Collocation Tools

International Journal of Lexicography, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp.
454–482
doi:10.1093/ijl/ecw031 Advance access publication 1 August 2016 454
THE CONTRIBUTION OF
COLLOCATION TOOLS TO
COLLOCATION CORRECTION IN
SECOND LANGUAGE WRITING
Ulugbek Nurmukhamedov: TESOL Program, Northeastern Illinois University, Chicago
Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/30/4/454/2555491 by guest on 06 January 2022

([email protected])
Abstract
L2 writers of English (N = 45) in an intensive English program in the southwestern part

of the USA were divided into three groups. Each group was provided with collocation
training for a different collocation tool: Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English
(LDOCE), Macmillan Collocation Dictionary (MCD), and www.wordandphrase.info
(WPI). After training, each group used the collocation tool to correct 16 miscollocations
embedded in an essay-format collocation test. After each test, the participants com-
pleted a quality review checklist. The procedure was repeated three times so that each
group used each tool but in a different order. The results indicated that online collo-
cation tools (LDOCE and WPI) contributed more than a book collocation dictionary
(MCD) to accurate collocation production in L2 writers’ essays. In particular, L2
writers favored WPI because it was easier to navigate and it helped them locate the
correct collocations.
1. Introduction
Collocations, two or more words that co-occur (e.g. extensive research, conduct
a study), are linked with native-like lexical accuracy and fluency (Nation and
Webb 2011). Yet even advanced-level second language (L2) learners frequently
have difficulty producing appropriate collocations. Notably, the ability to use
collocations productively seems to be a huge challenge for most university-level
L2 writers (e.g. Chan and Liou 2005). This challenge occurs for the following
reasons. First, collocations are particularly tricky because one word can have
multiple collocates. For example, the word strategy has about 40 collocates,
according to the Longman Collocation Dictionary & Thesaurus (2013). The
luxury of being a native speaker of a language is that native speakers are
familiar with most collocation choices for a word (Groom 2009), while it is a
# 2016 Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions,

please email: [email protected]
Contribution of Collocation Tools 455
daunting task for non-native speakers to recognize and (even more challenging)
to produce all feasible collocations for a given word. Second, L2 writers are
“not sure which words can go with which words” (Jiang 2009: 108) because
some collocations carry the idiomatic meaning. For example, take the money
and take a course might be straightforward for learners; however, take sides
might be challenging for learners to comprehend (Nesselhauf 2003). Third,
despite the fact that collocations are frequently used in writing and speech,
they are underrepresented in language teaching textbooks (Tsai 2015) or

often presented in isolation – out of context. This is not helpful because col-
locations occur in discourse; thus L2 writers should be familiar with the con-
textual use of collocations.
L2 writers can use dictionaries to address their collocation problems; how-
ever, learners often “have no knowledge of collocation dictionaries or other
potential resources for working with collocations independently” (Henriksen
2013: 42). To help L2 writers achieve accurate and fluent collocation produc-
tion in their written work, researchers believe that L2 writers should take ad-
vantage of learner-friendly collocation tools: online, electronic, or hard copy
resources/dictionaries designed for language learners. Some dictionaries/re-
sources are referred to as tools in the study reported here. To explore whether
L2 writers benefit from collocation tools, the current study examined the effect
of three collocation tools (two online and one paper) on the accurate correction
of miscollocations by L2 writers–particularly international students who are
studying English for Academic Purposes (EAP).
2. Background
Many researchers believe that L2 learners would benefit from collocation tools
to improve the lexical accuracy of their writing. Despite the fact that language
teachers introduce paper-based or CALL-mediated collocation tools to their
students, it is still up to their learners whether or not to accept these tools.
Sometimes, learners are unable to retrieve appropriate collocations from a tool,
which eventually affect the ‘acceptance’ of a collocation tool. Learners’ degree
of ‘acceptance’ in selecting a collocation tool might depend on the following
factors.
First, learners should like the format of a tool. Some learners prefer online,
while others prefer a book dictionary. Similarly, a format can also include a
dictionary type such as English-English learner dictionaries (e.g. Macmillan
Dictionary; Cambridge Dictionary) compared to specialized English-English
collocation dictionaries (e.g. Oxford Collocations Dictionary for Students of
English - OCDSE; Longman Colocations Dictionary and Thesaurus - LCDT).
A format can be a contributing factor as long as it leads to an accurate pro-
duction of collocations. For example, Lew and Radlowska (2010) compared
two paper-based dictionaries – LDOCE (a learner dictionary) and OCDSE
456 Ulugbek Nurmukhamedov
(a collocation dictionary) – to determine which would help university-level

