The design of an online concordancing program for teaching about reporting verbs

Language Learning and Technology

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2009, Pages 59-78

  Bloch, Joel ^a  

^a OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 59449098958     PISSN: None     EISSN: 10943501     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. Aston, G. (2000). Corpora and language teaching. In L. Burnard & T. McEnery (Eds.), Rethinking language pedagogy from a corpus perspective (pp. 7-17). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
2. Bannan-Ritland, B., Dabbagh, N., & Murphy, K. (2001) Learning object systems as constructivist learning environments: Related assumptions, theories, and applications. Retrieved January 19, 2007, from http://www.reusability.org/ read/.
3. Barlow, M. (2004). MonoConc 2.2 [computer software]. Houston: Athelstan.
4. Benkler, Y. (2006). The wealth of networks: How social production transforms markets and freedom. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
5. Berners-Lee, T. (1999). Weaving the Web: The original design and ultimate destiny of the World Wide Web. New York: Harper Collins.
6. Bloch, J. (2007). Technologies in the second language composition classroom. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
7. Bloch, J., & Brutt-Griffler, J. (2001). Implementing Common Space in the ESL composition classroom. In D. Belcher and A. Hirvela (Eds.), Linking literacies: Perspectives on L2 reading-writing connections (pp. 309-334). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
8. Bolter, J.D., & Grusin, R. (1999). Remediation: Understanding new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
9. Chambers, A. (2007). Popularising corpus consultation by language learners and teachers. In E. H. Tenorio, L. Querada-Navarro, & J. Santana (Eds.), Corpora in the foreign language classroom: Selected papers from the sixth international conference on teaching and learning corpora (pp. 3-16). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
10. Chubin, D.E., & Moitra, S.D. (1975). Content analysis of references: Adjunct or alternative to citation counting. Social Studies of Science, 5(4), 423-441.
11. Cobb, T. (1997). Is there any measurable learning from hands-on concordancing? System, 25(3), 301-315.
12. Cresswell, A. (2007). Getting to 'know' connectors? Evaluating data-driven learning in a writing skills course. In E. H. Tenorio, L. Querada-Navarro, & J. Santana (Eds.), Corpora in the foreign language classroom: Selected papers from the sixth international conference on teaching and learning corpora (pp. 267-288). Amsterdam: Rodopi,
13. Cuban, L. (2001). Oversold and underused: Computers in the classroom. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
14. Downes, S. (2004). Nine rules for good technology. In The learning marketplace: Meaning, metadata, and content syndication in the learning object economy (pp. 11-15). Retrieved July 13, 2004, from http://www.downes.ca/ files/book3.pdf.
15. Ellis, R. (2001). The place of grammar instruction in the second/foreign language curriculum. In E. Hinkle & S. Fotos (Eds.), New perspectives on grammar teaching in second language classrooms (pp. 17-34). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16. Feenberg, A. (1999). Questioning technology. London: Routledge.
17. Ferris, D. R. (2004). The "grammar correction" debate in L2 writing: Where are we, and where do we go from here? (and what do we do in the meantime...?), Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(1), 49-62
18. Galloway, I. (2005). Computer learner corpora and their pedagogical application. TESOL Quarterly, 39(2), 333-340.
19. Gaskell, D. & Cobb, T. (2004). Can learners use concordance feedback for writing errors? System, 32, 301-319.
20. Haas, C. (1996). Writing technology: Studies on the materiality of literacy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21. Haas, C, & Neuwirth, CM. (1994). Writing the technology that writes us:Research on literacy and the shape of technology. In C.L. Selfe & S. Hillgross (Eds.) Literacy and computers: The complications of teaching and leaning with technology (pp. 319-335). New York: Modern Language Association of America.
22. Hewings, M., & Hewings, A. (2002). "It is interesting to note that...": A comparative study of anticipatory 'it' in student and published writing. English for Specific Purposes, 21(4), 367-383.
23. Hopper, P.J. (1987). Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society, 13, 139-157. Retrieved October 16, 2008 from http://home.eserver.org/hopper/ emergence.html.
24. Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation and the planes of discourse: Status and value in persuasive texts. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 176-207). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
25. Hyland, K. (1998). Hedging in scientific research articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
26. Hyland, K. (1999). Academic attribution: Citation and the construction of disciplinary knowledge. Applied Linguistics, 20(3), 341-367.
27. Hyland, K. (2001). Bringing in the reader: Addressee features in academic articles. Written Communication, 18(4), 549-574.
