The Effect of Corpus-based Collocation Instruction on

Vol. 72 | No. 10 | Oct 2016

International Scientific Researches Journal

The Effect of Corpus-based Collocation Instruction on Iranian EFL Learners' Learning of Non-Congruent Collocations

Hosna Rasooyar, MA Student Department of English, Semnan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Semnan, Iran [email protected]

Nafiseh Salehi, Assistant Professor English Department, Farhangian University, Iran [email protected]

Abstract Collocations in English are huge in size, taking up almost 70% of what is spoken and written in real and authentic English. Therefore, teaching collocation would be to the benefit of EFL learners to a great extent. The present study focused on uncovering the effect of corpus-based instruction on EFL learners' learning of non-congruent collocation. Since the meaning of the whole non-congruent collocations cannot be inferred through one to one translation from mother tongue or the literal meaning of the individual words, the researchers decided to concentrate on this kind of collocations. To this end, two groups of learners were used as the participants of the study. One group experienced learning collocations through corpus-based instruction and the other group experienced collocation learning through the conventional method of instruction. Students’ attitudes towards corpus-based instruction were also investigated through interviews. The results showed that corpus-based instruction had the same effect as the traditional instruction on EFL learners' learning of non-congruent collocations. However, students had positive attitudes towards corpus-based instruction and preferred it over the traditional way of teaching collocations. They also reported that corpusbased instruction made them more motivated to learn non-congruent collocations. Keywords: Collocations, Non-congruent Collocations, Corpus-based Instruction, Vocabulary

33

Vol. 72 | No. 10 | Oct 2016

International Scientific Researches Journal

Introduction Today, language educators and teachers view collocation knowledge as an important element in learning an L2 since such knowledge reduces the cognitive demands imposed by second language production and processing on learners (Conklin & Schmitt, 2008). As Hsu and Chiu (2008) note, failing to appropriately use collocations accentuates individuals’ foreign-soundness. According to Nesselhauf (2003), collocations can serve the following two main functions: it improves accuracy and contributes to better fluency. In the same vein, some studies (Källkvist, 1995; Granger, 1998; Lorenz, 1999; Nesselhauf, 2003) indicate that these collocations lead to serious challenges for students with different levels of proficiency. Ellis (2001) considers it important to directly teach collocations in L2 teaching as such kind of formulaic language is an important facet for the development of second language. Along the same line, Laufer (1988) believes that collocations make important contributions to the different levels of vocabulary growth. Confirming the importance of collocations, so far numerous studies have been carried out (e.g., Allami, & Movahediyan Attar, 2013; Kiaee & Heravi Moghaddam & Moheb Hosseini, 2013; Liu, 2000; Rahimi & Momeni, 2012) investigating how collocations should be dealt with in EFL contexts. As stated by Cruse (1986) collocations are strings of words which co-occur and are thus considered as the formulaic language. The findings of previous studies (e.g., Erman & Warren, 2000; Forster, 2001) indicate that a high percentage of words in English are comprised of formulaic language and thus learners should be given enough exposure to such language. Hill (2000) asserts that if the L2 learners are exposed to input of quality and are aware of the lexical nature of language, it is more likely that they will recognize and finally produce chunks themselves. Undoubtedly, EFL learners should acquire adequate amount of collocational knowledge of English so as to effectively make use of vocabulary in the L2 (Schmitt, 2000). Today, with the surge of technology, a variety of methods have been suggested for instruction of language skills and components. The use of corpus is one of these methods. The modern language teaching programs use corpus to accomplish the purposes they have set. Corpus is defined as a big collection of texts collected systematically. Thanks to the technology, these texts collections are stored and processed electronically. According to O’Keeffe, McCarthy, and Carter (2007), a corpus is defined as a group of written or aural texts collected by an individual. This collection is stored on a computer and is analyzed qualitatively or quantitatively using analytical software. A relationship is assumed to exist between corpus linguistics and language learning. According to Partington (1998), the following two general approaches can be identified regarding how teachers can incorporate corpus technology in the classroom:  

teachers themselves engage in the analysis of corpora with the aim of developing materials teachers bring corpora into the classroom and instruct learners how to make use of the technology.

As an advantage of the first approach, learners are exposed to what they should learn in accordance with the experts’ judgment. Therefore, they can delete the inappropriate examples. This paves the way for students not being flooded with too many examples. As an advantage of the second approach, the learners' autonomy is promoted. Learners in this approach take on more active and dynamic roles as language researchers. In fact, learners