intermediate Polish learners of English (N = 18) supply missing collocations
in sentences. The test results showed that the LDOCE group produced more
accurate collocations than the OCDSE group (68% versus 49%). However,
these differences were not statistically significant. In her earlier study,
Dziemianko (2010) compared the usefulness of paper and online monolingual
dictionaries in receptive and productive collocation tasks. Participants were
upper-intermediate and advanced Polish students (N = 64), who were divided

into two groups: a paper-dictionary group and an online-dictionary group.
Immediately after the dictionary training session, the participants were given
a pretest that included productive and receptive vocabulary tasks. In a posttest
administered after two weeks, it was found that the online dictionary group
performed significantly better in receptive and productive collocation tasks
than the paper dictionary group.
In some studies, online corpus tools were used as an alternative to colloca-
tion dictionaries and were found to be helpful for collocation production.
Geluso and Yamaguchi (2014) examined the effectiveness of the Corpus of
Contemporary American English (COCA) for collocation learning by univer-
sity-level Japanese learners. Almost all the students (28 out of 29) thought that
COCA helped them improve their knowledge of collocations for speaking and
writing skills. Slightly more than two thirds of the students believed that
COCA was helpful for their writing. Daskalovska (2015) also examined the
effect of the COCA corpus on L1 Macedonian learners’ receptive and produc-
tive collocation knowledge. Her findings revealed that the participants who
were trained how to use COCA did not only perform significantly better
than the control group in a productive collocation task (e.g. fill in the blank,
write sentences), but were also able to retain more collocations in the receptive
tasks (e.g. matching, multiple-choice). In sum, the format of a collocation tool
plays a role in retrieval of successful collocations for production purposes.
In addition to format, learners pay attention to the presentation of colloca-
tions in entries. When a word entry lists too much information, learners are
often confused. In a study by Komuro (2009), some students complained that
certain entries had too many collocation choices and some were synonymous;
therefore, students had difficulty in understanding the nuances of the collo-
cates. Sometimes learners are not aware of the position of collocations in an
entry. Dziemianko (2014) examined whether the presentation and the place of
verb + noun collocations affected the use of collocations by Polish intermedi-
ate learners of English (N = 358). Three groups of 119 participants were as-
signed to different test conditions: a collocation box for the target words
(i.e. list of collocations), the target words in bold before examples, and the
target words in bold within examples. The position conditions placed entry
initial (at the beginning of the entry) or final position. Her findings revealed
that the participants performed significantly better when the target collocations
were presented in bold before examples or bold within examples. In terms of

the position, the participants made significantly more correct choices when the
target collocations were listed at the end of the entry.
To help learners maximize their dictionary use, learners are advised to know
how to utilize a tool for collocation learning. Lew and Galas (2008) reported
that most of their participants (50 out of 57) who were primary-level Polish
learners of English did not have any previous dictionary training. Furthermore,
47 of the 57 participants admitted not reading any instructions provided in the

early pages of a dictionary. After teaching 12 dictionary lookup strategies,
ranging from alphabetical ordering of entries to symbols and abbreviations,
Lew and Galas (2008) reported that the experimental group scored significantly
higher than the comparison group and the authors suggested that providing
explicit instruction on dictionary lookup strategies would improve learners’
overall dictionary skills. Thus, learners should be equipped with strategies
for how to locate a collocation in a tool or to generate a collocation in writing.
Dictionary look-up skills should not be taken for granted (Chon 2008, Ranalli
2013) because searching for a collocation while doing a writing task requires an
immense cognitive load on the part of learners (e.g. extracting appropriate
collocations from a dictionary to write an essay, or filling in the blank in a
sentence or replacing a miscollocation with a correct collocation).
3. The study
The present study examines the effect of two online collocation tools (WPI,
LDOCE), and one hard-copy collocation tool (MCD) on the correct produc-
tion of verb + noun and adjective + noun collocations. It attempts to answer
the folowing research questions:
(1) To what extent do three collocation tools affect ESL students’ colloca-
tion corrections in written work?
(2) What do ESL writers think of these three tools in terms of training,
navigation, and helpfulness?
3.1. Participants
The overall number of participants (N = 45) comprised three intact ESL

groups of upper-intermediate proficiency adult international students enrolled
in an intensive English program (IEP) in a university in the southwestern part
of the USA. Level 5 students, in a 6-level, US-based IEP, who were taking
Writer’s Workshop course (i.e. a support course linked to an undergraduate-
level composition course), participated. They were designated higher-
intermediate students based on their placement test scores. Only 31 participants
of 45 decided to complete the demographic questionnaire. There were 26 male

and five female students. In terms of participants’ first languages, the majority
spoke Arabic (10), Portuguese (Brazilian) (10), or Chinese (8). On average the
participants had been studying English for about three years and had been in
English-speaking countries (predominantly the United States of America) for
about eight months. At the end of the demographic questionnaire, there were
four questions to ascertain participants’ familiarity with general computer
skills, focusing on participants’ degree of comfort using a computer, the

