





































English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

Vol. 6, No. 2, August 2023, pp. 109-123  

       https://doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v6i2.7872         http://journal2.uad.ac.id/index.php/eltej/index          eltej@pbi.uad.ac.id  

 The impacts of blended corpus-based instruction on enhancing 

writing proficiency of Thai university students 

Patcharin Satchayad a,1,*, Sasima Charubusp b,2 

a, b School of Liberal Arts, Mae Fah Luang University, 333 Moo 1 Thasud, Muang, Chiang Rai, 57100 
1 pat.satchayad@gmail.com*; 2 sasima@mfu.ac.th 

* corresponding author 

 

A R T I C L E  I N F O 

 

A B ST R ACT   

 

 

Article history 

Received 20 June 2023 

Revised 25 July 2023 

Accepted 22 August 2023 

 Collocational competence is gaining more attention in the field of second 
language acquisition as it indicates a higher level of target language 
proficiency. However, Thai university students have been reported as 
obtaining a low degree of collocational competence which affects 
productive second language writing (Boonyarattanasoonthorn et al., 
2020). The current study aimed to examine the impacts of blended 
corpus-based instruction (BCBI) on enhancing Thai university students’ 
writing proficiency and to examine the students’ attitudes towards the 
implementation of BCBI. A mixed-methods one-group experimental 
study was conducted with 43 first-year English major students at an 
autonomous university in Thailand for 8 weeks. The data were gathered 
utilizing a pre-test, a post-test, an attitude questionnaire, and a semi-
structured interview. The results revealed significant differences between 
the scores before and after the implementation of BCBI at 0.05. Despite 
there being no drastic change in their collocational competence, the 
students were highly positive towards the instruction, in particular the use 
of corpus-based data to assist their writing as well as the awareness of 
gaining collocational competence. To effectively integrate corpus-based 
instruction into a writing pedagogy, tasks should be manageable and 
achievable by the students. 

This is an open access article under the CC–BY-SA license. 

    

 

 
Keywords 

online learning 

student engagement 

digital competence 

challenges 

opportunities 

 

 

 

How to Cite: Satchayad, P., & Charubusp, S.  (2023). The Impacts of Blended Corpus-based Instruction on 
Enhancing Writing Proficiency of Thai University Students. English Language Teaching Educational Journal, 
1(1), 109-123. https://doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v6i2.7872 

1. Introduction 

Sentential writing is considered a prerequisite to other types of writing. Possessing strong 
mechanical and fundamental writing is advantageous to acquire more advanced levels of writing 
skills. In higher education, writing is manifested in a more academic fashion, and students are expected 
to demonstrate their ability to construct a variety of sentence structures, use a variety of word choices, 
and execute grammatical accuracy. However, a rudimentary writing skill negatively influences 
students’ academic achievement accordingly.  

In second language writing instruction, corpora have been widely integrated due to their ability to 
enhance vocabulary repertoire, sophisticated word choice, collocations, and awareness of writing 
errors (Yusu, 2014; Daskalovska, 2015; Mansour, 2017; Harb, 2018). This data-driven learning 

(DDL) regards students as language detectives who investigate the language resource and cultivate 
language learning individually while teachers provide guidance. DDL evokes inductive learning that 
allows students to identify input, generate patterns, and summarize their language learning 
(Phoocharoensil, 2012; Friginal & Hardy, 2014; Li, 2015). Hence, it shifts writing pedagogy from a 
teacher-centered approach to a learner-centered one. By utilizing corpora, students can rely on 

https://doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v6i2.7872
http://journal2.uad.ac.id/index.php/eltej/index
mailto:eltej@pbi.uad.ac.id
http://pat.satchayad@gmail.com/
file://///Users/macbook/Downloads/sasima@mfu.ac.th
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
https://doi.org/10.12928/eltej.v6i2.7872
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
https://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.12928/eltej.v6i2.7872&domain=pdf


110 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 6, No. 2, August 2023, pp. 109-123 

 Satchayad, P., & Charubusp, S. (The impacts of blended corpus-based instruction…) 

sentence models when they perform their own writing (Ashouri, 2015; Li, 2015). Besides, effective 
writers need to acquire collocational competence to exhibit fluency in second language writing. They 
write more automatically and fluently as they recall words in chunks and are able to avoid unnatural 
combinations of words (Ӧrdem & Paker, 2016; Dokchandra, 2018; Boers & Webb, 2018; Deissl-
O’Meara & Tinkel, 2021). To this end, obtaining collocational ability is an important element to 
improve target language competence resulting in effective second language acquisition in Thai 
university students. Unfortunately, the teaching of collocations has been neglected in the Thai EFL 
contexts, and writing instruction has relied mainly on traditional writing materials and activities such 
as textbooks and a teacher’s sentence models.  

According to O’Keeffe et al. (2007), the language used in a textbook is frequently based on 
intuition. In addition, language models displayed in textbooks are often oversimplified (Khojasteh & 
Shokrpour, 2014), and thus are unrealistic for real-life communication. By contrast, a corpus is a 
systemic collection of authentic and naturally occurring language in different real-life communication 
settings. Numerous studies have remarked on the significance of using corpora (Cobb & Boulton, 
2015; Boulton & Cobb, 2017) to inform material developers of second language teaching. In addition, 
a corpus is regularly updated and continually tracks ongoing changes in the English language whereas 
other types of language references such as printed dictionaries do not. Regarding mismatches in 
English language use, teachers may not be able to solely rely on textbooks and dictionaries. Rather 
they are obliged to develop and update instructional materials to teach effectively.  

Chambers (2010) pointed out two ways of corpora application in a classroom: direct and indirect. 
The former involves situations where students have opportunities to directly access the selected corpus 
and make their own language learning discoveries. The latter entails students learning from the inputs 
that the teacher modifies or prepares in advance. To effectively implement corpus-based instruction, 
both applications should be adopted. Students’ exposure to collocations should not be limited to the 
teacher-prepared materials. Students should be provided opportunities to discover more about 
language use resulting in the enhancement of inductive learning and self-discovery skills. 
Nonetheless, Yusu (2014) pointed out significant limitations in the direct application of the corpora 
with non-native students. For example, a search query may generate a huge number of entries that 
would require a great deal of time to analyze. Plus, some entries might be too difficult for students to 
comprehend if they possess lower levels of English proficiency. Therefore, to facilitate student 
learning, input modifications play significant roles. It is suggested that non-native students learn from 
modified input rather than from original pre-modified input (Ortega, 2009; Chambers, 2010; Gass & 
Mackey, 2015). Based on Krashen’s Input Hypothesis, students learned better with comprehensible 
input which is slightly above their current proficiency level. When the students process the input for 
meaning, grammar learning naturally occurs. Hence, the essence of learning second language writing 
using corpus-based instruction is to customize the learning materials that correspond with students’ 
proficiency to motivate them to learn.  