28. Hyland, K. (2002a). Activity and evaluation: Reporting practices in academic writing. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic discourse (pp. 115-130). Harlow, UK: Longman.
29. Hyland, K. (2002b). Specificity revisited: How far should we go now? English for Specific Purposes, 21(4), 385-395.
30. Ivanič, R. (1998). Writing and identity: The discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
31. Johns, T. (1991). From printout to handout. ELR Journal, 4, 27-46.
32. Kennedy, C, & Miceli, T. (2001). An evaluation of intermediate students' approaches to corpus investigation. Language Learning & Technology, 5(3), 77-90.
33. Kolln, M. (2007). Rhetorical grammar: Grammatical choice, rhetorical effects. New York: Pearson.
34. Latour, B. (1988). Science in action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
35. Lee, D., & Swales, J. (2006). A corpus-based EAP course for NNS doctoral students: Moving from specialized corpora to self-compiled corpora. English for Specific Purposes, 25(1), 56-75.
36. Lessing, L. (1999). Code and other laws of cyberspace. New York: Basic Books
37. Levy, M. (1997). Computer assisted language learning. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
38. MICASE (2007). Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English. Available at: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/c/corpus/corpus?c=micase;page=mbrowse.
39. Micciche, L. (2004). Making a case for rhetorical grammar. College Composition and Communication, 55(4), 716-737.
40. The Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English: MICASE (2002). Simpson, R. C; Briggs, J. Ovens S. L, & Swales. J. M. Ann Arbor, MI: The Regents of the University of Michigan. Retrieved August 11, 2004 from http://www.hti.umich.edu/m/micase.
41. O'Reilly, T. (2005). What is web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Retrieved December 3, 2005. From http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html? page=l.
42. Osbourne, J. (2000). What can students learn from a corpus? Building bridges between language and data. In L. Burnard & T. McEnery (Eds.), Rethinking language pedagogy from a corpus perspective (pp. 165-172). Frankfurt: Peter Lang.
43. Sakita, T.I. (2002). Reporting discourse, tense, and cognition. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
44. Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching. New York: Cambridge University Press.
45. Scott, M. (n.d.) Oxford WordSmith Tools Version 4.0 [computer software]. Cambridge: Oxford University Press.
46. Shank, R.C., & Cleary, C. (1995). Engines for education. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
47. Siemens, G. (2005). Connectivism: A learning theory for the digital age,. International Journal of Instructional Technology & Distance Learning, 2(1). Retrieved May 31, 2008, from http://www.itdl.org/Journal/ Jan05/article01.htm.
48. Spvivey, N.N. (1997). The constructivist metaphor: Reading, writing, and the making of meaning. San Diego: Academic Press.
49. Stevens, V. (1991). Classroom concordancing: Vocabulary materials derived from relevant, authentic text. English for Special Purposes Journal, 10(1), 35-46.
50. Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
51. nd Edition. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
52. Thompson, G. & Ye, Y.Y. (1991). Evaluation in reporting verbs used in academic papers. Applied Linguistics, 12(4), 365-382.
53. Thompson P., & Tribble, C. (2001). Looking at citations: Using corpora in English for academic purposes. Language Learning & Technology, 5(3), 91-105. Retrieved December 2, 2008, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol5num3/ thompson/default.html.
54. Thurstun, J., & Candlin, C.N. (1998). Concordancing and the teaching of the vocabulary of academic English. English for Specific Purposes, 17(3), 267-280.
55. Tribble, C. (2002). Corpora and corpus analysis: New windows on academic writing. In J. Flowerdew (Ed.), Academic Discourse (pp. 131-149). Harlow, UK: Longman.
56. Truscott, J. (1999). The case for "The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes": A response to Ferris. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 111-122.
57. Vannestǎl, M.E., & Lindquist, H. (2007). Learning English grammar with a corpus: Experimenting with concordancing in a university grammar course. Recall, 19, 329-350.
58. Warschauer, M. (2002). Networking into academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 1, 45-58.
59. Wiley, D. (2001). Connecting learning objects to instructional design theory: A definition, a metaphor, and a taxonomy. In D. Wiley (Ed.), The instructional uses of learning objects (online version). Retrieved December 2, 2008, from http://reusability.org/read.
60. WordPilot (n.d.). [computer software]. Hong Kong: Compulang. Retrieved October 18, 2008, from http://home.ust.hk/~autolang/downloadWP.htm.
61. Yoon, H. (2008). More than a linguistic reference: The influence of corpus technology on L2 academic writing. Language Learning & Technology, 12(2), 31-48.
62. Yoon, H. & Hirvela, A. (2004). ESL student attitudes toward corpus use in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 13(4), 257-283.