Internet, and online dictionaries. Based on their responses, the students felt
comfortable using a computer, surfing the Internet, using online dictionaries,
and writing assignments on computers. In sum, they were all proficient in
computers.
3.2. Materials
Collocation tools, instructional materials, and tests used in the study are
described in this section.
3.2.1 Collocation tools. Three collocation tools, two online and one hard-copy,
were used in the study: an online version of the Longman Dictionary of
Contemporary English (LDOCE), an online collocation tool wordandphra-
se.info (WPI), and a hard copy of Macmillan Collocation Dictionary (MCD).
The features of these collocation tools and their potential use for collocation
learning are described below.
One of the three tools, LDOCE, which is freely available at http://www.
ldoceonline.com/, contains around 220,000 collocations (Lew and Radlowska
2010). The online version of LDOCE has three features that made it appropri-
ate for use in this study. First, the LDOCE lists collocations in a collocation
box immediately below the definition of a word (Figure 1). LDOCE users do
not have to scroll down to see the collocation boxes.
Second, the LDOCE provides explanations for collocations that carry spe-
cific (idiomatic) connotations. If one collocation has two or more meanings,
the dictionary provides users with short explanations to offer a clue for ease of
differentiation. For example, golden is listed as an adjective collocate for
opportunity in the MCD and LDOCE dictionaries; however, LDOCE defines
golden opportunity in parentheses (a very good opportunity). The LDOCE not
only gives collocation choices, but also specifies what certain word combi-
nations mean.
Third, the LDOCE provides its users with example sentences that contain
collocations (Figure 2). Some collocations in example sentences are in boldface
or italicized so that collocations stand out; learners are able to easily find

Figure 1: A collocation box for opportunity in LDOCE.
Figure 2: Example sentence for opportunity and its collocates in LDOCE.
collocations by reading example sentences, especially in cases where a colloca-

tion box is not provided for a word.
Another freely available corpus-based collocation tool is wordandphra-
se.info (WPI), which was developed and is currently maintained by a professor
at Brigham Young University, Mark Davies. This tool is one of the Corpus of
Contemporary American English (COCA’s) features. This website was
included in the study because L2 writers may use this tool to generate adjective,
noun, and verb collocations for words. With WPI, a learner can search for a
word on this website; the link lists word definitions, collocations, parts of
speech, and example sentences. Figure 3 illustrates the collocations for
damage in WPI. On the left side of the figure, interested learners can find
Figure 3: An illustration of damage in wordandphase.info.

out about the use of a searched word in different registers, such as spoken,
fiction, magazine, newspaper, and academic registers. On the right side, the
website lists word meanings for damage. Below the definitions is a collocate
section (collocates) for the target word that users may click on.
In WPI, the collocates are separated into groups by parts of speech: adjective
(adj), noun, and verb. All the words generated by the website are clickable; that
is, the words on the screen are hyperlinked to example sentences.
The third tool was the MCD. This is not an online tool; rather, it is a hard-
copy collocation dictionary that was published in 2010. The dictionary has
more than 4,500 keyword entries. The MCD does not indicate the exact number
of collocations contained within it. What the MCD does indicate, however, is
that the collocations within it were derived from a multi-million-word corpus,
created with the use of cutting-edge technology, specifically, SketchEngine
Software, developed and maintained by the director of Lexical Computing
Ltd. (a corpus software and consultancy company in the United Kingdom).
This collocation dictionary has three features that justify its inclusion in this
study. First, this dictionary was specifically designed for academically oriented
learners of English who plan to pursue their degrees in English-speaking coun-
tries. Second, it was designed for upper-intermediate to advanced learners of
English. Thus, the sample participants in the study reported here should be able
to use the dictionary comfortably. Third, it lists collocations based on their
connotations (see Figure 4).
According to Figure 4, in order to communicate many or different aspects,
learners could use different, many, several, various before aspect. If learners
plan to use aspect in a negative sense, they would find options such as challeng-
ing, controversial, disturbing, negative, problematic, worrying.
Most importantly for this study, and not related to the features of the above-
mentioned collocation tools, no one had yet studied the use of the tools by L2
writers of English for producing appropriate collocations. This means that
while lexicographers and applied linguists describe the features of LDOCE,
WPI, and MCD as conducive to language learning and teaching (e.g.
Canning 2014, Gao 2013, McGee 2012), there is still no evidence about their
utility or effectiveness from a collocation learning and teaching standpoint.
Even though WPI can be a useful collocation tool for learners of English, no
Figure 4: Macmillan Collocation Dictionary entry. Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/30/4/454/2555491 by guest on 06 January 2022
one had yet studied the use of WPI by L2 writers of English for producing
appropriate collocations.
3.2.2 Instructional materials. The participants were taught how to use the three
tools one at a time. Whenever new tools are incorporated into language teach-
ing, learners should develop a comfort level using them (see Hubbard 2013 for
a review). To help learners use the new tools effectively, the teacher-researcher
developed instructional materials to train learners to use the tools. In this
study, the instructional materials are divided into two types: practice activities
and tool training.
During the practice activities, the students engaged in a variety of collocation
exercises using one of the tools. The training activities were sequenced from
word, sentence, and short paragraph to long-paragraph collocation exercises