  Several existing studies have revealed the effective implementation of corpus-based activities 
in various EFL contexts (Yoon, 2008; Vyatkina, 2016; Harb, 2018; Du, et al., 2022), while corpus-
based instruction to enhance the writing proficiency of Thai university students with regards to 
sentential writing and collocational competence has been underexplored. To elevate students’ writing 
proficiency and prepare them for academic achievement, teachers should integrate corpus-based 
instruction into EFL writing pedagogy. The instruction shifts a student’s role from language learners 
to language researchers who investigate language input and draw conclusions about the language. 
Hence, the present study has highlighted the impacts of blended corpus-based instruction on 
enhancing the writing proficiency of Thai university students as well as the impacts on students’ 
attitudes towards the instruction. The study aimed to answer the following research questions:  

Is there a significant difference between the research test scores before and after the 
implementation of blended corpus-based instruction?  

What are the students’ attitudes towards the implementation of blended corpus-based instruction?  

This study contributes to an understanding of challenges in EFL writing and suggests a new method 
in teaching English writing. The suggested instruction could directly benefit EFL teachers who are 
new to designing and implementing corpus-based instruction in their teaching practices.  



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 111 
Vol. 6, No. 2, August 2023, pp. 109-123 

 Satchayad, P., & Charubusp, S. (The impacts of blended corpus-based instruction…) 

2. Method 

This study was conducted after being granted approval by the Mae Fah Luang University Ethics 
Committee on Human Research (no. EC 20111-10). The study was designed based on a mixed-
methods experimental design using one-group pre-test and post-test. The population of the study was 
first-year English majors in the School of Liberal Arts at the University of Phayao, Thailand. The 
sample group was an intact group of 43 first-year English majors who enrolled in the ‘English 
Sentences’ course in the second semester of the Academic Year 2021. The participants were 
homogeneous in terms of language proficiency and number of English courses taken in the previous 
semester. They voluntarily consented to take part in the study.  

2.1 Research instruments  
To assess students’ writing proficiency, the pre-test and the post-test were utilized before and after 

the blended corpus-based instruction with respect to collocation knowledge and sentential writing. 
The tests consisted of 20 items and covered five writing aspects including verb tenses, subject-verb 
agreements, types of sentences, word choice, and collocations. The tests were designed on Google 
Forms in both multiple-choice format (17 items) and short written answers (3 items).  

To investigate the students’ attitudes towards the implementation of the BCBI, the attitude 
questionnaire was designed on Google Forms using a four-point Likert scale, and the scores descend 
from 4 (strongly agree), 3 (agree), 2 (disagree), and 1 (strongly disagree).  Moreover, the semi-
structured interview was conducted to obtain qualitative data on the students’ perspectives towards 
the instruction. The interview form consisted of a set of seven open-ended questions. To avoid any 
bias imposed by the researcher, this study utilized a third person who was not involved in the 
instruction of the course to conduct the interviews. This interviewer was a Thai lecturer from the 
Department of English, School of Liberal Arts, University of Phayao with more than five years of 
English teaching. 

 

2.2 Data collection procedures 
The blended corpus-based instruction (henceforth, BCBI) was implemented with the sample group 

for eight weeks. This instruction consisted of 40% face-to-face teaching (three hours per week) and 
60% online learning (five hours per week). Since the data of this study was collected during the 
COVID-19 pandemic, the face-to-face instruction occurred via Microsoft Teams.  

At the beginning of the course, an orientation and a training session were conducted to familiarize 
students with the course, computer programs, and related learning materials. The teacher employed 
different tools to present the information; for example, PowerPoint presentations and real-time 
demonstrations. The students learned and completed assignments using their personal learning 
devices, such as mobile phones, computers, laptops, or tablets. Following the initial orientation, 
students took a 30-minute pre-test.  

For the face-to-face instruction, this study maintained the use of an assigned writing textbook in 
the classroom, with the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) selected as 
supplementary material. The COCA was intended to facilitate students’ learning by avoiding 
confusion about word choice and spelling because the assigned textbook of the target writing course 
portrayed American English as one of the Standard English varieties. Another reason for utilizing the 
COCA was its user-friendliness, which enabled students to use it easily with adequate training. Thus, 
the first lesson of the course began with a demonstration of how to use the COCA to retrieve 
collocations and sample sentences from concordance lines. The students then completed different in-
class writing tasks and acquired essential writing skills with the teacher’s guidance. At this stage, the 
students initially learned using the teacher-modified corpus inputs before being required to access the 
corpus directly. Two techniques were used to make the corpus-based data more comprehensible for 
the students: input simplification and text enhancement. For example, the teacher simplified the input 
by cutting sample sentences from concordance lines and rearranging them so that the students could 
recognize the language patterns more easily. In addition, colored tags were used to enhance words 
with different lexical properties to help the students understand word forms and word choices.  

During the online learning mode, the students primarily managed online writing exercises which 
were delivered through Google Sites. They reviewed the contents that they had acquired previously 
in the classroom and completed online individual writing tasks each week. The online activities 



112 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 6, No. 2, August 2023, pp. 109-123 

 Satchayad, P., & Charubusp, S. (The impacts of blended corpus-based instruction…) 

focused on enhancing the students’ mastery of writing, so they resembled the in-class activities. These 
hands-on activities aimed to enhance the students’ understanding of essential writing aspects, raise 
their awareness of using collocations, and stimulate active learning. After these individual writing 
exercises, the students were engaged in collaborative writing activities on Google Docs. In the final 
week of the course, students took the post-test to evaluate their proficiency after the mediated use of 
the instructional intervention. Lastly, the attitude questionnaire was administered on Google Forms, 
and the semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 students who were randomly selected.  

 

 

Fig. 1.  Instructional procedures 

 

2.3 Data Analysis 
The scores of the pre- and post-tests were analyzed using mean, standard deviation, and paired  

t-test. The writing portion of the tests was examined by two raters who shared the same rubric covering 
the accuracy of sentence formations, tenses, word choices, and collocations.  The scores were 
calculated for the inter-rater reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).  