34

Vol. 72 | No. 10 | Oct 2016

International Scientific Researches Journal

begin by formulating their own research questions, seeking to find answers themselves (Flowerdew, 1996). Collocation is a newcomer in the English lexicon and is defined as the co-occurrence of two or more terms or phrases in natural text. According to Granger (1998), collocations are commonly used in any language, following certain syntactic patterns e.g., ‘verb + noun’, or ‘adjective + noun’. Based on the description given by Lewis (1997), collocation is concerned with the strength of association, or the likelihood of co-occurrence of two words or phrases. Expanding the same definition, Williams (2002) defines collocation as two or three word clusters co-occurring more regularly than by chance. Bahns and Eldaw (1993) give one more linguistic definition: collocations share some features of free expressions and some features of idioms. A look at the literature reveals many classifications of collocations. For example, linguists such as Bahns and Eldaw (1993) classify collocations according to syntactical nature, with lexical and grammatical categories being considered as the simplest categorization. According to them, lexical collocations consist of one open word (verb, noun, adjective or adverb) combined with another open word. Grammatical collocations have an open word combined with a preposition, clause, infinitive or gerund. Nattinger (1988) maintains that collocational knowledge will be helpful for the longer retention and more effective comprehension of words associations. In fact, knowledge of collocation contributes to the learners' ability to keep the words in their memory. Moreover, collocational knowledge enables the individuals to predict what kinds of words and phrases may co-occur. The field of instruction can also benefit from collocations. As Ashouri et al. (2014) note, collocations can also be helpful for the instruction of language production as L2 learners will be able to recognize subconsciously particular lexical limitations whilst memorizing collocations. In the same vein, Bahns and Eldaw (1993) claim that knowing collocation can enhance L2 learners’ mental word list, promoting their memory. It is assumed that collocations are of great use to L2 learning, especially, at the intermediate and advanced levels. According to Brown and Payne (1994), the following 5-step procedure can be used by the L2 learners to better memorize and comprehend collocations.     

Seeking novel words co-occurrence Seeking to work out the words attachment and relations Figuring out the general meaning construction Making connections between word form and meaning in their memory Making practical use of the co-occurred words.

Farghal and Obiedat (1995) attach enormous importance to learning collocations, considering such a learning as a requirement and essential in comprehension and retention of vocabulary. The studies conducted on the acquisition and learning of these constructions have yielded promising results. For example, the research findings show that collocations are considered as important components of formulaic constructions. Moreover, knowledge of collocation is viewed as a requirement for better L2 learning as well as communication (Bahns & Eldaw, 1993). Moreover, collocations constitute one of the most essential parts of vocabulary knowledge incorporated in multiple mental lexicon models (Nation, 2001). Although, the 35

Vol. 72 | No. 10 | Oct 2016

International Scientific Researches Journal

importance of collocations knowledge as an inevitable component of second language acquisition is widely recognized, research carried out on collocations indicate that these items create serious challenges and problems for L2 learners (Howarth, 1998). Based on the research findings as well as the foregoing discussion, it can be concluded that collocation is somehow used as synonymous with the word vocabulary as most often the words are used in isolation. This provides evidence that collocation has a crucial role in language learning. Below, the pedagogical implications of learning collocation will be discussed.

Corpus-based Instruction in Teaching Vocabulary and Collocation In today's educational context, L2 teaching uses corpus for different purposes. Corpus is described as a large volume of texts collected systematically and they can be stored and processed electronically. Kučera and Francis (1967) collected the first corpus consisting of a million words. In fact, this collection is viewed the first modern computer readable corpus. Over the time, the corpus grew larger in size, reaching the range of several millions words and it has been extended to other domains such as language instruction and research. Hanafiyeh et al. (2013) believe that with the development of technology, corpus-based language learning has been the focus of L2 teachers and researchers' attention. Based on the research findings, corpus serves as an effective L2 and FL instruction and learning style used in the following: course design, instructor development, design of teaching materials, instruction of vocabulary, grammar, writing skills, reading ability, giving writing feedback and transferring learned vocabulary knowledge to writing. The instruction of vocabulary can greatly benefit from the analysis of corpus data which provides very important information for both learners and teachers regarding the way in which language is used in real-life. According to Tribble and Jones (1997), linguistic information is often given in the form of concordances. A concordance consists of all the instances of a word or phrase in a corpus, within the context. The software concordance is used to derive concordances. Concordance was initially used by Tim Johns, the writer of the Data Driven Learning (DDL) in 1991. This approach to L2 learning draws on the assumption that using authentic language in combination with the use of a concordancer provides the learners with an opportunity to analyze the language as it is used in real-life situations. Furthermore, DDL is built on the learner’s discovery of rules and regularities related to language use. The research carried out in the corpus-based language teaching (Cain, 2002; Chan & Liou, 2005; Sun, 2000, 2003, 2007; Sun & Wang, 2003) indicates that this kind of instruction impacts L2 teaching and learning positively. Yet, the studies have not shed light on how effectively the learners have acquired vocabulary due to this kind of instruction. There is a general consensus in the literature that L2 learners find the acquisition of collocation knowledge very difficult, with a large part of evidence being anecdotal or intuitive. L2 instructors have observed frequently in their classes the miss-selection of words that make learners sound like foreigners. Multiple studies examining collocation skill in L2 learners chose native speaker performance as the standard to evaluate the non-native speakers' performance. Bonk (2000) and Gitsaki (1999) drew on an educated native speaker response in devising their own tests. Hasselgren (1994) made a comparison between Norwegian speaking students’ collocation skill in advanced EFL classes with that of British students. Granger