(see Appendix 1 for one set of practice activities). Throughout the activities, the
participants read sentences, short paragraphs, consulted a tool, and replaced a
miscollocation with a correct collocation. The target combinations in the prac-
tice activities were highlighted and the miscollocations were always in boldface,
signaling to the participants that these words in boldface should be replaced
with appropriate collocations. The practice activities for each tool took about
100 minutes (roughly two 60-minute classes).

Learners went through the following steps to be ready to use a tool. They
watched a video tutorial for each tool; the video illustrated the tool on the
computers in the classroom (classes were held in a computer lab). Immediately
after the students had some idea about using the targeted tool, they were asked
to complete the training activities and use the (designated) tool at the same
time. By the time the learners finished all the training activities for each tool,
learners should have been able to take the following steps using the tool:
. Search for a word in a tool;

. Select a collocate depending on the word’s part of speech;
. Scroll up or down (thumb through the pages for the MCD tool) to find a
collocation box;
. Identify appropriate collocations in a collocation box;
. Scroll up or down (thumb through the pages for the MCD tool) to find
example sentences;
. Identify appropriate collocations in example sentences; and
. Choose the collocation that is most relevant to a given context.
These tool-training instructional steps (identical for all three tools) were de-
signed to help participants search for a word and find an appropriate colloca-
tion. Practice activities and tool training went hand in hand. During the tool
training portion, learners were expected to learn how to use the tool to find
collocations. During the practice activities, learners were expected to complete
collocation exercises by using the tool. They were both used at the same time
and supported each other. Learners were required to use a tool and find col-
locations in order to replace wrong collocations with correct collocations.
3.2.3 Instruments. Three data-collection instruments were utilized in the study:

collocation tests, a Quality Review Checklist (Checklist will be used throughout
the paper), and interview questions.
There were three forms of the collocation test. The test was a productive
collocation test, using an essay format. The students were asked to read an
essay and replace miscollocations with correct collocations. Specifically, it was
a collocation correction test. Sixteen miscollocations (8 adjective + noun and 8
verb + noun) were embedded in the essay; that is, there were 16 items on the
test. The collocations were highlighted and the wrong collocates were marked
in boldface (see Appendix 2 for Collocation Test #1). Participants were re-
minded that the words in boldface needed to be replaced with either correct
verbs or adjectives. The nouns were stimulus (or base words), which means that
the participants had to find appropriate verbs or adjectives for the nouns—not
vice versa. The students had to write their answers on a separate sheet of paper
(see Appendix 3 for Test Reporting Sheet #1). The collocations had to make

sense, when corrected, in their given contexts. Participants were required to use
the collocation tool (either online or hard copy) that they had been trained to
use, but no other tools (e.g. Google translate, Merriam-Webster) while revising
the miscollocations, even if they did not know the meaning of some words.
Participants were given 30 minutes to complete the task.
The coefficient of internal consistency for all three tests was = .70. Because
participants’ overall collocation scores were used in the analysis, internal con-
sistency was in an acceptable range. Furthermore, teacher-generated tests are
reported to be in the range of .60 and .80 (Subkoviak 1988).
The participants were asked to complete the Checklist after using each tool
(see a checklist sample for LDOCE in Appendix 4). It was used to ascertain
participants’ attitudes, opinions, and beliefs. More specifically, the checklist
was used to better understand participants’ attitudes toward the tools in terms
of ease of navigation and use, and whether the participants thought that the
training helped them master the tools to locate collocations during the test. In
addition to the Checklist, there was a follow-up interview session with only
those students (n = 18) who demonstrated extreme cases in their responses to
some of the items in the Checklist.
3.3. Study Design
A Latin Square Design was used in the study. There were three intact ESL
classes, which were treated as three groups (Group 1, Group 2, Group 3).
There were three sessions (Session One, Session Two, Session Three). There
were three treatments referred to as “tools” (Tool 1 - LDOCE; Tool 2 - WPI;
Tool 3 - MCD). Each group learned to use all three tools, but in a different
order in each of three sessions. For example, the first group learned a new tool
(LDOCE) in session one, the third tool (MCD) in session two, and the second
tool (WPI) in session three. At the end of each session, participants were asked
to take a test with 16 miscollocations, during which they consulted the tool that
they had just been trained to use to correct the miscollocations. The tools and
tests were counterbalanced among the three different groups to avoid any
order, fatigue, or practice effects.
Table 1: Descriptive statistics (Means and SD) of collocation correction by