The data from the attitude questionnaire were analyzed using mean and standard deviation, and 
each range of the values was interpreted as follows: 3.76-4.00 (very positive), 2.76-3.75 (positive), 
1.76-2.75 (negative), and 1.00-1.75 (very negative).  

The interviews were analyzed for thematic analysis, and the percentage was calculated from the 
frequencies of the tokens based on the responses that the interviewees revealed. 

3. Findings and Discussion 

3.1 The impacts of BCBI on students’ writing proficiency 
The present study found that BCBI can significantly improve students’ writing proficiency. As 

shown in Table 1, out of 20 scores, the mean score of the post-test (X̅=15.02, S.D.=2.39) was greater 

than that of the pre-test (X̅=10.14, S.D.=2.81). The difference between the two mean scores was 
statistically significant at <0.05. Hence, the research findings answered the research question that 
‘there was a significant difference between writing proficiency scores before and after the 
implementation of BCBI’.  

Table 1.  Comparison between pre-test and post-test scores 

Tests N �̅� S.D. T Sig. 
Pre-test 43 10.14 2.81 

12.01 0.000* 
Post-test 43 15.02 2.39 

a. *p < 0.05 

The tests contained 20 questions divided into two parts: 17 multiple-choice questions and 3 writing 
questions. Table 2 presents a comparison of the mean scores of the pre-test and post-test with regard 
to each writing aspect: verb tense, sentence structure, subject-verb agreement, word choices, and 
collocations. 

It can be seen from Table 2 that the students’ scores for each writing aspect improved after studying 
via BCBI intervention, except in the case of collocations. There were significant differences between 
the mean scores of the pre-test and post-test on verb tense (t=6.479, p=0.000), sentence structure 
(t=10.928, p=0.000), subject-verb agreement (t=3.263, p=0.002), word choice (t=3.774, p=0.000), and 
the total score (t=12.97, p=0.000). However, the difference between the means of the pre-test and 
post-test on collocations (t=.819, p=0.418) was not statistically significant at 0.05.  

F2F 

▪ Lecture 

▪ Demonstration 

▪ In-class writing tasks 

 

Online 

▪ Review 

▪ Investigation 

▪ Online writing tasks 

 

Instruction 
Post-instruction 

▪ Post-test 

▪ Students’ attitudes 

Pre-instruction 

▪ Training 

▪ Pre-test 

 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 113 
Vol. 6, No. 2, August 2023, pp. 109-123 

 Satchayad, P., & Charubusp, S. (The impacts of blended corpus-based instruction…) 

Table 2.  Comparison between pre-test and post-test scores: multiple-choice section 

Writing aspects Tests n �̅� S.D. t p 

Verb tense (5) 
Pre-test 
Post-test 

43 
2.55 
3.74 

1.07 
1.09 

6.479 0.000* 

Sentence structure (5) 
Pre-test 
Post-test 

43 
2.20 
4.27 

1.20 
0.70 

10.928 0.000* 

Subject-verb agreement (2) 
Pre-test 
Post-test 

43 
0.97 
1.44 

0.80 
0.58 

3.263 0.002* 

Word choices (3) 
Pre-test 
Post-test 

43 
1.27 
1.93 

0.82 
0.79 

3.774 0.000* 

Collocations (2) 
Pre-test 
Post-test 

43 
1.41 
1.30 

0.69 
0.67 

0.819 0.418 

Total (17) Pre-test 
Post-test 

43 
8.40 

12.68 
2.32 
2.20 

12.97 0.000* 

b. *p < 0.05 

For the writing section of the tests, the students were required to write a sentence to describe 
pictures. There were three questions, and the test items were examined by the two raters who shared 
the same rubric focusing on sentence accuracy regarding the five writing aspects. The average mean 
score of the pre-test was 1.71 (S.D.=0.99) and that of the post-test was 2.31 (S.D.=0.76). The inter-
rater reliability was calculated, and the ICC result was 0.97 indicating excellent consistency between 
the two raters.  

Although the sample group was considered homogeneous in terms of language proficiency, the 
findings from the test scores and the writing outputs could differentiate the students’ levels of writing 
performance. In other words, active students outperformed their counterparts because they produced 
longer sentences with the greater variety of word choice and sentence structure. These students tried 
to use more compound sentences and added complex sentences to their writing. Moreover, they used 
more accurate verb tense and subject-verb agreement. On the contrary, those students who tended to 
rely on a simple sentence structure exhibited more errors in tense and collocations. However, the 
qualitative findings revealed that even the students with lower proficiency tended to demonstrate 
considerable improvements in their writing performance after receiving BCBI intervention. The 
findings lend support to Rana (2020) in the sense that active learners might outperform their peers in 
the inductive learning process that requires self-discovery.  

3.2 Students’ attitudes towards the implementation of BCBI 
To investigate the students’ attitudes towards the implementation of BCBI, the attitude 

questionnaire was administered at the end of the course via a Google Form link. The students were 
asked to rate their attitudes in two categories: attitudes towards BCBI overall and attitudes towards 
the BCBI instructional process. After that, the semi-structured interview was conducted to more 
deeply explore the students’ attitudes in a descriptive manner. 

Findings from the attitude questionnaire  
  Table 3 shows the results from the attitude questionnaire that indicated that the students had 

very positive attitudes towards the implementation of BCBI, with the overall mean score of �̅�=3.81 
(S.D.=0.37). The results of the questionnaire are presented in the following section.   

Table 3.  Results of the students’ attitude questionnaire  

Items I. Attitudes towards BCBI �̅� S.D. Meaning 
1-2  Writing improvement 3.87 0.33 Very positive 
3-5  Self-regulation 3.77 0.42 Very positive 
6-7  Blended learning 3.71 0.39 Positive 

8-11  Content and design 3.83 0.39 Very positive 
12-14  Technology-assisted learning programs 3.82 0.38 Very positive 

  3.80 0.38 Very positive 

Items II. Attitudes towards the instructional process �̅� S.D. Meaning 
15-17 Scaffolding 3.83 0.30 Very positive 
18-20 Collaborative writing 3.83 0.35 Very positive 

  3.83 0.33 Very positive 
 Overall 3.81 0.37 Very positive 



114 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 6, No. 2, August 2023, pp. 109-123 

 Satchayad, P., & Charubusp, S. (The impacts of blended corpus-based instruction…) 

 
Considering individual aspects of students’ attitudes towards BCBI, it was found that the highest 

mean score was attributed to writing improvement (�̅�=3.87, S.D. 0.33). The contents and design of 

the BCBI intervention (�̅�=3.83, S.D. 0.39) received mean scores relatively similar to the use of 

technology-assisted learning programs (�̅�=3.82, S.D. 0.39), while self-regulation (�̅�=3.71, S.D. 0.42) 

scored slightly lower. The lowest mean score in this category was on blended learning (�̅�=3.71, S.D. 
0.39). Regarding students’ attitudes towards the instructional process, the mean score on scaffolding 

was �̅�=3.83 (S.D. 0.30), and collaborative writing scored �̅�=3.83 (S.D. 0.35) which indicated a highly 
positive perception. 