36

Vol. 72 | No. 10 | Oct 2016

International Scientific Researches Journal

(1998) and Howarth (1998) compared the works written by native and those written by nonnative speakers of French. Some studies have provided evidence showing the negative transfer from L1. Bisk-up (1992) examined the extent to which Polish and German EFL learners were knowledgeable in English collocations. The participants were asked to create L2 collocations freely. That is, it seemed that they tried to use L2 combinations, disregarding whether or not their creations were well-formed, acceptable collocations in the L2. They often transferred collocation in their first language, resulting in errors in the L2. Based on the research findings, those collocations having no translation equivalents in L1 pose more challenges for learners compared to those which are congruent between L1 and L2. The former are called noncongruent collocations. In their elaboration on collocation, Bahns and Eldaw (1993) discuss different types of collocations in details. Based on their categorization, positive transfer in collocations is considered as congruent collocations whereas collocations that lack equivalents in learners’ L1 are called non-congruent collocations. Studies indicate that non-congruent collocations pose more challenges for L2 learners than congruent ones (Bahns & Eldaw, 1993; Granger, 1998; Nesselhauf, 2003, 2005).When it comes to instruction of collocations, there is not any agreement as to the impact that various teaching techniques may have on collocation learning. In their empirical studies, some researchers have compared vocabulary learning under meaning- and form-focused tasks, concluding that the latter results in significantly better retention than the former. In line with what was mentioned earlier, the present study aimed at answering the following questions: Q1: Does corpus-based collocation instruction have any significant effect on Iranian EFL intermediate female learners' non-congruent collocation learning? Q2: What are Iranian Intermediate female learners' perceptions towards the efficacy of corpus-based allocation instruction on their non-congruent collocation learning? Methodology Participants At the outset, 80 adult EFL intermediate female learners at Iran Language Institute participated in this study. They studied English for the purpose of finding better jobs or achieving higher degrees in their related fields. They were within the age ranges of 18 to 30. 60 learners were chosen randomly from four intact intermediate classes at this language school. The participants attended classes twice a week for the period of five weeks. Each class lasted about 90 minutes. Instruments Three types of instruments were utilized in the present study namely, the Nelson– Denny test, vocabulary (non-congruent collocation) pre and posttest, and a semi-structured interview. In what follows each instrument will be discussed.

37

Vol. 72 | No. 10 | Oct 2016

International Scientific Researches Journal

The Nelson–Denny Test To make sure that participants were all homogeneous in terms of their L2 proficiency, especially collocation knowledge, the participants took a Nelson test (Test 200B). The test contained 50 items and respondents needed to complete the test in 40 minutes. All items were in the form of multiple choices and respondents needed to provide the correct answer by choosing the correct option.

Vocabulary (non-congruent collocation) Pre and Posttest To test the subjects' non-congruent collocation knowledge prior to the treatment and after the treatment, a test comprising 04 non-congruent collocations was designed by the researcher and administered as pre-test and post-test. Prior to administering the test for pretest and post-test purposes, the test was piloted on ten individuals with the same characteristics as the participants of the study and the required changes were made to the content of the items accordingly. English Collocation in Use. "English Collocations in Use" written by Michael McCarthy and Felicity O'Dell and published by Cambridge presents and practices hundreds of collocations in typical contexts. It is ideal for the students at good intermediate level and above. The book was used to select the non-congruent collocations for the purposes of the current study.

Semi-structured Interview A set of semi-structured interview questions were prepared to know about the participants’ attitudes towards corpus-based instruction of non-congruent collocations. To report the results of the interviews, the content analysis approach recommended by Auerback and Silverstein (2003) was used. According to them, content analysis is the most common form of analysis when dealing with qualitative data. They further enumerate six stages which the analyzer needs to go through to come up with established and meaningful patterns. These phases are namely: getting familiar with data, coming up with initial codes, looking for themes among codes, reviewing the themes, defining and labeling the themes, and producing the final report. The six stages proposed above were taken into consideration to report the interview contents.

Procedure Initially, four intact classes comprising 80 students took part in a Nelson test for the purpose of ensuring their homogeneity in terms of language proficiency and vocabulary. Those students whose scores on this test were beyond +1 and -1 standard deviation were excluded. To this end, 60 participants whose scores fell under the normal curve were selected as the legitimate participants of the study. The required data for the purposes of the current

38

Vol. 72 | No. 10 | Oct 2016

International Scientific Researches Journal

study was collected through a pre-test and post-test of a non-congruent collocation test devised by the researcher. After administering the Nelson test of vocabulary, the selected subjects were divided into two groups namely, control group and experimental group. The following steps were taken: A test comprising 90 non-congruent collocations – (chosen from "English Collocation in Use" book) - devised by the researcher was given to both groups to assess their knowledge of non-congruent collocations. Based on the results of this test, 45 non-congruent collocations were identified to be taught in both control and experimental groups. This test served as pretest in order to homogenize the participants regarding their non-congruent collocational knowledge as well. Some of the items included in the test are as follows : e.g. fall asleep, take exam, do dishing, make money, make bed, traffic light, make a fuss, drop somebody a line, give somebody a ring, pull somebody's leg, time flies, make ends meet, etc. This test was in a multiple-choice format. Then, the learners in these classes underwent a collocation learning course. In each session 30 minutes of the class time was devoted to teaching non-congruent collocations. Totally 45 non-congruent collocations were taught. In the experimental group, the first session was devoted to familiarizing the participants with the concept of non-congruent collocations. In the second session onward the following procedures were undertaken based on the principals of corpus- instruction: 

Five non-congruent collocations were written on the board.



