Applied Corpus Linguistics 3 (2023) 100074

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Applied Corpus Linguistics

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/acorp

Data-driven Learning Meets Generative AI: Introducing the Framework of

Metacognitive Resource Use
Atsushi Mizumoto *
Kansai University, Japan

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: This paper explores the intersection of data-driven learning (DDL) and generative AI (GenAI), represented by
data-driven learning (DDL) technologies like ChatGPT, in the realm of language learning and teaching. It presents two complementary
Generative AI perspectives on how to integrate these approaches. The first viewpoint advocates for a blended methodology that
ChatGPT
synergizes DDL and GenAI, capitalizing on their complementary strengths while offsetting their individual
resources
metacognition
limitations. The second introduces the Metacognitive Resource Use (MRU) framework, a novel paradigm that
positions DDL within an expansive ecosystem of language resources, which also includes GenAI tools. Anchored
in the foundational principles of metacognition, the MRU framework centers on two pivotal dimensions: met­
acognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation. The paper proposes pedagogical recommendations designed
to enable learners to strategically utilize a wide range of language resources, from corpora to GenAI technologies,
guided by their self-awareness, the specifics of the task, and relevant strategies. The paper concludes by high­
lighting promising avenues for future research, notably the empirical assessment of both the integrated DDL-
GenAI approach and the MRU framework.

1. Introduction by presenting two perspectives on the relationship between DDL and

In a recent article for this journal, Applied Corpus Linguistics
(ACORP), Crosthwaite and Baisa (2023) asserted that data-driven
learning (DDL) techniques—which utilize concordance lines and
corpus-aided resources—are unlikely to be overshadowed or marginal­
ized by AI technologies like ChatGPT in the immediate future. While
Generative AI (GenAI), exemplified by ChatGPT, can generate texts
across a wide range of registers, domains, or languages, corpora offer a
more nuanced analysis of language patterns. Crosthwaite and Baisa
contended that integrating these two approaches could yield a
comprehensive understanding of language use in diverse contexts, and
highlighted the potential for GenAI to address some of DDL’s limitations.
With its capacity to tackle any language task, ChatGPT is poised to
make a significant impact on both language learners and teachers
(Kohnke et al., 2023). Although its user-friendly nature raises concerns
about potential misuse, such as straightforward copy-pasting without
understanding, when used judiciously, it can become an invaluable tool.
It could empower learners to engage in independent language learning,
thereby fostering their autonomy.
This paper explores the intersection of corpus linguistics and GenAI
GenAI. The first aligns with Crosthwaite and Baisa’s (2023) suggestion
for an integrated model that melds DDL and GenAI, thereby expanding
the scope of potential research topics within the DDL paradigm. The
second perspective, which constitutes the central focus of this paper,
proposes a reconceptualization of DDL as an element within a broader
approach. This leads to the introduction of a new framework named
“Metacognitive Resource Use.” Grounded in the concept of metacogni­
tion, this framework aims to guide the effective utilization and evalua­
tion of diverse language resources. Importantly, it places users and
learners at its core, adding a pragmatic dimension to its theoretical
foundation. The rationale for proposing this framework is to enhance the
robustness and adaptability of both DDL and GenAI.
2. DDL and GenAI: Apples and Oranges?
Within the realm of DDL literature, the first element of the acronym
DDL (i.e., Data), has consistently been a point of contention since its
inception (Johns, 1991). The prevailing view of DDL applications as
“data-driven” rather than “corpus-driven” has given them an inclusive
character (Boulton, 2012). This is evidenced by the common practice of

* Corresponding Author.
E-mail address: mizumoto@kansai-u.ac.jp.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acorp.2023.100074
Received 29 July 2023; Received in revised form 4 September 2023; Accepted 6 September 2023
Available online 7 September 2023
2666-7991/© 2023 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-
nc-nd/4.0/).
A. Mizumoto
using the Google search engine as a data source for DDL (e.g., Geluso,
2013; Sha, 2010). Nevertheless, the term DDL inherently suggests a
learner’s interaction with corpus data (concordancing) and the utiliza­
tion of corpus-based tools (concordancers). This nuance presents a
considerable hurdle for many practitioners and learners (Crosthwaite &
Baisa, 2023).
