en el tratamiento del dolor
3.3. Uso terapéutico de los Cannabinoides en el tratamiento del dolor
As others have often noted (Boulton, 2009; Chambers, 2007; Gaskell & Cobb, 2004), in order to popularize the use of learner concordancing along with other reference resources, more
empirical evidence drawn from wider ranges of populations and settings is needed. Therefore, future studies may look into L2 writers at different language proficiency levels in various settings including both academic and workplace contexts. As discussed in Section 7.1, overlapping but distinct contexts and purposes for writing (e.g., writing-to-learn-content,
learning-to-write, writing-to-learn-language, or writing-to-mean contexts) may largely
determine the types of writing, and the goals and needs of writers, and therefore affect the extent to which L2 writers perceive and act on the affordances offered by reference tools. Thus,
different sets of consultation patterns, strategies, challenges, and evaluations can be expected to appear in studies following L2 writers’ reference tool uses, for example, in foreign language (not usually used in local communities) writing classrooms where writers are more motivated to attend to language forms in contrast to an expressive or creative writing course where writers engage in writing of a narrative or artistic nature. Combined, studies into diverse contexts and purposes for writing should provide insights into how to support L2 writers to exploit the full affordances of concordancing and other resources within different writing contexts and ultimately to develop on their own meaningful cognitive partnerships with given resources across contexts. Accordingly, one common thread in research in all these settings and contexts should be investigating how reference resources help to improve L2 learners’ confidence and autonomy as writers and ultimately serve as life-long intellectual partners.
Another avenue for future research is longitudinal studies that examine the extent to which the use of reference resources as a problem-solving tool while writing affects language acquisition and development. Specifically, L2 writers’ uses of reference tools can be traced over a year or longer to investigate the extent to which they affect writers’ attention to form, and types of problems they notice and address and how these change over time, focusing on how writing aided with reference tool use can be a site for internalizing existing knowledge and acquiring new knowledge on the target language. One promising point of departure in this line of research would be written error correction. This pedagogical practice has been a locus of intersection between studies of L2 writing and SLA (Ortega, 2012), and corpus tool use for written error correction has been one of the major themes in numerous concordancing studies (Chambers & O’Sullivan, 2004; Gaskell & Cobb, 2004; Gilmore, 2009; O’Sullivan & Chambers, 2006; Watson Todd, 2009). Future studies may expand on these previous studies by employing a longitudinal mixed methods design to provide rigorous evidence of links between writing,
reference resource consultation, and language development. This line of research would advance understanding about the interfaces between theories and research on L2 writing and SLA.
The present study only looked at the problems the participants chose to solve at the sentence level and below. Thus, another line of future research would be to investigate the potential of the combined use of multiple reference resources for improving various aspects of writing that go beyond word and sentence levels to discourse or rhetorical levels, as suggested in previous studies (Ädel, 2010; Charles, 2007). As more and more efforts will be made to create specialized corpora and corpus annotation designed to allow for searches by rhetorical function (along with meaning and surface form), and also searches for exemplar texts, future studies will need to consider how L2 writers utilize these resources for their writing. Along with research into new types of corpora and reference resources, efforts should continue to develop learner- friendly interfaces borrowing insights from related fields such as Human Computer Interaction.
The critical role that training can play in L2 learners’ reference consultation literacy development implies that learner training is another important research area to pursue. Given that systemic learner training in reference resource consultation is yet rarely practiced in
classrooms, more practical studies are needed to explore cost-effective ways of training learners in basic skills and concepts required to use different reference tools, motivating them to notice unique affordances on their own, and to develop personal strategies for meeting their particular referencing needs. One promising research methodology is design-based research, in which teachers themselves, in collaboration with researchers if necessary, carry out multiple iterations of design, analysis, and implementation, working with multiple cohorts of students to develop contextually-sensitive learner training content and methodologies (Wang & Hannafin, 2005).