tools
Collocation Tools
LDOCE MCD WPI
10.69 (2.43) 8.44 (2.31) 10.58 (2.15)
Note. The maximum score was 16.

3.4. Data Analysis
Data collected from the participants included the produced collocations in the
test reporting sheet (Appendix 3) and the responses in the Checklist (Appendix
4). The researcher checked the students’ collocations based on two criteria:
first, the produced collocations had to be found in the COCA corpus and
they needed to have a mutual information score of 0.1 or above; second, at
least two out of three native speakers of American English had to approve the
answers. One point was awarded if the participant wrote a correct collocation,
and zero was given if the participant’s answer did not appear on the answer
keys. Spelling mistakes or collocation instantiations (e.g. made, making, makes
for make) were still awarded a score of 1. With regards to the Checklist data,
participants’ answers were given a numerical value. For example, for the ques-
tion The Macmillan Collocation Dictionary book was easy to use, the participant
chose one of these assigned numbers: (Easy) 4, 3, 2, 1 (Difficult). The assigned
numbers were scaled from 4 to 1.
In order to answer the first research question, the percentages of corrected
collocations from each student’s tests were collected and entered into an SPSS
file. The dependent variable represented the proportion of successful colloca-
tion corrections. The independent variables included tools, groups, and
sessions. A repeated measures ANOVA for 3X3 Latin Square Design was
used to examine the main effect of three factors: groups, sessions, and tools.
The analyses used to answer the second research question are presented in the
Results section.
4. Results
In order to examine the effectiveness of a tool on the collocation corrections,

the researcher investigated the effect of tools, groups, and sessions on
participants’ production of correct collocations. All participants (N = 45)
took all three tests and received scores. Table 1 illustrates the total mean
scores for the tools. The table shows that LDOCE and WPI had higher
mean scores than MCD.
Table 2: A Repeated Measures ANOVA for 3X3 Latin Square Design
Variable and source SS df MS F p
Group 15.61 2 7.80 1.47 .23

Session 5.38 2 2.70 0.50 .60
Tool 145.82 2 72.91 13.79 .00
Error 676.74 128 5.28

Using an alpha level of .05, a repeated measure analysis of variance was
conducted to examine the effect of groups, sessions, and tools on collocation
correction (see Table 2). Table 2 shows that there was no statistically significant
difference among groups. There was no statistically significant difference
among sessions either. However, there was a statistically significant difference
among tools, F (2, 128) = 13.79, p < .05. To examine statistically significant
differences among the tools, a post-hoc Tukey HSD test was run. The post-hoc
Tukey HSD test showed that there was a statistically significant difference
between MCD and LDOCE and MCD and WPI; however, no statistical dif-
ference was found between LDOCE and WPI. There was not a statistically
significant difference among groups or sessions; however, there was a statistic-
ally significant difference among the tools.
The second research question asked, What do ESL writers think of these three
tools in terms of training, navigation, and helpfulness? Three participants of
45 refused to participate in this phase of the study; thus, the remaining
participants (N = 42) responded to the Checklist. The distribution of the
data in the histograms, the skewness and kurtosis statistics, plus the results
from the Shapiro-Wilk tests, confirmed that students’ attitudes toward tool
training, navigation, and helpfulness were not normally distributed. Thus,
nonparametric statistics were used in the subsequent analyses, using an alpha
level of .05.
In order to examine whether there was a perceived difference in quality of
tool training among the three tools, participants’ responses to items 1, 2, 3, and
4 in the Checklist were compiled. Responses were averaged to tap into students’
attitudes toward training. Internal consistency of the questionnaire items was
examined by using Cronbach’s alpha (), yielding an acceptable reliability co-
efficient of .70. Descriptive statistics on students’ attitudes toward tool training
shows the total mean scores for all the tools, as well as scores on the individual
questions, were similar (Table 3).
Table 3 shows that participants’ attitudes toward tool training were compa-
rable. A repeated measures comparison of means was performed using the
Friedman test. There was no statistically significant difference in attitudes
Table 3: Means and standard deviations on attitudes toward tool training
Quality Review LDOCE WPI MCD