Learners were encouraged to guess the meaning of them.



They were asked to work in pairs and use each of them in a sentence based on their guesses.



Five definitions of the non-congruent collocations under instruction were given to the learners in a jumbled manner. The participants were required to match them to the corresponding definitions.



The answers were checked and students were assisted in comprehending the meaning of the non-congruent collocations. Efforts were made to remove any ambiguities in this respect.



Learners were encouraged to come up with synonyms and antonyms if available.



The students were put into pairs. One student read the definitions and the other one was required to come up with the correct corresponding non-congruent collocation. Then the other one read out a non-congruent collocation and the partner was required to provide a definition.



Students were provided with a corpus of sample sentences in which the noncongruent collocations have been left out.



Students were provided with the intact material in which the non-congruent collocations had been highlighted to check their answers.

39

Vol. 72 | No. 10 | Oct 2016

International Scientific Researches Journal

In the case of control group, the learners were provided with the definitions of the same non-congruent collocations as well as some examples of them. As in the experimental group, this group also received 30-minute instruction on collocations. However, in this group, only the textbook was used and all the practicing examples and collocations were based on the textbook. To teach the non-congruent collocations in this group the following stages were taken: 

Asking the participants to guess the meaning of the collocations from the passages and examples in the book.



Emphasizing the use of context to guide the participants.



Eliciting and introducing synonyms or antonyms.



Using the unknown non-congruent collocations in different sentences and providing more examples.



Providing the dictionary meaning of the collocations if the 4 previous stages could not lead the learners to the correct meaning.

Having finished the 10 sessions, the same test was administered immediately after the treatment as the post-test to both groups to test their vocabulary performance with a focus on non-congruent collocations. A set of interview questions was also prepared by the researcher and addressed to 5 participants in the experimental group to examine their attitudes towards the efficacy of corpus-based instruction on their non-congruent collocation learning. Reliability and Validity A reliability index of 0.961 at the confidence level of 0.01 was obtained for the preand post-tests. This reliability index showed that the test enjoys a satisfactory level of reliably index (Brown, 2007). Initially, it deemed necessary to assure the content validity of the test. To this end, appeal to expert opinion was sought. Therefore, the initial item pool developed by the researcher was given to two MA holders with more than ten years of teaching experience and they commented on the items. Following that, the validity of the Noncongruent Collocation Test was further established through the employment of a “differential experiment” procedure proposed by Brown. The test was administered to two different groups of learners: pre-intermediate students and upper-intermediate students. The difference between these two groups of learners was significantly different indicating the validity of the test. To ensure the validity of the interview questions, some steps were taken drawing on Auerback and Silverstein’s (2003). Various relevant attitude questionnaires were extensively and intensively read several times by the researcher and two MA holders in TEFL to identify the main themes embedded in the questionnaires. The literature related to the attitude was also reviewed in an effort to figure out any other underlying constructs concerning attitude. The sub-constructs identified were drawn on to develop the first draft of the interview questions. The first draft of this set of questions was administered to 5 students having the same characteristics as the participants of the current study to remove any ambiguities in the

40

Vol. 72 | No. 10 | Oct 2016

International Scientific Researches Journal

wording of the questions. The questions were revised after gaining the comments of the participants in step 4 and the final draft of the questions was developed.

Results Homogeneity and Normal Distribution After collecting the Nelson language proficiency scores, histogram with normality curve was sought using SPSS. It was found that the sample was normally distributed in terms of language proficiency scores. Figure 1 shows the histogram and the normality curve. Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of the sample. Table1. Descriptive Statistics of the Students’ Language Proficiency Prior to Experimentation N

Valid

80

Mean

25.7889

Std. Deviation

9.45895

Variance

89.472

Fig.1 Histogram with normality curve for the participants’ language proficiency

After establishing the normal distribution of the data, students whose scores fell between +1 and -1 standard deviation were selected as the study’s participants. Therefore, there were 60 students who further were divided into two groups of 30 students. One group served as treatment group and the other one as control group. Next students took the initial vocabulary test. The scores obtained from the initial vocabulary test used to ensure the homogeneity of 41

Vol. 72 | No. 10 | Oct 2016

International Scientific Researches Journal

students in terms of knowledge of non-congruent collocations. Tables 2 and 3 show the descriptive statistics and the independent samples t-test values respectively.

Groups Experiment control

Table 2. Independent Samples Statistics Mean Std. Deviation 59.3000 4.13688 61.7690 4.74451

Std. Error Mean .75529 .86622

Table 3. Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F

Sig.

Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

.412

.524

t-test t -.435 -.435

Sig. .665 .665

As the test of Levene shows, the two groups enjoy equal variance and accordingly the t value is 0.43 with significant level of P≥0.05. Therefore, the two groups are not significantly different from each other and are considered homogenized in terms of vocabulary knowledge.