Large Language Models (LLMs), utilized in GenAI platforms such as
ChatGPT, are trained through machine learning. Specifically, they
employ deep learning techniques on extensive web-collected text data (i.
e., corpus). As such, their development is inherently linked to the use of
a corpus, which could qualify as “data” in the context of DDL. Yet,
certain elements crucial to learning and acquisition, such as attention to
form, noticing, salience of input, and learner involvement—all of which
are theoretically endorsed in Second Language Acquisition (SLA) (Lee
et al., 2019; O’Keeffe, 2021)—are somewhat diminished in the
straightforward, user-friendly interactions with ChatGPT. Interestingly,
Lin (2023) explores the potential of ChatGPT as a concordancer, high­
lighting its ability to generate concordance lines. This novel viewpoint,
however, may incite debate among DDL purists who traditionally equate
DDL solely with concordancing “authentic” texts.
Despite a robust body of primary studies and meta-analyses (Boulton
& Cobb, 2017; Lee et al., 2019) affirming the advantages of DDL in the
acquisition of lexico-grammatical items, its integration into mainstream
classroom instruction remains limited (Pérez-Paredes, 2022). Quan
et al. (2022) have identified three primary obstacles to the widespread
adoption of DDL: technical, pedagogical, and attitudinal. These chal­
lenges manifest themselves in real-world case studies. For example,
Frankenberg-Garcia et al. (2022) observed that workshop participants
who engaged with corpora directly found it more convenient than using
traditional reference materials. Yet, only a year later, these same par­
ticipants predominantly reverted to using less demanding resources like
online dictionaries. While DDL researchers stress the need for research
to be conducted by non-expert, corpus-using language teachers
(Chambers, 2019; Pérez-Paredes, 2022; Poole, 2022), the rising popu­
larity of intuitive GenAI platforms like ChatGPT suggests that DDL ad­
vocates aiming to mainstream DDL as a teaching and learning
methodology may face an uphill, if not losing, battle.
Recognizing the clear advantages of GenAI over traditional,
concordancer-dependent DDL, Crosthwaite and Baisa (2023) advocated
for the integration of GenAI into the DDL framework. This proposal aims
to ensure that DDL research remains relevant in the field of language
learning and teaching, reflecting the philosophy of “if we can’t beat
them, join them.” DDL, when combined with a concordancer, proves
remarkably effective for teaching, learning, and analyzing
lexical-grammatical items—such as collocations—that follow discern­
ible patterns. Consequently, pending further empirical research, the
DDL approach could potentially outperform methods that rely on
GenAI-led noticing. Conversely, GenAI could potentially augment areas
where DDL falls short, such as assisting learners in correcting highly
context-dependent grammatical errors in writing (Crosthwaite et al.,
2020), where semantics plays a crucial role. Particularly within the DDL
context, where learners often struggle to identify appropriate search
terms, GenAI’s capacity to respond to any query could significantly
enhance the user experience. For these reasons, I concur with the
proposition made by Crosthwaite and Baisa (2023). Indeed, researchers
have already begun exploring the integration of GenAI into corpus
analysis (Anthony, 2023).
Given the respective strengths and limitations of both DDL and
GenAI, it becomes evident that an integrated approach could potentially
harness the benefits of both, as suggested by Crosthwaite and Baisa
(2023). Beyond this integrated approach, I propose an alternative
framework that calls for a reevaluation of DDL’s role. This alternative
positions DDL as a vital component within the overarching framework of
metacognitive resource use.
2
Applied Corpus Linguistics 3 (2023) 100074
3. Framework of Metacognitive Resource Use
Fig. 1 illustrates the concept of Metacognitive Resource Use (MRC)
that I propose in this paper. The framework is deeply rooted in the
construct of metacognition (Flavell, 1979). Metacognition refers to the
ability to think about one’s own thinking. In other words, it represents
“the third-person point of view of one’s own knowledge and thoughts
that one possesses” (Sato, 2022, p. 96). In the proposed framework,
metacognition plays a crucial role because it is the users (or learners),
empowered by active agency, who utilize these resources to address the
task at hand. Of various taxonomies available, the most commonly
employed in L2 (second or foreign language) studies posits that meta­
cognition has two primary dimensions: metacognitive knowledge and
metacognitive regulation (Sato, 2022).
Metacognitive knowledge, also known as metacognitive awareness,
is comprised of the understanding of three key domains: (a) person, (b)
task, and (c) strategy, as categorized by their nature (Flavell, 1979).