Checklist Items
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
1 YouTube video was 3.73 (0.50) 3.71 (0.45) 3.70 (0.46)

helpful to learn the
tool features
2 YouTube video was 3.50 (0.63) 3.57 (0.63) 3.57 (0.70)

helpful to complete
the exercises
3 In-class practice activ- 3.66 (0.52) 3.88 (0.32) 3.88 (0.32)
ities were helpful to
find collocations
4 In-class practice activ- 3.60 (0.66) 3.61 (0.62) 3.80 (0.50)
ities were helpful to
fix collocations in
the essay tests
Total 3.62 (0.42) 3.67 (0.38) 3.73 (0.39)
4 [Helpful] - 1 [Not Helpful]
toward tool training, 2(2, n = 42) = 1.143, p > 0.05. Participants thought that
tool training for all three tools was equally helpful.
To examine whether there was a perceived difference in quality of navigation
among three tools, participants’ responses for items 5, 6, and 7 on the Checklist
were compiled. Scores on items 5, 6, and 7 were averaged to tap into students’
attitudes toward tool navigation. Internal consistency of the questionnaire
items was examined by using Cronbach’s alpha (), yielding an alpha coeffi-
cient of .68. Descriptive statistics on students’ perceived quality difference in
terms of navigation is shown in Table 4. LDOCE had lower scores on average
and for all items than the other two tools. The means and standard deviations
for items 5, 6, and 7 indicate that the students thought that WPI and MCD
were easier to use and navigate than LDOCE.
A repeated measures comparison of means was performed using the
Friedman test. There was a statistically significant difference in students’ atti-
tudes toward tool navigation 2(2, n = 42) = 10.67, p < 0.05. To find out
individual differences, post hoc analyses with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests
were conducted with a Bonferroni correction applied, resulting in a significance
level set at p < 0.017. There was a statistically significant difference in tool
navigation between WPI and LDOCE (Z = 3.289, p = 0.001). Participants
thought that the WPI was easier to navigate in search of collocations.
There were no statistically significant differences between the MCD
Table 4: Means and standard deviations on attitudes toward tool navigation
Quality Review LDOCE WPI MCD

Checklist Items
M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
5 The collocation tool was 3.31 (1.00) 3.69 (0.64) 3.52 (0.71)
easy to use. *
6 The collocation tool was 2.98 (1.00) 3.52 (0.67) 3.36 (0.73)
difficult to navigate to

look for correct collo-
cations. *
7 I was frustrated when I 3.14 (0.95) 3.64 (0.58) 3.48 (0.63)
used the collocation
tool. **
Total 3.14 (0.80) 3.62 (0.49) 3.45 (0.54)
*4 [Easy] - 1 [Difficult] order of responses reversed from 5 and 6 **4 [Not

Frustrated] - 1 [Frustrated];
and LDOCE (Z = 1.521, p = 0.128) or between the MCD and WPI

(Z = 1.595, p = 0.111). Students thought that WPI was easier than
LDOCE to navigate in search of collocations.
To investigate whether there was a perceived difference in quality of help-
fulness among the three tools, participants’ responses for items 8, 9, 10, and 12
on the Checklist were compiled. Scores on items 8, 9, 10, and 12 were averaged
to tap into their attitudes toward tool helpfulness. Internal consistency of the
questionnaire items was examined by using Cronbach’s alpha (a), yielding an
acceptable alpha coefficient of .81. Descriptive statistics on students’ attitudes
toward tool helpfulness is reported below.
First, WPI had higher mean scores for all four items in the Checklist than for
LDOCE and MCD. Second, LDOCE has the lowest total mean score of three
tools. Third, item 10 had the lowest mean scores for all the tools, whereas the
other questionnaire items (8, 9, 12) had means above 3. A repeated measures
comparison of means was performed using the Friedman test. There was a
statistically significant difference in students’ attitudes toward tool helpfulness
2(2, n = 42) = 7.26, p < 0.05. To find out individual differences, post hoc
analyses with Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were conducted with a Bonferroni
correction applied, resulting in a significance level set at p < 0.017. There was a
statistically significant difference in tool helpfulness between WPI and LDOCE
(Z = 2.43, p = 0.015). Participants thought that WPI was more helpful than
LDOCE for fixing collocation errors. There were no significant differences
between the MCD and LDOCE (Z = 1.00, p = 0.32) or between the MCD
Table 5: Means and standard deviations on attitudes toward tool helpfulness