Validity Estimation of Non-congruent Collocation Test The validity of the Non-congruent Collocation Test was established through the employment of a “differential experiment” procedure proposed by Brown (2007). This test was supposed to serve as posttest after treatment. According to “differential experiment” procedure, in order to show the construct validity of a measurement instrument, the instrument could be employed to assess the ability it claims on two different groups whose ability sounds obviously different in this regard. If the difference between the performances of the two groups proves to be statistically different, it could be concluded that the measurement instrument is assessing what it is supposed to measure and hence it is valid. Based on the aforesaid procedure the test was administered to two different group of learners that is preintermediate students and upper-intermediate students. The scores obtained by the groups were analyzed using an independent samples T-test. Tables 4 and 5 display the frequency statistics of the vocabulary test scores of the upper-intermediate and pre-intermediate learners respectively.

42

Vol. 72 | No. 10 | Oct 2016

International Scientific Researches Journal

Table 4. Frequency Statistics of the Upper-Intermediate Learners’ Scores on the Non-Congruent Collocation Test

Frequency Valid

20.00

1

3.3

Percent 3.3

Valid Percent

Cumulative Percent 3.3

21.00

2

6.7

6.7

10.0

22.00

1

3.3

3.3

13.3

23.00

1

3.3

3.3

16.7

24.00

1

3.3

3.3

20.0

25.00

1

3.3

3.3

23.3

26.00

7

23.3

23.3

46.7

27.00

5

16.7

16.7

63.3

28.00

5

16.7

16.7

80.0

29.00

1

3.3

3.3

83.3

30.00

5

16.7

16.7

100.0

Total

30

100.0

100.0

Table 5. Frequency Statistics of the Pre-Intermediate Learners’ Scores on the Non-Congruent Collocation Test

Valid

12.00 13.00 14.00 15.00 16.00 17.00 18.00 19.00 21.00 22.00 Total

Frequency 6 1 10 4 1 4 1 1 1 1 30

Percent 20.0 3.3 33.3 13.3 3.3 13.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 100.0

Valid Percent 20.0 3.3 33.3 13.3 3.3 13.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 100.0

Cumulative Percent 20.0 23.3 56.7 70.0 73.3 86.7 90.0 93.3 96.7 100.0

After that, based on Brown (2007) an independent samples t-test was run on the scores of the two groups. Table 6 illustrates the results of this test.

43

Vol. 72 | No. 10 | Oct 2016

International Scientific Researches Journal

Table 6. Results of Independent Samples T-Test for Comparing Pre-Intermediate and Upper-Intermediate Learners’ Scores on the Non-Congruent Collocation Test for Validation Purpose

Non-congruent Collocation Test

Group

Mean

S. D.

T

Sig.

Pre-intermediate

14.9667

2.59287

1.386

0.003

Upper-intermediate

31.5142

3.28424

As it could be seen in Table 6 the significance level is 0.003 which is lower than the confidence level of 0.05 leading to the conclusion that the means of the two groups on the test was significantly different with the upper-intermediate learners outperforming the preintermediate ones. Therefore, it could be inferred that the test measured the intended construct for which it had been developed hence the validity of the test is established.

Reliability Estimation of Vocabulary Test Test-retest procedures were drawn on to assure the reliability of the test. To this end the test was run twice on the upper intermediate learners with a time interval of 15 days and Pearson correlation coefficient was used, the results of which showed an acceptable reliability index. To accomplish this, the same Non-congruent Collocation Test was administered to the same group of upper- intermediate learners who had taken the teat for validity purposes. Table 7 demonstrates the frequency statistics of the upper-intermediate learners on the second administration of the Non-congruent Collocation Test. Table7. Frequency Statistics of the Upper-Intermediate Learners’ Scores on the Re-Test of Vocabulary Frequency Valid

19.00 20.00 21.00 22.00 23.00 24.00 25.00 26.00 27.00 28.00 29.00 30.00 Total

Percent 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 6 6 4 1 30

3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 6.7 16.7 20.0 20.0 13.3 3.3 100.0

Valid Percent 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 6.7 16.7 20.0 20.0 13.3 3.3 100.0

Cumulative Percent 3.3 6.7 10.0 13.3 16.7 20.0 26.7 43.3 63.3 83.3 96.7 100.0

Afterwards, Pearson correlation coefficient formula was run in an attempt to establish the reliability of the test. Table 8 displays the respective results.

44

Vol. 72 | No. 10 | Oct 2016

International Scientific Researches Journal

Table 8. Correlation Coefficient between the Scores of the Upper – Intermediate Learners on the First and Second Administration of the Non-Congruent Collocation Test First Administration of the vocabulary test Pearson Correlation Second Administration of the Non-congruent Collocation Sig. (2-tailed) Test N

.961 .000 30

*Correlation Significant at the level of 0.01

As the Table indicates the reliability index is 0.961 at the confidence level of 0.01 which shows that the test enjoys a satisfactory level of reliability index (Brown, 2007).