Lastly, the present study focused on participants’ cognitive processes involved in
interactions with the reference suite from the relatively narrow angle of “cognitive tool”. Future studies may go beyond observing and analyzing the micro-levels of tool use by L2 writers to examine how the use of reference resources and other mediating tools “intersects with, and contributes to, broader social, cultural, historical, and economic trends” (Warschauer, 2005, p. 48).
184 REFERENCES
Ädel, A. (2010). Using corpora to teach academic writing: Challenges for the direct approach. In M. Campoy, B. Belles-Fortuno & M. Gea-Valor (Eds.), Corpus-based approaches to
English language teaching (pp. 39-55). London, England: Continuum.
Anderson, J. R. (1995). Cognitive psychology and its implications (4 ed.). New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company.
Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research. Educational Researcher, 41(1), 16-25.
Aston, G. (2000). Corpora and language teaching. In L. Burnard & T. McEnery (Eds.),
Rethinking language pedagogy from a corpus perspective: Papers from the Third International Conference on Teaching and Language Corpora (pp. 7-17). Frankfurt am
Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
Barfield, A. (2012). Lexical collocations. In C. A. Chapelle (Ed.), The encyclopedia of applied
linguistics. Malden, MA: Blackwell. DOI: 10.1002/9781405198431.wbeal0690.
Benson, M., Benson, E., & Ilson, R. (1986). The BBI combinatory dictionary of English: A
guide toward combination. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamin.
Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bernardini, S. (2004). Corpora in the classroom: An overview and some reflections on future developments. In J. M. Sinclair (Ed.), How to use corpora in language teaching (pp. 15- 36). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2001). Corpus-based research in TESOL. Quantitative corpus-based research: Much more than bean counting. TESOL Quarterly, 35(2), 331-336.
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language
structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and
written English. Harlow, UK: Longman.
Biber, D., & Reppen, R. (2002). What does frequency have to do with grammar teaching?
Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24(2), 199-208.
University of Michigan Press.
Boulton, A. (2009). Data-driven learning: Reasonable fears and rational reassurance. Indian
Journal of Applied Linguistics, 35(1), 81-106.
Boulton, A. (2010a). Data-driven learning: Taking the computer out of the equation. Language
Learning, 60(3), 534-572.
Boulton, A. (2010b). Learning outcomes from corpus consultation. In M. M. Jaen, F. S. Valverde & M. C. Perez (Eds.), Exploring new paths in language pedagogy: Lexis and
corpus-based language teaching (pp. 129-144). London, UK: Equinox.
Boulton, A. (2011). Data-driven learning: The perpetual enigma. In S. Gozdz-Roszkowski & B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk (Eds.), Explorations across languages and corpora (pp. 563-580). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
Breyer, Y. (2006). My Concordancer: Tailor-made software for language learners and teachers. In S. Braun, K. Kohn & J. Mukherjee (Eds.), Corpus technology and language pedagogy (pp. 157-176). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
Brezina, V. (2012). Use of Google Scholar in corpus-driven EAP research. Journal of English
for Academic Purposes, 11, 319-331.
Brown, H. D. (2007). Principles of language learning and teaching (5th ed.). White Plains, NY: Pearson/Longman.
Byrnes, H. (2013). Positioning writing as meaning-making in writing research: An introduction.
Journal of Second Language Writing 22(2), 95-106.
Canagarajah, S. A. (2002). Critical academic writing and multilingual students. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Chambers, A. (2005). Integrating corpus consultation in language studies. Language Learning
& Technology, 9(2), 111-125.
Chambers, A. (2007). Popularising corpus consultation by language learners and teachers. In E. Hidalgo, L. Quereda & J. Santana (Eds.), Corpora in the foreign language classroom (pp. 3-16). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Rodopi.
Chambers, A., & O'Sullivan, I. (2004). Corpus consultation and advanced learners' writing skills in French. ReCALL, 16(1), 158-172.
Chapelle, C. A. (2003). English language learning and technology: Lectures on applied
John Benjamins.