“Person” refers to an individual’s understanding of their own cognitive
capacities and unique attributes as a cognitive processor—essentially,
self-knowledge. “Task” involves understanding the particular re­
quirements, goals, resources, and constraints associated with a specific
activity. “Strategy” includes the comprehension of the various strategies
available for task completion, as well as when and how to apply them.
When selecting resources, learners make choices informed by their
metacognitive knowledge in these areas: their self-assessed capabilities
(person), the anticipated complexity of the task (task), and the suitable
strategies at their disposal (strategy). This triad of metacognitive com­
ponents collectively facilitates effective resource use. Often referred to
as metacognitive awareness, enhancing metacognitive knowledge has
been shown to contribute to improved L2 learning (Teng & Zhang,
2021). Therefore, increasing such awareness is likely to deepen under­
standing in the realms of person, task, and strategy, thus optimizing
resource use as well.
In contrast to metacognitive knowledge (or awareness), which serves
as a foundational knowledge base, metacognitive regulation (the right
section of Fig. 1) involves the active management of that knowledge. It
encompasses practices such as planning, monitoring, and evaluating
one’s learning strategies and cognitive processes. In the context of
metacognitive resource use, this regulation is centered around the
selected resource. Metacognitive regulation functions as the mechanism
enabling individuals to adapt and optimize their approach to problem-
solving, comprehension, or learning strategies based on ongoing per­
formance assessment. Essentially, while metacognitive knowledge
equips learners with the necessary tools, metacognitive regulation is the
real-time application of those tools to enhance learning and problem-
solving outcomes. The various stages of metacognitive regulation are
depicted in the right section of Fig. 1, beginning with “Seeing a problem”
and concluding with “Problem solved.” At each stage, learners under­
stand the issue at hand, formulate a plan, monitor their progress, and
evaluate the outcomes while utilizing resources.
The bottom section illustrates the array of resources that can be
leveraged alongside metacognitive regulation. These resources encom­
pass a variety, most of which are corpus-based. They range from online
dictionaries and DDL-related tools like concordancers and web apps, to
search engines and GenAI systems like ChatGPT. Additionally, the sec­
tion includes machine translation tools such as Google Translate and
DeepL, as well as grammar correction tools like Grammarly. This reflects
the real-world usage of tools by learners when they turn to consultation
resources for task engagement.
As articulated by Boulton and Vyatkina (2021, p. 82), “We now have
far greater choice of tools and corpora, which are faster, more aesthetic,
and user-friendly . . ., and our hope is that they will attract the attention
of future DDL researchers.” Indeed, DDL researchers have begun to
explore a range of tools that extend beyond conventional concordancers.
These include Yoon’s (2016) suite of online reference resources, the
corpus-aided English for Academic Purposes (EAP) writing workshops
A. Mizumoto
Fig. 1. Framework of Metacognitive Resource Use.
Note. The figure labelled “Metacognitive Regulation” is adapted from Gu (2012, p. 337) and previously appeared under the title “What is in a strategy?” It is
reproduced here with permission. The resources shown at the bottom of the figure are merely examples; numerous other resources can also be incorporated into
the framework.
highlighted in Frankenberg-Garcia et al. (2022), and Friginal’s (2018)
seminal book, which introduces an array of corpus-based tools and re­
sources available to English teachers. However, these previous en­
deavors lack a unified framework and focus mainly on the utility of these
tools. Therefore, a guiding model like MRU is critically needed.
Regarding the resources illustrated at the bottom of Fig. 1, it is
crucial to note that these resources do not comprise a comprehensive
list. The key lies in selecting resources that best suit a specific task, based
on learners’ metacognitive knowledge or awareness. As a result, learners
are encouraged to actively explore, choose, and coordinate their re­
sources. Teachers, in turn, bear the responsibility to introduce these
resources and demonstrate their practical applications within their
instructional framework (see Section 4). Resource use is not one-size-
fits-all; individual learners will utilize the same resources in their own
unique ways.
The MRU framework provides a structured methodology for evalu­
ating how reference and consultation tools are used, grounded in
established metacognitive constructs, which include both metacognitive
knowledge and regulation. While the MRU framework may not be
groundbreaking in the wider realm of metacognition research, it fills a
specific gap in DDL studies. Although DDL research has deeply explored
corpus utilization, it has often neglected to consider the learner’s agency
in effectively leveraging these resources. Additionally, while research
focused on the learner does exist—especially in the context of language
learning strategies—such studies have not specifically addressed the
effective use of corpus-based tools in the way that DDL research has.