Findings from the semi-structured interviews   
The overall results of the semi-structured interviews showed that students had positive perceptions 

towards the instruction under the BCBI model. The results were reported in six themes that emerged 
from the interviews concerning the students’ perceptions towards the BCBI course, blended learning, 
the use of BCBI, the BCBI evaluation, writing improvements, and factors influencing students’ 
learning of English writing. 

 1) Perceptions towards the BCBI course 
Most of the students considered this course to be appropriate to their proficiency levels. 70% of 

the students had a positive perception of the course, with reasons given below. Student responses have 
been edited for clarity of expression. 

“There was a consistency between online and in-class tasks, so I only reviewed the lesson and 

worked on the activities. Sometimes, I went straight to the activities without reviewing the 
lesson.” (Student 12) 

“This course started with easy content and progressed to more difficult content. If I 

understood the first lesson, I could do other lessons too.” (Student 20) 

“I could relate what I had learned in class with online lessons. In the class, I focused on the 

content, took notes, and did some activities. For online learning, I reviewed the content very 
quickly, and worked on exercises and assignments.” (Student 36) 

 
By contrast, the remaining 30% of the students perceived that the course was difficult for them. 

They found certain topics challenging, specifically verb forms of the past simple tense, collocations, 
and complex sentences. 

From the responses, students indicated four major benefits of the course: language learning, 
collaborative learning, self-regulation, and critical thinking.  

 

Fig. 2.  Benefits of the BCBI course 

From Fig. 2, the majority of the students (35%) benefited from learning different English language 
aspects including basic sentence structure, verb tense, collocations, and word choice. They also 
developed writing skills and lexical knowledge, although some of them might have been unable to 
evaluate their own writing objectively. 

 

35%

29%

18%

18%

BENEFITS OF THE BCBI COURSE

Language learning Collaborative learning Self-regulated learning Critical thinking

n = 17 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 115 
Vol. 6, No. 2, August 2023, pp. 109-123 

 Satchayad, P., & Charubusp, S. (The impacts of blended corpus-based instruction…) 

“I could develop longer sentences and use different words in my writing.” (Student 20) 

“In my opinion, I knew more words to use in my writing. However, I was not sure if my 
writing was good or not.” (Student 39) 

 
In terms of collaborative learning, 29% of the students revealed that they worked better in groups. 

They developed idea-generating skills and learned from more proficient peers. For example: 

“We were assigned to work with a friend and write sentences to describe a picture of our 
choice. As we studied online, my friend and I decided that each of us choose one picture from 

the Internet and share the pictures on Google Docs. Then, we started to think about what to 
write about for each picture. After that, we chose pictures with more ideas, so we could write 

more sentences about them. On the document, we wrote separately using the ideas we 

generated previously and then we compared the sentences and edited them. At this time, I 
could learn from my friend’s sentences.” (Student 20) 

 
Moreover, students employed strategies to achieve collaborative writing tasks on Google Docs 

such as using different text colors to distinguish their writing contributions. Additionally, they used 
the ‘spelling and grammar check’ service on Google Docs to help check and improve their writing. 

“There were five of us working together, and we talked about the strategies that we could use 
to identify the sentences of each student. We decided to use different colors when we wrote 

our sentences, so we knew which students had already done the group writing.” (Student 20) 

 
The students gave equal weight (18%) to both self-regulated learning and critical thinking skills 

being improved by BCBI. For example, Student 12, Student 38, and Student 41 mentioned that they 
managed their learning pace based on the number of activities and the deadline. 

Regarding critical thinking skills, the students responded that using the corpus was difficult, so 
they needed to be more careful when they chose examples from the corpus: 

“I had to be more careful when I chose examples from the corpus.” (Student 17) 

“My friend and I talked a lot when we visited the COCA. There was a lot of information on 

the corpus when we searched for writing examples, so we had to be careful. However, we 
did not have problems searching for words such as adjectives and adverbs. We could select 

words with high frequencies to make collocations.” (Student 32) 
 

These responses indicate that students became more coordinated when they worked with other 
students. Collaborative writing is perceived as an active and interactive learning tool among students 
that helps them develop academic literacy skills (Suwantarathip & Wichadee, 2014; Talib & Cheung, 
2017). Nonetheless, this finding was inconsistent with Coffin’s work (2020) which revealed students’ 
complaints about unequal work contribution during collaborative writing tasks. Another key benefit 
of this activity was that the students gained support and help from more proficient students when they 
worked together. This result was compatible with Fong’s study (2012) showing that students with 
greater writing proficiency were able to assist their peers. Other studies (Widodo, 2013; Deveci, 2018) 
have argued that some students might either avoid working with others or rely too much on other 
students, so that they never improve. Furthermore, students with lower proficiency may be 
overpowered by more highly proficient students.  

2) Perceptions towards blended learning 
Overall, the students described positive perceptions of the implementation of blended learning. For 

example, Student 4 stated that online learning offered flexibility because she could work at her 
convenience. This was aligned with Chen’s study (2022), students considered blended learning 
effective in enhancing learner autonomy, learning responsibility, and learning independence. 

However, it was found in this study that a few students preferred learning in a normal classroom 
to blended learning because of the learning environment and social engagement. As commented by 
Student 27, ‘learning in a normal classroom was livelier.’ In connection with the finding of the 
questionnaire, the students rated their perceptions towards blended learning with the lowest mean 

score (�̅�=3.71, S.D. 0.39). It might be inferred that blended learning was less appropriate for EFL 



116 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 6, No. 2, August 2023, pp. 109-123 

 Satchayad, P., & Charubusp, S. (The impacts of blended corpus-based instruction…) 

writing instruction in the context under study than that of face-to-face learning one. Vo et al., (2017) 
and Müller and Mildenberger’s (2021) mentioned that in comparison to traditional classroom 
instruction, blended learning is neither consistently more nor less successful.  

