. Conclusions

Although the main purpose of the questionnaire was to elicit the participants’
perceptions of the value of corpora in language education, the responses are also
indicative of their reactions to the course itself. On the whole, the results are
encouraging. The students had a high motivation when starting the course,
which seems to have met their expectations. The important outcome of the
course is that the participants started to use corpora for their own learning
outside the class, in particular for solving their own linguistic problems relating
to lexis and phraseology, less so to grammar and discourse features. More
importantly, most of the students also recognized the benefits of corpora in
language teaching, notably of general corpora but also, to a lesser extent, of
small purpose-built specialized corpora.
The study also revealed that a few participants had developed negative
attitudes to the value of corpus-based activities in language teaching. These
unfavourable perceptions may be a reason of the future reluctance of the teacher
148 A. Leńko-Szymańska

trainees to apply corpus-based techniques with their own learners, as stated

explicitly by one respondent. This observation may lead to a conclusion that as
much as corpora do not fit all learning styles (Vannestål – Lindquist 2007,
Flowerdew 2008, Boulton 2010), they may also be incompatible with some
teaching styles. This speculation, however, remains to be confirmed in a larger-
scale study.
The participants’ responses also pointed to the weak aspects of the course.
While the majority of them reported that they had enjoyed independent work
with the computer and had been excited to learn about new tools and creating
their own projects, quite a few respondents found the Moodle activities
monotonous, and the classes lacking in interaction among the participants.
Several students also thought that the tasks were too challenging and time-
consuming. It seems that one-semester course which aims both at teaching
students how to manipulate a whole variety of corpora and corpus-based tools
and at presenting a range of applications of corpora in language education may
be not the most effective way to promote the use of linguistic databases in
language pedagogy. A better solution to eliminate the monotony and encourage
more interaction would be if students could gradually get to know various
corpus resources in their language and linguistics classes, and then discuss
different corpus-based techniques along other instructional procedures in their
general teacher-training seminars and tutorials. This, however, would imply that
all teachers and tutors in teacher-training programmes should be versed in
corpus linguistics and be convinced of the benefits of corpus-based resources,
tools and activities for language education, which, unfortunately, is still the
thing of the future.

References

Aijmer, Karin (ed.)

2009 Corpora and language teaching. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Barlow, Michael – Stephanie Burdine
2005 American phrasal verbs. Houston, TX: Athelstan.
Belcher, D. – A. Hirvela (eds.)
2008 The oral/literate connection: Perspectives on L2 speaking,
writing and other media interactions. Ann Arbor, MI:
University of Michigan Press.
 A teacher-training course on the use of corpora... 149

Biber, Douglas – S. Johansson – Geoffrey Leech – Susan Conrad – Edward

Finegan
1999 Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow:
Pearson Education.
Boulton, Alex
2009 “Corpora for all? Learning styles and data-driven learning”,
in: M. Mahlberg – V. González-Díaz – C. Smith (eds.),
PAGES?.
Breyer, Yvonne
2009 “Learning and teaching with corpora: Reflections by student
teachers”, Computer Assisted Language Learning 22 (2):
153-172.
Campoy-Cubillo, Mari C. – Begona Bellés-Fortuño – Maria L. Gea-Valor (eds.)
2010 Corpus-based approaches to English language teaching.
London: Continuum.
Carter, Ronald – Michael McCarthy
2006 Cambridge grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Flowerdew, Lynne
2008 “Corpus linguistics for academic literacies mediated through
discussion activities”, in: D. Belcher – A. Hirvela (eds.),
268-287.
Ghadessy, Mohsen – Alex Henry – Robert L. Roseberry
2001 Small corpus studies and ELT. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Hot Potatoes
year? Publisher?. Available at: http://hotpot.uvic.ca (date of access: ??
Month 2013).
Johns, Tim
1991 “Should you be persuaded: Two examples of data-driven
learning”, Classroom Concordancing. English Language
Research Journal 4: 1-16.
Lee, David – John Swales
2006 “A corpus-based EAP course for NNS doctoral students.
Moving from available specialized corpora to self-compiled
corpora”, English for Specific Purposes, 25 (1): 56-75.
Leńko-Szymańka, Agnieszka
in press “Is this enough? A qualitative evaluation of the effectiveness
of a teacher-training course on the use of corpora in language
education”, ReCALL Special issue: Researching uses
of corpora for language teaching and learning 26 (2).
 150 A. Leńko-Szymańska

Longman dictionary of contemporary English

2003 Harlow: Pearson Education.
Mahlberg, M. – V. González-Díaz – C. Smith (eds.)
2009 Proceedings of 5th Corpus Linguistics Conference. Location:
Publisher. Available at: http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/publications/
cl2009 (date of access: ???).
Mascull, Bill
1995 Collins COBUILD key words in the media. London:
HarperCollins.
McCarthy, Michael – Jeanne McCarten – Helen Sandiford
2005 Touchstone. Student’s Book 1. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Römer, Ute
2009 “Corpus research and practice: What help do teachers need
and what can we offer?”, in: Karin Aijmer (ed.), 83-98.
2010 “Using general and specialized corpora in English language
teaching: Past, present and future”, in: Mari C. Campoy-Cubillo
– Begona Bellés-Fortuño – Maria L. Gea-Valor (eds.), 18-35.
Sinclair, John M. (ed.)
2004 How to use corpora in language teaching.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Tribble, Christopher
2012 “Teaching and language corpora: Quo vadis?”, in: Name
Surname (ed.), pages.
Surname, Name (ed.)
2012 10th International Conference on Teaching and Language
Corpora: TaLC10. Warsaw: Poland.
Vannestål, Maria E. – Hans Lindquist
2007 “Learning English grammar with a corpus: Experimenting
with concordancing in a university grammar course”, ReCALL
19 (3): 329-350.

View publication stats