The advent of Generative AI (GenAI), such as ChatGPT, has expanded
3
Applied Corpus Linguistics 3 (2023) 100074
the realm of possibilities for learner autonomy and strategic resource
use. As a result, the MRU framework is well-positioned to advance both
research and practice focused on the learner’s experience with resource
utilization. Additionally, by integrating DDL into its scope, the frame­
work ensures that the valuable insights gained from existing DDL
research remain relevant and are not marginalized.
Grounded in the theory of metacognition, the MRU framework serves
as a promising theoretical model for assessing the choices learners make
regarding resource use. However, the framework is primarily descrip­
tive. While it identifies available resources, it leaves the choice and
engagement with these resources to the learner’s discretion, underlining
their active role in the learning process. This leads to a crucial question:
How can learners determine which resources to choose? The subsequent
section will explore methods for effectively introducing resources to
learners within the context of MRU, drawing from both DDL and strat­
egy instruction methodologies.
4. Instruction on Metacognitive Resource Use
While the utilization of various resources—such as dictionaries, the
Internet, and other reference materials—is acknowledged as a valuable
strategy for language learners (Chamot, 2009, p. 63), this area remains
relatively unexplored in strategy instruction literature. The MRU
framework aims to address this gap. Within the framework, the most
effective instruction would integrate a diverse array of resources,
customized to suit both the individual learner and the specific task they
are facing. This multi-resource strategy stands in contrast to methods
A. Mizumoto
that rely exclusively on a single tool, like DDL approaches limited to
concordancers.
In the quest to elevate learners’ metacognitive skills, standard
instructional models typically focus on boosting metacognitive knowl­
edge (or awareness) and imparting particular metacognitive and related
cognitive strategies. These elements are crucial to the overarching pro­
cess of metacognitive regulation. In this scenario, learning strategy in­
struction (Chamot & Harris, 2019) can serve as a foundational
framework for teaching metacognitive resource use.
The MRU framework enables targeted efforts to enhance learners’
understanding and awareness of the individual, the task, and the stra­
tegies in play. This is accomplished by providing concrete guidance on
resource selection and application within classroom activities. For
example, when mastering lexico-grammatical elements, learners could
be guided to employ both online dictionaries and concordancers. When
addressing writing errors, they might be instructed to utilize grammar
correction tool like Grammarly, and possibly even GenAI tools like
ChatGPT. This educational approach involves scaffolding the learners
through hands-on engagement with these resources, steering them
through the processes of planning, executing, evaluating, and adapting
their strategic resource use to meet specific goals.
In teaching metacognitive resource use, educators can draw upon a
well-established learning strategy instruction framework (e.g., Chamot,
2009), which is grounded in years of research and has been shown to be
effective in meta-analyses (Plonsky, 2011; 2019). For comparison, the
methods of guided induction used in both DDL and strategy instruction
(specifically the Cognitive Academic Language Learning Approach, or
CALLA) are outlined in Table 1. A close examination of these instruc­
tional models reveals significant similarities.
In teaching effective resource use, it is crucial to expose students to a
diverse array of tools. This approach not only offers multiple avenues for
metacognitive engagement but also accommodates various learning
preferences and needs. Teachers themselves must have a deep under­
standing of these resources to help their students maximize the benefits.
Chamot (2009) provides the following guidelines for selecting which
strategies to teach:
1 Determine the task and curriculum requirements.
2 Begin with a small number of strategies before introducing strategy
combinations.
3 Use challenging but achievable tasks.
4 Begin with easy-to-demonstrate tasks.
5. Teach strategies that apply across content subjects
As there is no optimal number or order for teaching strategies, the
same holds true for instructing students in resource use. In this context,
researchers and practitioners might consider various guiding frame­
works. For example, the curation principles outlined by O’Keeffe and
Table 1
Comparison of Guided Induction (DDL) and Strategy Instruction Steps.