Besides, students expressed that they needed more engagement in discussion and answering 
questions, but some friends dominated the discussion sessions.  

“Actually, I wanted to talk but I did not have a chance. There were 2-3 students who always 
answered the questions fast, but I needed more time to think.” (Student 4) 

 

Taking this into consideration, the teacher facilitator should provide tasks that stimulate sharing 
and comparing ideas among group members as well as be sensitive to offering more engagement 
opportunities for every student. 

3) Perceptions towards the use of BCBI 
Fig. 3 shows the percentage of students’ attitudes towards the use of BCBI. The data were coded 

for thematic analysis, with four themes regarding the students’ positive impressions of instructional 
techniques and the teacher’s personality, ease of use of Google Docs, ease of use of Google Sites, and 
consistency between face-to-face and online lessons. 

 

 

Fig. 3.  Positive attitudes towards the use of BCBI 

Overall, 33% percent indicated their impressions of the instructional techniques and the teacher’s 
personality. These factors included using easy language and clear explanations, interesting and 
attractive visual aids, friendliness, creating an active learning atmosphere, and quick responses to 
problems.  

28% indicated the ease of use of Google Docs because this program was user-friendly and 
convenient to use. This finding was in line with previous studies of Google Docs as a promising tool 
for dynamic, productive, and collaborative writing (Yang, 2010; Suwantarathip & Wichadee, 2014; 
Woodrich & Yan, 2017).  

The consistency between face-to-face and online lessons was scored at 22%. Because the online 
lessons resembled what the students had learned in the class, students could quickly review before 
proceeding through the online activities and assignments. Some comments were as follows: 

“I could write faster on Google Docs compared to the time I worked on writing exercises in 

the textbook. The program helped me notice errors such as spelling, use of articles, and 
punctuation.” (Student 27) 

“I knew from the beginning of the course that the exercises in the classroom and the online 
exercises were similar. When I went to online lessons, I did not have to read the explanation 

about the content. I just did the exercises.” (Student 32) 
 

17%

28%

22%

33%

POSITIVE ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE USE OF THE BCBI

Ease of use of Google Sites Ease of use of Google Docs

Consistency between F2F & online lessons Instructional techniques & teacher's personality

n=18



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 117 
Vol. 6, No. 2, August 2023, pp. 109-123 

 Satchayad, P., & Charubusp, S. (The impacts of blended corpus-based instruction…) 

The remaining 17% focused on the ease of use of Google Sites because the students could use their 
psychomotor skills, such as clicking buttons and links between interfaces, typing to complete 
exercises, and scrubbing videos to watch and rewatch specific information. As a result, students 
became more engaged when they interacted with the learning materials.  

“I could click links from one page to others when I did exercises on Google Sites. Also, I 

could watch videos that were posted.” (Student 32) 

“I typed the answers on the pages and sent them to the teacher. It was convenient because I 
did not have to write on paper.” (Student 39) 

 

The findings investigated from this section were in line with the result from the attitude 
questionnaire that the students were very positive towards the use of the technology-assisted learning 

tools (�̅�=3.82, S.D. 0.39).  

Some negative attitudes were also revealed in the interviews, as shown in Fig. 4.  

 

 

Fig. 4.  Negative attitudes towards the use of BCBI 

It can be seen that 40% of the negative impressions regarded the difficulty of learning collocations 
in the textbook. The students reported that they could not remember and use collocations correctly. 
The main reason they stated was that they were unsure if they made the correct combination of words. 
Several scholars have suggested that remembering words in chunks can speed up language acquisition 
(Ӧrdem & Paker, 2016; Dokchandra, 2018; Boers & Webb, 2018; Deissl-O’Meara & Tinkel, 2021). 
However, Dervić and Beć́́́irović (2020) argued that this is not always the case because of the quality 
of arbitrariness of language. Hence, it is recommended that Thai university students learn collocations 
in context rather than remember them in patterns.  

“There were a lot of [collocations] in the textbook, but only some of them were selected for 
the tests. I could not remember all the collocations.” (Student 12) 

“In my opinion, learning collocations was fundamental knowledge. If I understood the 
contents, I could write sentences more correctly. However, learning about collocations was 

very new for me and I did not remember them.” (Student 39) 
 

These findings reinforce the suggestion that teachers use corpus-informed data such as frequency 
information to make decisions about students’ learning, as posited by Conrad (2000). A vast amount 
of vocabulary and collocations presented in the textbook might hinder students’ learning and language 
retention. Similarly, Lewis (2002) has pointed out that although a large number of diverse inputs is 
desirable and assists second language acquisition, not all inputs are equally useful to individual 
learners. As a result, the quantity of inputs might not necessarily be equal to the intake. It is also 
recommended that the teachers utilize corpus-informed data such as frequency information to 
determine salient language features, provide the appropriate amount of input, and avoid presenting 
too many unfamiliar and difficult words.  

33%

40%

27%

NEGATIVE ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE USE OF THE BCBI

Difficulty of use of COCA Difficulty of learning collocations

Inconsistency between no. of activities & time

n=15



118 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 6, No. 2, August 2023, pp. 109-123 

 Satchayad, P., & Charubusp, S. (The impacts of blended corpus-based instruction…) 

In this study, however, Students 4 and 27 appeared to acknowledge the significance of collocations. 
Moreover, Student 27 added that he/she was able to analyze the patterns of collocations if the teacher 
provided sample sentences. 

“I learned a lot of collocations from the textbook and the online lessons. If I could use them 

correctly, my English would be better.” (Students 4) 

“Collocations can help my writing look better, but I still think they are difficult to use. If the 
teacher provided me sample sentences, I could tell what adjective can go with a certain 

noun.” (Student 27) 
 

Besides these two specific cases, 33% of students indicated that the corpus was relatively difficult 
for them especially because the amount of information presented in each search query was 
burdensome, and as a result, they were unsure of choosing the correct information to accomplish the 
writing tasks. Concerning the difficulty of using the corpus, students commented as follows: 

“I thought using a corpus was very difficult. There was a lot of information, and I did not 
know what to choose.” (Student 4)  

“The corpus was new, and I was not familiar with it. At the beginning, I did not know how to 
search, but I think I could do better now.” (Student 27)  

 

Even though the results from the questionnaire showed that the students had positive attitudes 

towards the balance between the activities and the time allocation (�̅�= 3.72, S.D.= 0.50), and they 

could finish the assignments by the deadlines (�̅�= 3.81, S.D.= 0.45), some students suggested that the 
number of individual writings should be consistent with the time allocation so that they could meet 
the deadline more easily. This was calculated as 27% of the overall impressions.  

