IBLT October 15, 2012/ Week 7 Michael Elliott
Reinhardt (2010)
This is a research paper that discusses the relevancy of corpus linguistic methods in the field of second language teaching. At the core of corpus linguistics is the realization that words behave in chunks and collocate with each other at varying lengths. Thus, word order is the result of tendencies or preferences rather than grammatical rules (Reinhardt, 2010). Reinhardt (2010) contends that corpus-based theory and methodologies are not implemented in today’s classrooms because many prominent linguists do not agree that the findings are important for language pedagogy. Reinhardt (2010) is a believer in the value of corpus linguistics but is careful not to suggest that it should revolutionize materials design. Instead, he argues that corpus-based findings and research should be considered and integrated in a way that serves L2 pedagogical goals in objectives.
Perez-Paredes et. al (2011)
This paper is a study of student behaviour when using corpus-based resources in an EFL context. The subjects were university level native Spanish speakers with no previous experience using corpora in their classes. The students were split into a control group (CG) and an experiment group (EG). The CG completed a series of focus-on-form tasks without guidance on how to use a corpus. The EG group was given guidance and an explanation about what a corpus is and how it can be used in class (Perez-Paredes et. al, 2011). The researchers sought to discover if the extra time devoted to reading and understanding guidelines done by the EG would impair productivity. The result was that it did not. Moreover, the researchers concluded that guidance is essential when a using a corpus in the classroom because both the CG and EG group members found it difficult to use the corpora (Perez-Paredes et. al, 2011).
Compare and Contrast
The Reinhardt (2010) and Perez-Paredes et. al (2011) papers both discuss the use of corpora as a language teaching method but draw conclusions that are unrelated. Reinhardt (2010) does not put corpora to use but rather discusses its history and reputation in the field of linguistics. Perez-Paredes et. al (2011) on the other hand, makes use of corpora in a study but is less concerned with how much the students learned than whether or not the students understood how to use the corpora. It seemed that the CALL tool was of less importance than the extent to which the students required guidance. Perez-Paredes et. al (2011) wanted to know if “learner interaction with corpus-based resources differs under different corpus consultation conditions”(p.237). It is surprising that the success of corpora as a language learning tool is not addressed. Reinhardt (2010) in contrast, clearly tries to convince the reader of the significance of corpus-based methodologies for linguistics and language teaching. Perez-Paredes et. al (2011), in their introduction state that “the use of corpora in the language classroom can no longer be considered a methodological phenomenon”(p.233) This is a decidedly different outlook than Reinhart (2010) who states that “instructional methods, materials design…have yet to incorporate or reflect the implications of corpus-informed linguistic research by any significant measure.”(p.240). Despite both papers being connected with corpus-informed pedagogy, Reinhardt (2010) and Perez-Pareded et. al (2011) do not agree in terms of genre or outlook.
Clarification Question
Both articles make little reference to concordancing. I googled the word but I’m still going to need a classroom explanation.
Application Question
How can I use corpus-informed L2 pedagogy in my classroom?
References
Perez-Paredes, P., Sanchez-Tornel, M., Alcaraz Calero, J.M., Aguado Jimenez, P. (2011).
Tracking learners’ actual uses of corpora: guided vs non-guided corpus consultation.
Computer Assisted Language Learning. 24(3), 233-253.
Reinhardt, J. (2010). The potential of corpus-informed L2 pedagogy. Studies in Hispanics and
Lusophone Linguistics. 3(1), 239-251.
No comments:
Post a Comment