Steps DDL (Guided Induction)
1 Illustration: Look at data.
2 Interaction: Discuss and share observations and opinions.
3 Intervention: Provide learners with hints or clearer guides for induction.
4 Induction: Make one’s own rule for a particular feature.
Steps Strategy Instruction (CALLA)
1 Preparation: Activate background knowledge.
2 Presentation: Explain and model strategies.
3 Practice: Prompt use of strategies and give feedback.
4 Evaluation & Expansion: Assess and support transfer of strategies.
Note. Guided induction (DDL) is illustrated in Flowerdew (2009), Godwin-Jones
(2017), and Smart (2014). The strategy instruction model (Cognitive Academic
Language Learning Approach, CALLA) is presented in Chamot (2009).
4
Applied Corpus Linguistics 3 (2023) 100074
Mark (2022) can guide the types of data presented to learners. Addi­
tionally, one could refer to existing categorizations of “hard” and “soft”
DDL (Gabrielatos, 2005; Mizumoto & Chujo, 2016) to make
better-informed decisions.
When evaluating the effectiveness of teaching resource use for spe­
cific tasks, the focus should be on “how well” learners utilize resources
rather than “how often,” “how many times,” or the “number of types” of
resources used. This principle comes from decades of research on
learning strategies ( Mizumoto, 2018). Therefore, metacognitive
resource use is best evaluated by examining how well a learner employs
and coordinates their personalized set of resources. While identifying
which resources different demographic groups use is important, the
primary emphasis should be on assessing the efficacy of resource
deployment. To investigate effective resource use, potential research
avenues include, but are not limited to:
• Comprehensive descriptions detailing how learners synergize
various resource types effectively (e.g., Wang & Cohen, 2022).
• Analyzing error reduction (e.g., Crosthwaite, 2017) enabled by the
strategic use of resources.
• Assessing a learner’s self-efficacy regarding the strategic application
of resources.
• Measuring changes in a learner’s metacognitive knowledge (i.e.,
person, task, strategy) or self-regulatory capacity (Tseng et al., 2006)
after receiving instruction on metacognitive resource use.
Boulton (2009, p. 51) emphasized the potential benefits of explicit
training in using concordancers, suggesting it might be as valuable as
dictionary use for many learners. This concept is directly applicable to
the instruction of resources, including GenAI, within the MRU frame­
work. Through this framework, it is expected that instructors can foster
learners who are self-directed, self-regulatory, and autonomous. These
attributes are in line with the core objectives of both learning strategy
instruction and DDL methodologies. The cultivation and development of
such learners can now be effectively guided by the new MRU framework.
5. Conclusion
The influence of GenAI, such as ChatGPT, on research and education
has reached a level that cannot be ignored. In this paper, I have pre­
sented two perspectives to ensure that research in DDL remains relevant
and continues to offer valuable insights.
Firstly, I echoed the proposal from Crosthwaite and Baisa (2023),
who suggested that the integration of DDL and GenAI approaches could
provide a more comprehensive understanding of language use in
different contexts. This paper furthered their argument by providing
reasons why we should aim for the synergy between DDL and GenAI in
language learning and teaching.
Secondly, I proposed a reevaluation of DDL’s role, positioning it as a
vital component within the overarching framework of Metacognitive
Resource Use (MRC), which is derived from the construct of metacog­
nition. This approach aims to leverage the strengths of both DDL and
GenAI while mitigating their weaknesses. Adopting this comprehensive
approach could offset the limitations of DDL, highlight its strengths,
uphold the cumulative findings of past DDL research, and eliminate the
risk of discarding valuable DDL insights—akin to “throwing the baby out
with the bathwater.” For these compelling reasons, future research
should subject the proposed framework to empirical verification.
Moving forward, several promising research directions emerge. One
avenue is to empirically assess the efficacy of the proposed integrated
approach of DDL and GenAI. This could involve experimental designs
that evaluate learner outcomes, such as language learning gains, pattern
recognition abilities, and overall engagement with the instructional
process.
Another promising avenue for research centers on a deeper explo­
ration of the MRU framework. This might include a multifaceted
A. Mizumoto
analysis that examines: how learners utilize and integrate diverse re­
sources; the strategic deployment of these resources to achieve suc­
cessful outcomes, such as error reduction in writing; and the evolution of
learners’ self-efficacy and metacognitive knowledge within the context
of resource use. Given the theoretical underpinnings of metacognition,
the MRU framework appears well-positioned to serve as a valuable lens
for examining the applications of both DDL and GenAI.