“It would be good if I had fewer assignments to write. I did my own writing and I also did 

one more writing assignment with my friend. It was very hard for me.” (Student 4)  

 

4) Perceptions towards the evaluation  
Overall, the students were considerably satisfied with the evaluation. Even though they felt 

confused about the use of a peer-editing worksheet at the beginning, they improved after receiving the 
teacher’s guidance. Plus, the peer editing enabled the students to get comments from peers and helped 
them correct their own writing accordingly.  

“I did not know how to evaluate friends’ writing at first, but I could do it later after looking 

at the examples from the teacher.” (Student 17)  

“Peer-editing was suitable because we could read comments from friends and improve our 

writing. Sometimes, I did not know how to correct my own writing.” (Student 32)  
 

It was found that students gained a higher ability to retain lexical information after they processed 
feedback collaboratively compared to working individually. Moreover, Srichanyachon’s study (2011) 
found that students expressed positive perceptions of peer feedback in terms of motivation, although 
they found their teacher’s comments more effective for language acquisition. On the contrary, Lund 
(2008) found that students felt reluctant to have others read their unfinished writing products. Plus, 
some of them experienced pressure to edit other students’ work because they were inexperienced in 
editing. 

5) Perceptions towards writing improvements 
After learning under the BCBI model, the students in this study perceived improvements in their 

writing proficiency in terms of fluency, lexical variety, and accuracy. They reported that they could 
write faster and better when they were able to generate more ideas. 

“After learning how to write step-by-step, I could think faster and write faster.” (Student 4) 

“I write and share more ideas with friends. We thought about the topic that we liked and 

wrote everything we knew first. After that, we chose only the ideas that were related to the 
topic. I thought we worked faster this way.” (Student 39) 

 



ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 119 
Vol. 6, No. 2, August 2023, pp. 109-123 

 Satchayad, P., & Charubusp, S. (The impacts of blended corpus-based instruction…) 

Moreover, students used more variety of words to create better sentences. Student 38 added that a 
frequency information list generated on the corpus was beneficial. In terms of accuracy, the students 
studied sentence models retrieved from the corpus and imitated the models.  

“When I search for a list of frequency information, I know which words are frequently used 

by indicating numbers of frequency and percentage. Therefore, I had more vocabulary to 

use in my writing.” (Student 38) 

“I looked at examples in the corpus, and I could write similar sentences. My writing seemed 

better than it once was.” (Student 27)  
 

It was revealed that the students utilized corpus-based consultation in various ways, for example, 
to find more word choices from the frequency list and to look at sample writing models. The studies 
of Ashouri (2015) and Li (2015) pointed out that students could benefit from studying the sentences 
presented on corpora. These findings were congruent with Yusu (2014) and Harb (2018) that EFL 
students were able to find accurate collocations and improve their writing performance in terms of 
writing scores and lexical accuracy. This was also in line with the quantitative result of the 

questionnaire that the students were very positive towards their writing improvement (�̅�=3.87, S.D. 
0.33). Importantly, students gained perceptions about lexicogrammar and language awareness (Yoon, 
2008; Mansour, 2017).  

6) Factors influencing the learning of English writing 
Significant factors influenced the students’ learning: workload, degree of interest in the contents, 

and level of content difficulty. The students felt pressured and lost learning motivation if their assigned 
workload was too high, as shown in the following student comments: 

“I lost motivation if I had a lot of work to do. If I was required to work for a limited period of 

time, I did not want to do it.” (Student 4) 

“The teacher should give a fair amount of work, so students do not feel pressured.” (Student 

39) 

 

Additionally, some students remarked that interesting content and attractive presentation 

could liven up their learning interest and attention.  

“Sometimes, I looked at the content in each unit before attending class. If the content 
was interesting, I felt more active in learning.” (Student 27)  

“I liked to have a copy of the teacher’s presentation before the lecture, so I could take notes 

along with her explanation.” (Student 14)  

4. Conclusion 

This study investigated the impacts of implementing BCBI on Thai university students’ writing 
proficiency and examined the students’ attitudes towards the instruction. The findings revealed that 
BCBI was highly effective in enhancing the writing proficiency of Thai university students as shown 
by the post-test scores. The students accumulated more sentential writing ability concerning verb 
tense, sentence structure, subject-verb agreement, and word choice. Despite there being no marked 
change in the students’ collocational competence, the qualitative findings revealed students’ positive 
perceptions towards learning via BCBI, and they acknowledged their writing improvements. All in 
all, learning is meaningful when tasks are manageable and achievable by the students. 

The research findings of this study have added insights into writing instruction with the integration 
of corpus-based data and blended learning. However, there is room for further study in this area. 
Suggestions are given as follows: 

1. The current study was limited to the use of corpus-based data to improve five writing areas, and 
the instruction was implemented for eight weeks. A further study may use a similar research design 
and focus on a longitudinal study which allows more investigation of students’ progression and 
improvements over a longer period of time.  



120 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 6, No. 2, August 2023, pp. 109-123 

 Satchayad, P., & Charubusp, S. (The impacts of blended corpus-based instruction…) 

2. The current study was conducted with one homogeneous sample group. To further validate the 
effectiveness of BCBI, a quasi-experimental study should be conducted with control and experimental 
groups. 

3. The post-test scores and the students’ writing performance indicated that more highly proficient 
students outperformed those of lower proficiency. Hence, further studies might focus on implementing 
BCBI with students of lower proficiency to investigate both the effectiveness of the instruction and 
the ways that these students handle the corpus-based activities in their learning process. 

Acknowledgment 

We would like to express our gratitude to the anonymous participants who took parts and made 
contributions in this research.  

Declarations 

Author contribution : Patcharin Satchayad led the research, constructed the instruments, 

collected and analyzed the data, and drafted the manuscript. Sasima 

Charubusp supervised the research, read and approved the final draft. 

 

Funding statement : The research is funded by the Office of Postgraduate Studies, Mae Fah 

Luang Unviersity, Chiang Rai, THAILAND 

Conflict of interest : The author declares no conflicts of interest. 