Chapelle, C. A. (2008). Computer assisted language learning. In B. Spolsky & F. M. Hult (Eds.),
The handbook of educational linguistics (pp. 585-595). Malden, MA: Bleckwell
Publishing
Charles, M. (2007). Reconciling top-down and bottom-up approaches to graduate writing: Using a corpus to teach rhetorical functions. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(4), 289-302.
Chinnery, G. M. (2009). You've got some GALL: Google assisted language learning. Language
Learning & Technology, 12(1), 3-11.
Cobb, T. (1999). Applying constructivism: A test for the learner-as-scientist. Educational
Technology Research and Development, 47(3), 15-31.
Conrad, S. (2000). Will corpus linguistics revolutionize grammar teaching in the 21st century?
TESOL Quarterly, 34(3), 548-560.
Conrad, S. (2008). Myth 6: Corpus-based research is too complicated to be useful for writing teachers. In J. M. Reid (Ed.), Writing myths: Applying second language research to
classroom teaching (pp. 115-139). Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press.
Conroy, M. A. (2010). Internet tools for language learning: University students taking control of their writing. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(6), 861-882.
Cook, G. (1998). The uses of reality: A reply to Ronald Carter. ELT Journal, 52(1), 57-63. Cresswell, A. (2007). Getting to 'know' connectors?: Evaluating data-driven learning in a
writing skills course. In E. Hidalgo, L. Quereda & S. Juan (Eds.), Corpora in the foreign
language classroom (pp. 267-287). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Rodopi.
Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second-language proficiency. Language learning,
39(1), 81-141.
Cumming, A. (1990). Metalinguistic and ideational thinking in second language composing.
Written Communication, 7(4), 482-511.
Cumming, A. (2001). Learning to write in a second language: Two decades of research.
International Journal of English Studies, 1, 1-23.
Cumming, A. (2011). Preface. In R. Manchón (Ed.), Learning-to-write and writing-to-learn in
an additional language (pp. x-xii). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Manchón (Ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives (pp. 135-164). Boston, MA: De Gruyter Mouton.
Davies, M. (2012). The corpus of contemporary American English (1990-2012). Retrieved July 14, 2012 from http://corpus.byu.edu/coca/.
de Beaugrande, R. (2000). Large corpora and applied linguistics: H.G. Widdowson versus J. McH. Sinclair. In P. Battaner & C. Lopez (Eds.), Corpus lingüístics i ensenyament de
llengües [Corpus linguistics and the teaching of languages] (pp. 87-103). Barcelona,
Spain: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
Dörnyei, Z. (2007). Research methods in applied linguistics: Quantitative, qualitative, and
mixed methodologies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Duffy, T. M., & Jonassen, D. H. (1992). Constructivism: New implications for instructional technology. In T. M. Duffy & D. H. Jonassen (Eds.), Constructivism and the technology
of instruction: A conversation (pp. 1-16). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
East, M. (2008). Dictionary use in foreign language writing exams: Impact and implications (Vol. 22). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Ellis, N. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 24(2), 143-188.
Ellis, R. (1999). Learning a second language through interaction. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Ewing, D. (1977). Discovering your problem-solving style. Psychology Today, 11, 69-73. Flower, L. (1989). Problem-solving strategies for writing (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: Harcourt
Brace Jovanovich.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition
and Communication, 32(4), 365-387.
Flowerdew, L. (2009). Applying corpus linguistics to pedagogy: A critical evaluation.
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 14(3), 393-417.
Flowerdew, L. (2010). Using corpora for writing instruction. In A. O'Keeffe & M. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 444-457). London, UK: Routledge.
53(2), 100-106.
Frankenberg-Garcia, A. (2005). A peek into what today's language learners as researchers actually do. International Journal of Lexicography, 18(3), 335-355.