LDOCE WPI MCD
Quality Review Checklist Items M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
8 Tool helped me fix collocation errors. * 3.30 (0.62) 3.62 (0.62) 3.55 (0.67)
9 Tool always helped me find correct 3.00 (0.83) 3.24 (0.79) 3.31 (0.78)
collocations. *
10 I will use the tool in the future. ** 2.74 (1.06) 3.19 (0.99) 2.69 (1.05)
12 I will recommend the tool to 3.10 (0.98) 3.33 (0.95) 3.24 (0.93)
my friend. **

Total 3.03 (0.71) 3.34 (0.63) 3.19 (0.67)
*4 [Helpful] - 1 [Not Helpful] **4 [Sure] - 1 [Not Sure]
and WPI (Z = 1.55, p = 0.12). Students thought that WPI was more helpful
than LDOCE for fixing collocation errors.
4.1. Students’ insights from the Checklist and Interviews
Qualitative results based on the Checklist and teacher-student interviews are

reported in this section. The results from the questionnaire and interviews
combine to provide insights into the reasons that led students to answer as
they did on the questionnaire and in the interview. The summaries of students’
responses on the questionnaire, as well as insightful interview comments for
each tool, are reported below.
4.1.1 Wordandphrase.info (WPI). Most participants believed that WPI helped them
find correct collocations and were certain (33 out of 42) that they would use the
tool again. Participants who planned to use WPI in the future thought that WPI
was easy to use and helpful for finding correct collocations. They believed that
miscollocations in the tests were easily fixed when they used WPI. Some of these
students pointed out that WPI could be helpful for international students, espe-
cially in their writing projects, because WPI helped them generate collocations for
words with a click of a “search” button (on the website). Also, one student pointed
out that this website could be helpful when a teacher was not available.
A few participants (7 out of 42) expressed concerns about the WPI and
explained why they were unlikely to use WPI in the future. These participants
pointed out that WPI could generate possible collocations, but they were still
not sure which of the generated collocations to choose for their essays.
Sometimes, they did not know which collocation type to choose (e.g. verbs,
nouns, adjectives) and did not know the meaning of the listed collocations. In
addition, participants were concerned about the technological aspects of the
tool. WPI requires a log-in and requires three steps to reach the page that a
learner may use to search for collocations (i.e. type wordandphrase.info, click
on WordAndPhrase from the corpus.byu.edu homepage, and click on

Frequency List).
In sum, some common themes from students’ responses from the interviews
and questionnaire emerged. Generally, they reported that WPI was easy to
navigate and helpful to find collocations as long as they used a noun to
search for possible adjective and verb collocates. They liked the format of
the website because adjectives, nouns, and verbs were listed separately.
A few students also pointed out that it was not convenient to log into the

website. In addition, some of the generated collocations were unknown.
4.1.2 Macmillan collocation dictionary (MCD). Participants expressed both positive

and negative comments about the prospect of using this tool in the future.
Slightly more than half of the participants (24 out of 42) reported that they
were sure to use the tool in the future. Participants expressed a willingness to
use MCD because it helped them improve collocations in their writing and they
thought that it would be helpful in their undergraduate-level writing course:
ENG105 – Critical Reading and Writing in the University Community. The stu-
dents also reported that MCD was useful in learning academic vocabulary, and
that most collocations included definitions and meanings in their entries.
Despite participants’ positive comments about MCD, there were 16 students
who reported that they were not sure whether they would use MCD in the
future, for two reasons. First, they thought that MCD contained too much
unnecessary information; thus, they were often confused about which word/
collocation to choose. Second, they believed that looking up a word in the
MCD took them more time than LDOCE and WPI. They thought that
using an electronic tool would help them find a word faster. Furthermore,
they believed that online tools were practical for looking up collocations,
and were accessible both in terms of price as well as availability in their
home countries.
Overall, those students who favored the MCD pointed out that they strongly
believed that MCD would improve their written collocations. They also
believed that MCD would be useful for distinguishing among collocation
types because the dictionary had sections for different collocation types: adjec-
tives, verbs, prepositions, etc. In addition, some believed that it would help
them improve their academic vocabulary. Those participants had probably
noticed that MCD places an emphasis on the importance of words from the
Academic Word List (AWL) (Coxhead 2000). The dictionary marks AWL
words in red and some students probably noticed this particular feature.
Despite the fact that some participants favored MCD, others did not find it
helpful in general because they had to thumb through the dictionary pages; in
actuality, they thought, especially while writing essays, this would not be prac-
tical. Further, they mentioned the need to carry the heavy dictionary to their
classes. Some participants pointed out that they might not use MCD due to its
format and price (around $40 US as of Spring 2014).
4.1.3 Longman dictionaryofcontemporary English (LDOCE). With regard to LDOCE,

more than half of the participants (28 out of 42) pointed out that the LDOCE
could be helpful for their spelling. In addition, they believed that they might use
LDOCE in the future because it might help them become familiar with the
meanings or definitions of new words. However, one-third of the participants