As mentioned earlier, the study aimed at detecting any possible differences between students’ learning non-congruent collocations through corpus-based collocation instruction and students’ learning non-congruent collocations through conventional methods. After treatment the two groups were compared through independent samples t-test. Levene’s test was also used to check the equality of variance between the two groups (See tables 9 and 10) Table 9. Independent Samples Statistics

Posttest

Group Experiment Control

N 30 30

Mean 35.0000 34.8333

Std. Deviation 3.35282 2.94880

Std. Error Mean .61214 .53837

Table 10. Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F Posttest

Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed

Sig. .427

t-test for Equality of Means t

.516

Sig. (2-tailed) .204 .839 .204 .839

Mean Difference .16667 .16667

As Table 9 shows the students in the corpus-based collocation instruction had a mean score of 35 and students in the static assessment had a mean score of 34.83. The differences between the two means were so slight. In table 10, the t value proved to be 0.20 with the significant level of P>0.05. Therefore, the two groups did not differ significantly from each other. In other words the two methods of teaching non-congruent collocations produced the same results. It can be stated that both methods of teaching non-congruent collocations had the same effect on participants’ learning. The null hypothesis assuming that corpus-based collocation instruction does not have any significant effect on Iranian EFL intermediate female learners' non-congruent collocation learning was supported through statistical analysis and it was concluded that corpus-based instruction did not produce more positive outcome than traditional method in learning noncongruent collocations. 45

Vol. 72 | No. 10 | Oct 2016

International Scientific Researches Journal

Students’ Attitudes towards the Corpus-Based Instruction on Learning Non-congruent Collocation To explore the students’ attitudes towards Corpus-Based instruction in learning noncongruent collocations, an interview was held with five participants of the experimental group. Although the statistical analysis showed that traditional method of teaching vocabulary and corpus-based instruction had the same effect, the students’ attitudes toward the use of corpus-based instruction were mostly positive. Four questions addressed the above-mentioned issue: 1) In your opinion, is corpus-based instruction useful/ helpful for learning English noncongruent collocations? 2) Do you feel more motivated when you learn non-congruent collocations though corpus-based instruction? 3) Do you prefer the use of corpus-based instruction to learn English over the traditional method? 4) Do you think the use of real texts and sentences are effective? In response to the question: “In your opinion, is corpus-based instruction useful/ helpful for learning English non-congruent collocations?”, one of the participants commented, “I really found this method useful since there were many examples for each collocation and this helped me to learn the collocations more easily.” Another participant maintained, “corpus-based practice in the class was useful because there the collocations were used in different contexts and I could remember and use them in different situations later.” The third interviewee pointing to the usefulness of corpus-based instruction commented, “this method of learning really helped me to increase the number of collocations I knew and now I think I can understand collocations used in the texts better.” According to the fourth interviewee, because these types of collocations do not have exact word-by-word meanings in Persian, she thought learning them using the corpus was helpful. Finally another participant commented, “… I always had to find the examples of the collocations from a dictionary and there were just few examples in a dictionary, but when there was a corpus it saved me a lot of time.” The second question of the interview was: “Do you feel more motivated when you learn non-congruent collocations though corpus-based instruction?”. Overall, most of the participants believed that they felt more motivated when learning collocations through corpusbased instruction. One of the interviewees commented, “… the very fact that I could see more and more examples and the teaching method was somehow new to me motivated me to learn collocations. Also, corpus-based instruction is more fun and more interesting than the traditional method.”Another interviewee held, “I felt more motivated since it was obvious that I was learning more and therefore I really wanted to learn more and more. This made me really motivated”. She also added, “Corpus-based instruction is more exciting and you get interested in finding the meaning of new words and collocations.” In response to the question: “Do you prefer the use of corpus-based instruction to learn English over the traditional method?”, the responses were also mostly affirmative. One of the interviewees said, “I really prefer this method and in the future I would like to have more corpus-based collocation examples in my class.” Another interviewee mentioned, “I think I like this method more. Most of the time, I talk with other students after the class over 46

Vol. 72 | No. 10 | Oct 2016

International Scientific Researches Journal

the benefits of this method. I prefer this method to the old method because it helps us learn better.” The last question of the interview was: “Do you think the use of real texts and sentences are effective?”. Most participants’ responses were positive in this regard as well. One interviewee believed that the use of real examples was really useful because she could see the exact situation in which the collocation had been used before and it helped her remember it more easily. Another interviewee commented, “of course using real examples was helpful. Because I easily could see how those collocations were used by native speakers which is very important to me. Dictionary examples are not very good.” The third participant maintained, “… real life examples were very good because I sometimes travel to foreign countries such as England and when the examples are real I can understand native speakers much better.” As the findings revealed, students hold positive attitudes towards the implementation of corpus-based instruction for learning non-congruent collocations. In spite of the difficulty of figuring out the meaning of non-congruent collocations at first, they were happy with the method of instruction and use of authentic examples. Moreover, the procedure seemed more enjoyable and motivating for them.