In conclusion, the synergistic integration of DDL and GenAI in the
field of language learning and teaching represents an exciting and
essential frontier for future investigation. As we continue to navigate
this rapidly evolving landscape, it is crucial to remain open to innova­
tion while also critically interrogating the ethical and pedagogical im­
plications of adopting these new technologies and methodologies.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The author whose name is listed immediately below certify that he
has NO affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity
with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants;
participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consul­
tancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony
or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial interest (such as
personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs)
in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.
Declaration of Generative AI and AI-assisted Technologies in the Writing
Process
During the preparation of this work, the author used ChatGPT (GPT-
4) in order to improve the clarity and coherence of the language, in line
with the standards required by scholarly journals. After using this tool,
the author reviewed and edited the content as needed and takes full
responsibility for the content of the publication.
Acknowledgment
The writing and dissemination of this paper were supported by JSPS
KAKENHI Grant No. 21H00553.
References
Anthony, L. (2023, September 9–10). Corpus AI: Integrating large language models (LLMs)
into a corpus analysis toolkit [Paper presentation]. 49th Conference of Japan
Association for English Corpus Studies, Osaka, Japan.
Boulton, A., Cobb, T., 2017. Corpus use in language learning: A meta-analysis. Language
Learning 67 (2), 348–393. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12224.
Boulton, A., Vyatkina, N., 2021. Thirty years of data-driven learning: Taking stock and
charting new directions over time. Language Learning & Technology 25 (3), 66–89.
https://www.lltjournal.org/item/53/.
Boulton, A., 2009. Testing the limits of data-driven learning: Language proficiency and
training. ReCALL 1 (21), 81–87. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13398-014-0173-7.2.
Boulton, A. (2012). What data for data-driven learning? EuroCALL Review: Proceedings of
the EUROCALL 2011 Conference, 20, 23–27. http://eurocall.webs.upv.es/documento
s/newsletter/papers_20(1)/07_boulton.pdf.
Chambers, A., 2019. Towards the corpus revolution? Bridging the research–practice gap.
Language Teaching 52 (4), 460–475. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0261444819000089.
Chamot, A. U., & Harris, V. (Eds.). (2019). Learning strategy instruction in the language
classroom: Issues and implementation. Multilingual Matters.
Chamot, A.U., 2009. The CALLA handbook: Implementing the cognitive academic
language learning approach. Pearson Education.
Crosthwaite, P., Baisa, V., 2023. Generative AI and the end of corpus-assisted data-driven
learning? Not so fast! Applied Corpus Linguistics 3 (3), 100066. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.acorp.2023.100066.
Crosthwaite, P., Storch, N., Schweinberger, M., 2020. Less is more? The impact of written
corrective feedback on corpus-assisted L2 error resolution. Journal of Second
Language Writing 49, 100729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2020.100729.
Crosthwaite, P., 2017. Does EAP writing instruction reduce L2 errors? Evidence from a
longitudinal corpus of L2 EAP essays and reports. International Review of Applied
Applied Corpus Linguistics 3 (2023) 100074
Linguistics in Language Teaching 56 (3), 315–343. https://doi.org/10.1515/iral-
2016-0129.
Flavell, J.H., 1979. Metacognition and cognitive monitoring: A new area of cognitive-
developmental inquiry. American Psychologist 34 (10), 906–911. https://doi.org/
10.1037/0003-066X.34.10.906.
Flowerdew, L., 2009. Applying corpus linguistics to pedagogy: A critical evaluation.
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14 (3), 393–417. https://doi.org/
10.1075/ijcl.14.3.05flo.
Frankenberg-Garcia, A., Pinto, P.T., Bocorny, A.E.P., Sarmento, S., 2022. Corpus-aided
EAP writing workshops to support international scholarly publication. Applied
Corpus Linguistics 2 (3), 100029. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acorp.2022.100029.
Friginal, E., 2018. Corpus linguistics for English teachers: New tools, online resources,
and classroom activities. Routledge.
Gabrielatos, C., 2005. Corpora and language teaching: Just a fling or wedding bells?
TESL-EJ 8 (4), 32. http://www.cc.kyoto-su.ac.jp/information/tesl-ej/ej32/a1.html.
Geluso, J., 2013. Phraseology and frequency of occurrence on the web: Native speakers’
perceptions of Google-informed second language writing. Computer Assisted
Language Learning 26 (2), 144–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/
09588221.2011.639786.