Frankenberg-Garcia, A. (2011). Beyond L1-L2 equivalents: where do users of English as a foreign language turn for help? International Journal of Lexicography, 24(1), 97-123. Fujii, Y. (2007). Making the most of search engines for Japanese to English translation: Benefits
and challenges. The Asian EFL Journal Professional Teaching Articles, 23, 1-36. Gaskell, D., & Cobb, T. (2004). Can learners use concordance feedback for writing errors?
System, 32, 301-319.
Gavioli, L. (2009). Corpus analysis and the achievement of learner autonomy in interaction. In L. Lombardo (Ed.), Using corpora to learn about language and discourse (pp. 39-72). New York, NY: Peter Lang.
Gilmore, A. (2009). Using online corpora to develop students' writing skills. ELT Journal, 63(4), 363-372.
Granath, S. (2009). Who benefits from learning how to use corpora? In K. Aijmer (Ed.),
Corpora and language teaching (pp. 47-65). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Greene, J. C. (2007). Mixed methods in social inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hafner, C. A., & Candlin, C. N. (2007). Corpus tools as an affordance to learning in
professional legal education. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 6(4), 303-318. Hanaoka, O., & Izumi, S. (2012). Noticing and uptake: Addressing pre-articulated covert
problems in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 21(4), 332-347. Hegelheimer, V. (2006). Helping ESL writers through a multimodal, corpus-based, online
grammar resource. CALICO Journal, 24(1), 5-32.
Heine, L. (2010). Problem solving in a foreign language: A study in content and language
integrated learning. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.
Hinkel, E. (2002). Second language writers' text: Linguistic and rhetorical features. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Howarth, P. (1996). Phraseology in English academic writing: Some implications for language
learning and dictionary making. Tübingen, Germany: Max Niemeyer.
Hubbard, P. (2004). Learner training for effective use of CALL. In S. Fotos & C. Browne (Eds.),
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hubbard, P. (2013). Making a case for learner training in technology enhanced language learning environments. CALICO Journal, 30(2), 163-178.
Hubbard, P. (2005). Google as a tool for academic writing. Retrieved May, 15, 2011, from http://www.stanford.edu/~efs/google/index.htm
Hulstijin, J. H., & Laufer, B. (2001). Some empirical evidence for the involvement load hypothesis in vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 51, 539-558.
Hutchins, E. (1995). Cognition in the wild. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hyland, K. (2003). Second language writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Johns, T. (1988). Whence and whither classroom concordancing? In T. Bongarerts, P. de Haan, S. Lobbe & H. Wekker (Eds.), Computer applications in language learning (pp. 9-27). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Foris.
Johns, T. (1991). Should you be persuaded: Two samples of data-driven learning materials.
English Language Research Journal, 4, 1-16.
Johns, T. (1997). Contexts: The background, development and trialling of a concordance-based CALL program. In A. Wichmann, S. Fligelstone, A. M. McEnery & G. Knowles (Eds.),
Teaching and learning corpora (pp. 100-115). London, UK: Longman.
Jonassen, D. H. (1992). What are cognitive tools? In P. A. Kommers, D. H. Jonassen & J. T. Mayes (Eds.), Cognitive tools for learning (pp. 1-6). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag. Jonassen, D. H., Davidson, M., Campbell, J., & Haag, B. B. (1995). Constructivism and
computer-mediated communication in distance education. The American Journal of
Distance Education, 9(2), 7-26.
Jonassen, D. H., & Reeves, T. C. (1996). Learning with technology: Using computers as cognitive tools. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of Research on Educational
Communications and Technology (pp. 693-719). New York, NY: Macmillan.
Kasper, G. (1998). Analyzing verbal protocols. TESOL Quarterly, 32(2), 358-362. Kaur, J., & Hegelheimer, V. (2005). ESL students' use of concordance in the transfer of
academic word knowledge: An exploratory study. Computer Assisted Language
Learning, 18(4), 287-310.
Keck, C. (2012). Corpus linguistics in language teaching. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), The