Ethics declaration 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Additional 

information 

: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:    

We as authors acknowledge that this work has been written based on 
ethical research that conforms with the regulations of our university and 
that we have obtained the permission from the relevant institute when 
collecting data. 
 
We support English Language Teaching Educational Journal (ELTEJ) in 
maintaining high standards of personal conduct, practicing honesty in all 
our professional practices and endeavors. 
 

No additional information is available for this paper. 

 

REFERENCES 

 
Ashouri, S. (2015). The impact of teaching corpus-based collocation on EFL learners’ writing ability. 

International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 3(10), 53-62. 

Boers, F., & Webb, S. (2018). Teaching and learning collocation in adult second and foreign 

language learning. Language Teaching, 51(1), 77-89. 

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444817000301 

Boonyarattanasoontorn, P., Tampanich, S., & Pimphakorn, C. (2020). The effect of a collocation 

        teaching innovation on students’ use of collocations. JSEL, 15(2), 98-125. Retrieved from 

https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/jsel/article/view/240158 

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 

Chambers, A. (2010). ‘What is data-driver learning?’, in A. O’Keeffe and M. McCarthy (eds.) The 

Routledge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics. London: Routledge, pp. 345-358. 

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444820000245 

Chen, J. (2022). Effectiveness of blended learning to develop learner autonomy in a Chinese 

university translation course. Education and Information Technologies, 27, 12337–12361. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11125-1 

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444817000301
https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/jsel/article/view/240158
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-022-11125-1


ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 121 
Vol. 6, No. 2, August 2023, pp. 109-123 

 Satchayad, P., & Charubusp, S. (The impacts of blended corpus-based instruction…) 

Cobb, T., & Boulton, A. (2015). Classroom applications of corpus analysis. In D. Biber & R.  Reppen 

(Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of English corpus linguistics. Cambridge University Press. 

Coffin, P. (2020). Implementing collaborative writing in EFL classrooms: Teachers and Students’ 

perspectives. LEARN Journal: Language Education and Acquisition Research Network, 13(1), 

178-194. Retrieved from https://so04.tci-

thaijo.org/index.php/LEARN/article/view/237844 

Conrad, S. (2000). Will corpus linguistics revolutionize grammar teaching in the 21st century?  

        TESOL Quarterly, 34, 548-560. https://doi.org/10.2307/3587743 

Daskalovska, N. (2015). Corpus-based versus traditional learning of collocations. Computer Assisted 

Language Learning, 28(2), 130-144. https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2013.803982 

Deissl-O’Meara, M., & Tinkel, I. (2021). Teaching Lexical Chunks in the Online English Language 

Classroom through Learning Management Systems. MAP Social Sciences, 1(1), 1–12. 

https://doi.org/10.53880/2744-2454.2021.1.1.1 

Dervić, M., & Beć́́́irović, S. (2020). Prerogative of the lexical approach in communicative 

language teaching. European Journal of Education Studies, 7(3), 1-13. 

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3748039  

Deveci, T. (2018). Student Perceptions on Collaborative Writing in a Project-based Course. 

Universal Journal of Educational Research, 6(4), 721-732.  https://doi.org/0.13189/ujer. 

2018.060415. 

Dokchandra, D. (2018). A survey of the implementation of the lexical approach by Thai tertiary EFL 

teachers. Humanity and Social Science Journal, 9(1), 158-180. Retrieved from 

https://so02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/human_ubu/article/view/185851 

Du, X., Afzaal, M., & Fadda, H.A. (2022). Collocation use in EFL learners’ writing across multiple 

language proficiencies: A corpus-driven study. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1-10. 

https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.752134 

Fong, L.S. (2012). Benefits of Collaborative Writing for ESL Advanced Diploma Students in the 

Production of Reports. US-China Education Review, 4, 396-407. Retrieved from 

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED533571 

Friginal, E., & Hardy, J. A. (2014). Corpus-based sociolinguistics: A guide for students. Routledge. 

Gass, S. M., & Mackey, A. (2015). Input, interaction, and output in second language acquisition. In 

B. Vanpatten & J. Williams (Eds.), Theories in second language acquisition (2nd ed., pp. 180-

206). Routledge. 

Harb, G. (2018). The application of COCA corpus for a more sophisticated word choice and a better 

EFL writing quality. Proceedings of INTED2018 Conference 5th-7th March 2018, Valencia, 

Spain, pp.5530-5537. https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2018.1306  

Khojasteh, L., & Shokrpour, S. (2014). Corpus linguistics and English language teaching materials: 

A review of recent research. 

https://doi.org/10.5782/2223-2621.2014.17.3.5 

Li, Z. (2015). The application of corpus in English writing and its influences. Studies in Sociology of 

Science, 6(6), 78-82. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/n 

Lewis, C. (2002). Does Lesson Study Have a Future in the United States? Nagoya journal of 

education and human development.  

Lund, A. (2008). Wikis: A collective approach to language production. ReCALL, 20(1), 35–54. 

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0958344008000414 

https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/LEARN/article/view/237844
https://so04.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/LEARN/article/view/237844
https://doi.org/10.1080/09588221.2013.803982
https://doi.org/10.53880/2744-2454.2021.1.1.1
https://doi.org/0.13189/ujer.%202018.060415.
https://doi.org/0.13189/ujer.%202018.060415.
https://so02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/human_ubu/article/view/185851
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.752134
https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED533571
https://doi.org/10.21125/inted.2018.1306
https://doi.org/10.5782/2223-2621.2014.17.3.5
http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/n


122 English Language Teaching Educational Journal   ISSN 2621-6485 

 Vol. 6, No. 2, August 2023, pp. 109-123 

 Satchayad, P., & Charubusp, S. (The impacts of blended corpus-based instruction…) 

Mansour, D.M. (2017). Using COCA to foster students’ use of English collocations in  academic 

writing. 3rd International Conference on Higher Education Advances, HEAd’17, 600-607. 

https://doi.org/10.4995/head17.2017.5301 

Müller, C., & Mildenberger, T. (2021). Facilitating fexible learning by replacing classroom time with 

an online learning environment: A systematic review of blended learning in higher education 

neu. Educational Research Review, 34, 100394. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100394 

O’Keefee, A., McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (2007). From corpus to classroom: language use and 

language teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Ortega, L. (2009). Understanding Second Language Acquisition. USA: Routledge.  