Discussion The current study aimed at comparing two types of non-congruent collocations instructions, i.e. corpus-based instruction and traditional way of vocabulary instruction to find out about their comparative effect on learning non-congruent collocations by EFL learners. The literature review section discussed the important role of corpus-based instruction as well as vocabulary in L2 learning. Vocabulary knowledge makes contribution to reading comprehension, and hence academic success (Nagy & Anderson, 1984; National Reading Panel, 2000). Moreover, reading is considered as an important tool used by individuals to build a strong vocabulary. This leads to a mutual relationship throughout the development of vocabulary. Concerning the written discourse, a lot of referents are incorporated in details related to an unknown vocabulary item, with contextual cues available to help the learner to derive meaning (Cummins, 1994). Inspired by the crucial role of vocabulary in the development and continuity of language competence the researchers sought to examine the impact of corpus-based instruction on EFL learners’ learning of non-congruent collocations. Based on the findings of the present study, traditional and corpus-based instructions both yielded similar results. Yet, on being asked about their attitudes, the participants were more satisfied with corpus-based instruction than the traditional way of vocabulary instruction. To explain the same impact of corpus-based instruction and traditional instruction on learning no-congruent collocations, different factors can be taken into account. Although, a random sampling method was selected it didn’t ensure that members in two groups were homogenous with respect to motivation and psychological factors. Moreover, the authentic use of language examples concerning non-congruent collocations should be a more delicate methodology of instruction and corpus-based instruction would be a constituent of it.

47

Vol. 72 | No. 10 | Oct 2016

International Scientific Researches Journal

The findings showing the learners' satisfaction with corpus based instruction as well as their positive perception of it comply with the findings of the studies conducted by Howarth (1998), Kita and Ogata (1997), Cobb (1999), Thuratun and Candlin (1998), Sun (2007), Louw(1997), and Sun (2000). Sun (2000) carried out a study on L2 learners’ attitudes towards corpus-based language learning. To this end, she developed a three-week on-line corpus-based language learning program in which 37 EFL learners took part. The aim was to investigate their attitudes towards corpus language learning. The data consisted of both qualitative and quantitative data using survey and open-ended questions. The findings indicated that the participants had positive attitudes towards on-line corpus based language learning, especially, regarding the use of authentic language examples. She concluded that the corpus based language learning was an effective method of L2 learning. According to her, the most effective part of corpusbased language learning was vocabulary learning followed by learning grammar and writing.

References Allami, H., & Movahediyan Attar, E. (2013). The Effects of Teaching Lexical Collocations on Speaking Ability of Iranian EFL Learners. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(6), 1070-1079. Ashouri, Arjmandi, & Rahimi, M. (2014). The Impact of Corpus-Based Collocation Instruction on Iranian EFL Learners' Collocation Learning, universal Journal of Educational Research, 2(6), 470 – 479. Auerbach, C. E., & Silverstein, L. B. (2003). Qualitative data: An introduction York, NY: New York University Press.

to coding and analysis. New

Bahns, J., & Eldaw, M. (1993). Should we teach EFL students collocation? System, 21(1), 104-114. Biskup, D. (1992). LI influence on learners’ renderings of English collocations: A Polish/German empirical study. In P. Amaud & H. Bejoint, (Eds.), Vocabulary and Applied Linguistics (pp.85-93). London, UK: Macmillan. Bonk, W. (2000). Testing ESL learners’ knowledge of collocations. ERIC Document ED442309. Retrieved July 7, 2004 from ERIC database. Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching. (5th ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman. Brown, C., & M. E. Payne. (1994). Five Essential Steps or Processes in Vocabulary Learning. Paper presented at the TESOL 1994, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. Cain, G. (2002). Concordances for lower-level classes. English Teacher: An International Journal, 5(3), 314323. Chan, T.-P., & Liou, H.-C. (2005). Effects of web-based concordancing instruction on EFL students’ learning of verb–noun collocations. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(3), 231-251. Cobb, T. (1999). Breadth and depth of lexical acquisition with hands-on concordancing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 12(4), 345-360. Conklin, K., & Schmitt, N. (2008). Formulaic sequences: Are they processed more quickly than non-formulaic language by native and non-native speakers? Applied Linguistics, 29(1), 72–89. Cruse, D. (1986). Lexical semantics. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. 48