Godwin-Jones, R., 2017. Data-informed language learning. Language Learning &
Technology 21 (3), 9–27. https://www.lltjournal.org/item/10125-44629/.
Gu, Y., 2012. Learning strategies: Prototypical core and dimensions of variation. Studies
in Self-Access Learning Journal 330–356. https://doi.org/10.37237/030402.
Johns, T.F., 1991. Should you be persuaded: Two samples of data-driven learning
materials. In: Johns, T.F., King, P. (Eds.), Should you be persuaded: Two samples of
data-driven learning materials. Classroom concordancing (ELR Journal 4) 1–16.
Kohnke, L., Moorhouse, B.L., Zou, D., 2023. ChatGPT for language teaching and learning.
RELC Journal, 003368822311628. https://doi.org/10.1177/00336882231162868.
Lee, H., Warschauer, M., Lee, J.H., 2019. The effects of corpus use on second language
vocabulary learning: A multilevel meta-analysis. Applied Linguistics 40 (5),
721–753. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amy012.
Lin, P., 2023. ChatGPT: Friend or foe (to corpus linguists)? Applied Corpus Linguistics 3
(3), 100065. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acorp.2023.100065.
Mizumoto, A., 2018. On questionnaire use in language learning strategies research. The
Journal of AsiaTEFL 15 (1), 184–192. https://doi.org/10.18823/
asiatefl.2018.15.1.12.184.
Mizumoto, A., Chujo, K., 2016. Who is data-driven learning for? Challenging the
monolithic view of its relationship with learning styles. System 61, 55–64. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2016.07.010.
O’Keeffe, A., Mark, G., 2022. Principled pattern curation to guide data-driven learning
design. Applied Corpus Linguistics 2 (3), 100028. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
acorp.2022.100028.
O’Keeffe, A., 2021. Data-driven learning: A call for a broader research gaze. Language
Teaching 54, 259–272. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000245.
Pérez-Paredes, P., 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 (1–2), 36–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2019.1667832.
Plonsky, L., 2019. Recent research on language learning strategy instruction. In:
Chamot, A.U., Harris, V. (Eds.), Learning strategy instruction in the language
classroom: Issues and implementation. Multilingual Matters, pp. 3–21.
Plonsky, L., 2011. The effectiveness of second language strategy instruction: A meta-
analysis. Language Learning 61 (4), 993–1038. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-
9922.2011.00663.x.
Poole, R., 2022. Corpus can be tricky”: Revisiting teacher attitudes towards corpus-aided
language learning and teaching. Computer Assisted Language Learning 35 (7),
1620–1641. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2020.1825095.
Quan, Z., Grant, L., Hocking, D., 2022. Comparing concordances of language patterns
and words by ESL intermediate learners: A preliminary experiment with two mobile
concordancers. Computer Assisted Language Learning 1–27. https://doi.org/
10.1080/09588221.2022.2081581.
Sato, M, 2022. Metacognition. In: Li, S., Hiver, P., Papi, M. (Eds.), The Routledge
Handbook of Second Language Acquisition and Individual Differences. Routledge,
pp. 95–110. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003270546-8.
Sha, G., 2010. Using Google as a super corpus to drive written language learning: A
comparison with the British National Corpus. Computer Assisted Language Learning
23 (5), 377–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2010.514576.
Smart, J., 2014. The role of guided induction in paper-based data-driven learning.
ReCALL 26 (2), 184–201. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344014000081.
Teng, M.F., Zhang, L.J., 2021. Development of children’s metacognitive knowledge,
reading, and writing in English as a foreign language: Evidence from longitudinal
data using multilevel models. British Journal of Educational Psychology 91 (4),
1202–1230. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12413.
Tseng, W.-T., Dörnyei, Z., Schmitt, N., 2006. A new approach to assessing strategic
learning: The case of self-regulation in vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics
27 (1), 78–102. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami046.
Wang, I.K.-H., Cohen, A.D., 2022. Self-access strategy instruction for academic writing
vocabulary: What learners actually do. Applied Linguistics amac056. https://doi.
org/10.1093/applin/amac056.
Yoon, C., 2016. Individual differences in online reference resource consultation: Case
studies of Korean ESL graduate writers. Journal of Second Language Writing 32,
67–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2016.04.002.