Ӧrdem, E., & Paker, T. (2016). Retention and use of lexical collocations (verb+ noun and adjective+ 

noun) by applying lexical approach in a reading course. European Journal of Foreign Language 

Teaching, 1(1), 144-160. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.208207 

Phoocharoensil, S. (2012). Language corpora for EFL teachers: An exploration of English grammar 

through concordance lines. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 64, 507-514. 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.060 

Rana, A. M. (2020). Teaching collocation at intermediate level a corpus assisted approach. 

International Journal of Management, 11(11), 430-453. 

https://doi.org/10.34218/IJM.11.11.2020.043 

Srichanyachon, N. (2011). A comparative study of three revision methods in EFL writing. Journal 

of College Teaching and Learning, 8(9), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v8i9.5639 

Suwantarathip, O., & Wichadee, S. (2014). The Effects of Collaborative Writing Activity Using 

Google Docs on Students’ Writing Abilities. The Turkish Online Journal of Educational 
Technology, 13 (2), 148-156. Retrieved from 

https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:14554387 

Talib, T., & Cheung, Y. L. (2017). Collaborative writing in classroom instruction: A synthesis of 

recent research. The English Teacher, 46(2), 43-57. Retrieved from 

https://meltajournals.com/index.php/TET/article/view/60/58 

Vo, H. M., Zhu, C., & Diep, N. A. (2017). The effect of blended learning on student performance at 

course-level in higher education: A meta-analysis. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 

53(Supplement C), 17–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. stueduc.2017.01.002 

Vyatkina, N. (2016). Data-driven learning of collocations: Learner performance, proficiency, and 

perceptions. Language Learning & Technology, 20(3), 159-179. 

http://dx.doi.org/10125/44487 

Widodo, H. P. (2013). Implementing Collaborative Process Based Writing in the EFL College 

Classroom. Research Papers in Language Teaching & Learning, 4(1), 198-206. Retrieved from 

https://rpltl.eap.gr/ 

Woodrich, M., & Yan, Y. (2017). Google Docs as a tool for collaborative writing in the middle 

school classroom. Journal of Information Technology Education: Research, 16, 391-410. 

Retrieved from http://www.informingscience.ore/Publications/3870  

Yang, C.C.R. (2010). Using Google Docs to Facilitate Collaborative Writing in an English Language 

Classroom Practice. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 14 (3), 1-8. 

Retrieved from https://tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume14/ej55/ej55m1/ 

Yoon, H. (2008). More than a linguistic reference: The influence of corpus technology on L2 

academic writing. Language Learning & Technology, 12(2), 31-48. 

https://doi.org/10125/44142 

https://doi.org/10.4995/head17.2017.5301
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2021.100394
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.060
https://doi.org/10.34218/IJM.11.11.2020.043
https://doi.org/10.19030/tlc.v8i9.5639
https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:14554387
https://meltajournals.com/index.php/TET/article/view/60/58
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.%20stueduc.2017.01.002
http://dx.doi.org/10125/44487
https://rpltl.eap.gr/
http://www.informingscience.ore/Publications/3870
https://tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume14/ej55/ej55m1/
.%20https:/doi.org/10125/44142
.%20https:/doi.org/10125/44142


ISSN 2621-6485 English Language Teaching Educational Journal 123 
Vol. 6, No. 2, August 2023, pp. 109-123 

 Satchayad, P., & Charubusp, S. (The impacts of blended corpus-based instruction…) 

Yusu, X. (2014). On the application of Corpus of Contemporary American English in vocabulary 

instruction. International Education Studies, 7(8), 68-73. https://doi.org/10.5539/ies.v7n8p68 

 
 

 

 

APPENDIX 

Results of the Attitudes Questionnaire 

 

Items Attitude Statements �̅� S.D. Meaning 
I. Attitudes towards the BCBI    

1 BCBI helps me improve my writing skill. 3.84 0.37 Very positive 

2 BCBI allows me to have more opportunities to practice my writing. 3.91 0.29 Very positive 

 Writing improvement 3.88 0.33 Very positive 

3 BCBI encourages me to regulate my own learning. 3.65 0.48 Positive 

4 I usually finish the assignments by the deadlines. 3.81 0.45 Very positive 

5 Self-reflection activity helps me reflect my learning progress, benefits, 

and problems I have in each lesson. 

3.86 0.35 Very positive 

 Self-regulation 3.77 0.43 Very positive 

6 Overall, I enjoy learning English writing through the use of the BCBI. 3.77 0.43 Very positive 

7 Online learning is convenient for me to practice writing. 3.65 0.35 Positive 

 Blended learning 3.71 0.39 Positive 

8 The content of the process writing is appropriate for my English 

proficiency. 

3.91 0.29 Very positive 

9 The proportion of the content and activities are well-balanced between 

face-to-face instruction and online learning. 

3.81 0.45 Very positive 

10 The proportion between the activities and the time allocation is 

appropriate. 

3.72 0.50 Positive 

11 The design of the BCBI (e.g. font size, colors, pictures, format, etc.) is 

appropriate. 

3.88 0.32 Very positive 

 Contents and Design 3.83 0.39 Very positive 

12 Google Sites is a useful platform to learn, work, and submit 

assignments. 

3.93 0.26 Very positive 

13 A corpus is useful for language learners to look for vocabulary and 

examples. 

3.79 0.41 Very positive 

14 The programs (e.g. COCA, Google Sites, and Google Docs) are 

convenient and easy to use when I get  

training. 

3.74 0.49 Positive 

 Technological-assisted learning programs 3.82 0.39 Very positive 

Items Attitude Statements �̅� S.D. Meaning 

II. Attitudes towards the instructional process    

15 The teacher provides sufficient help and support throughout the course. 3.98 0.15 Very positive 

16 I like to get feedbacks from the teacher all the time, so  

I can improve my writing. 

3.95 0.21 Very positive 

17 I can improve my writing when I receive comments  

from friends. 

3.56 0.55 Positive 

 Scaffolding 3.83 0.30 Very positive 

18 I enjoy learning collaboratively with peers. 3.65 0.48 Positive 

19 I found that developing a piece of writing is easier  

when I am able to generate ideas. 

3.93 0.26 Very positive 

20 I feel enthusiastic when I have interactive communication with friends 

and the teacher in face-to-face instruction. 

3.88 0.32 Very positive 

 Collaborative writing 3.83 0.35 Very positive 

 Overall  3.81 0.37 Very positive 

 

 


	1. Introduction
	2. Method
	3. Findings and Discussion
	4. Conclusion
	Acknowledgment
	Declarations