Vol. 72 | No. 10 | Oct 2016

International Scientific Researches Journal

Cummins, J. (1994). Primary language instruction and the education of language minority students In. California State Department of Education (Ed), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical framework. (2nd ed., pp. 3–46). Los Angeles: Evaluation, Dissemination and Assessment Center, California State University. Ellis, N. C. (2001). Memory for language. In P. Robinson (Eds.), Cognition and second language instruction (pp. 33–68). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Erman, B., & Warren, B. (2000). The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text, 20(1), 29-62. Farghal, M., & Obeidat, H. (1995). Collocations: a neglected variable in EFL. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 33(3), 315–31. Flowerdew, J. (1996). Concordance in language learning. In M. Pennington (Ed.), the Power of CALL (pp. 87101). Houston: Athelstan. Forster, P. (2001). Rules and routines: A consideration of their role in the task-Based language production of native and non-native speakers. In M. Bygate, P. Skehan, and M. Swain (Eds.), Researching Pedagogic Tasks: Second Language Learning, Teaching, and Testing, (pp. 75-93). London: Longman. Gitsaki, C. (1999). Second language lexical acquisition: a study of the development of collocational knowledge. San Francisco: International Scholars Publications. Granger, S. (1998). Prefabricated Patterns in Advanced EFL Writing: Collocations and Formulae. In A. Cowie (ed.), Phraseology. Theory, Analysis and Applications. 145-160. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hanafiyeh, M., & Keshi, A. (2013). The Effect of Corpus-Based Instruction and Thesaurus-Based Teaching on Iranian EFL Learners’ Grammatical Knowledge, Journal of Basic and Applied Scientific Research, 24, (2)167-179. Hasselgren, A. (1994). Lexical teddy bears and advanced learners: a study into the ways Norwegian students cope with English vocabulary. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4(2), 237-260. Hill, J. (2000). Revising priorities: From grammatical failure to collocational success. In M. Lewis (Ed.). Teaching collocation: Further developments in the lexical approach (pp. 47-67). London: Language Teaching Publications. Howarth, P. (1998). A phraseological approach to academic writing. In G. Blue (Ed.), Language learning and success: studying through English. (pp. 58-69). London: Macmillan. Howarth, P. (1998). Phraseology and second language proficiency. Applied Linguistics, 19(1), 24-44. Hsu, J. T., & Chiu, C. (2008). Lexical Collocations and their Relation to Speaking Proficiency. The Asian EFL Journal Quarterly 10(1), 181-204. Källkvist, M. (1995). Lexical Errors among Verbs: A Pilot Study of the Vocabulary of Advanced Swedish Learners of English. Working Papers in English and Applied Linguistics 2(2), 103-115. Kiaee, Seyyede Sadat, S. & Heravi Moghaddam, N., Moheb Hosseini, E. (2013). The Effect of Teaching Collocations on Enhancing Iranian EFLLearners’ Reading Comprehension. Journal of Advances in English Language Teaching; 1(1), 1-11. Kita, K., & Ogata, H. (1997). Collocations in language learning: Corpus-based automatic compilation of collocations and bilingual collocation concordancer. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 10(3), 229-238. Kučera, H., & Francis, W. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press. 49

Vol. 72 | No. 10 | Oct 2016

International Scientific Researches Journal

Laufer, B. (1988). What percentage of text-lexis is essential for comprehension? In C. Lauren & M. Nordmann (Eds.), Special language: From humans thinking to thinking machines (pp. 316-323). Clevedon, United Kingdom: Multilingual Matters. Lewis, M. (1997). Implementing the lexical approach. England: Language Teaching Publication. Liu, C. P. (2000). An Empirical Study of Collocation Teaching. The Proceedings of the 17th International Symposium on English Teaching (pp. 165-178), Taipei, Taiwan. Lorenz, G. R. (1999). Adjective Intensification- Learners versus Native Speakers: A Corpus Study of Argumentative Writing. Amsterdam: Rodopi. Louw, B. (1997). The role of corpora in critical literary. In A. Wichmann, S. Fligelstone, T. McEnrey & G. Knowles (Eds.), Teaching and language corpora. (pp.240-252). NY: Addison Wesley Longman. Nagy, W., & Anderson, R. C. (1984). How many words are there in printed school English? Reading Research Quarterly, 19(4), 304-330. Nation, I. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language. University Press.

Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge

National Reading Panel (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based Assessment of scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health Nattinger, J. R. (1988). Some current trends in vocabulary teaching. In: Carter R, McCarty M (eds) Vocabulary and language teaching, 1st edn. New York, Longman Nesselhauf, N. (2003). The Use of Collocations by Advanced Learners of English and Some Implications for Teaching. Applied Linguistics 24(2), 223-242. Nesselhauf, N. (2005). Collocations in a Learner Corpus. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. O'Keeffe, A., McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (2007). From Corpus to Classroom: Language use and language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Partington, A. (1998). Patterns and meaning: Using corpora for English language research and teaching. Amsterdam: Johns Benjamins. Rahimi, M., & Momeni, G. (2012). The effect of teaching collocations on English Language Proficienc y. Procedia- Social and Behavior Science, 8 (1), 37-42. Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Sun, Y.-C. (2000). Using on-line corpus to facilitate language learning. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, British Columbia, and Canada. Sun, Y. C. (2003). Extensive reading online: An overview and evaluation. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 19(4), 438-446. Sun, Y. C. (2007). Learner perceptions of a concordancing tool for academic writing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 20(4), 323-343. Sun, Y. C., & Wang, L.-Y. (2003). Concordancers in the EFL classroom: Cognitive approaches and collocation difficulty. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(1), 83-94.

50

Vol. 72 | No. 10 | Oct 2016

International Scientific Researches Journal

Thurstun, J., & Candlin, C. (1998). Concordancing and the teaching of the vocabulary of academic English. English for Specific Purposes, 17(3), 267-280. Tribble, C., & Jones, G. (1997). Concordances in the Classroom: Using Corpora in Language Education. Houston TX: Athelstan. Williams, B. (2002). Collocation with advanced levels. Retrieved 2006fromhttp://www.teachingenglish.org.uk/think/vocabulary/collocation.shml

51

March

28,