(14 out of 42) expressed some negative opinions about using LDOCE in the
future. Two reasons were apparent why participants might not use LDOCE in
the future. First, they thought that the website did not contain collocations for
all the target words and they believed that it was difficult to search for collo-
cations on the website due to its interface. Second, students found the adver-
tisements on the LDOCE website distracting.
The students’ questionnaire and interview responses about the LDOCE re-
vealed the following findings. LDOCE was helpful as long as the collocations
were presented in a collocation box. The students did not like LDOCE if it did
not generate a collocation box. They also thought that reading example sen-
tences was not convenient. The students also pointed out that LDOCE was a
good tool for learning new words. However, they also pointed out that some
pop-up advertisements on LDOCE distracted them.
5. Discussion
The effect of the three collocation tools on the correction of miscollocations by

L2 writers was examined. Miscollocations were placed in an essay and bolded;
participants were asked to replace the miscollocations by writing appropriate
collocations after consulting the target tool. The findings indicate that every
time participants took a test, it was a tool that made the difference and which
drove the test scores. Among the tools, the participants produced more correct
collocations when they used LDOCE. The tool that resulted in the second most
correct collocations was WPI. However, there was no statistically significant
difference between the two. Participants produced fewest correct collocations
when they used MCD – a book collocation dictionary.
These findings might have occurred for two reasons. First, a dictionary
format can be a factor in selecting correct collocation choices (Nesi 2010).
LDOCE and WPI are online tools while MCD is a book. Searching for a
correct collocation might be easier in an online platform. While using an
online tool, a student simply has to type a word to find correct collocation
options. However, when consulting a book, a student needs to thumb through
the book pages to find collocations—possibly a lengthy process for many stu-
dents. In the study reported here, participants produced more correct
collocations when they used online tools. Similar findings were found in a study
by Dziemianko (2010), who concluded that paper-based dictionaries were good
for general vocabulary learning, while online tools were effective for colloca-
tion production.
Second, the fact that WPI and LDOCE list fewer collocations might help
dictionary users retrieve more accurate choices from the tools. Both WPI and
LDOCE do not only present fewer collocations, but they also give the most
frequent collocation choices to users. For example, WPI includes the most

frequent collocations generated by the COCA corpus, while LDOCE presents
the most frequent and useful collocations because its primary users are L2
learners and LDOCE is known to be a learner dictionary (see Ranalli and
Nurmukhamedov 2014). Despite the fact that MCD has also been designed
for learners of English and it lists more collocation options than WPI and
LDOCE, it is nevertheless surprising why the usage of MCD resulted in
fewer collocation answers in students’ collocation production. One plausible
reason could be that MCD lists so many collocations for each entry, which
could lead participants to produce inappropriate answers because they might
have been puzzled about which collocation to select from. For example, MCD
lists around 70 adjectives that collocate with aspect, while WPI and LDOCE
each list 10 and 4 adjectives, respectively. Including 70 adjective collocates for a
single word is definitely a luxury, but too many options might also baffle
students, resulting in confusion in their collocation selection. Komuro (2009)
reported that her participants complained that a book collocation dictionary
(Oxford Colocations Dictionary) had too many collocation choices for each
entry and some were synonymous. Thus, participants experienced difficulty in
understanding the nuances of the collocates.
5.1. Attitudes towards tool training
The findings about students’ attitudes toward tool training indicate that there
was no statistically significant difference in participants’ attitudes toward tool
training. If statistically significant differences had been found in students’ at-
titudes toward tool training, it would have meant that they perceived differ-
ences in the training received for each tool. Such a finding would have been a
threat to the internal validity of the study. Another reason for their attitude
toward tool training was that the participants were trained in how to use the
tools and they were generally glad to receive formal tool training. Training can
be a one-shot introductory session or even stretched to multiple 10-minute
sessions, lasting for four months (Hubbard 2005). In the present study, the
participants spent about 75 minutes in training for each tool in the space of
three consecutive sessions. Because the training for each tool followed the same
procedures and the training activities all happened under the teacher-re-
searcher’s supervision, students’ attitudes did not differ regarding training. In
sum, systematic training encompassing form-focused activities seems to be es-

sential in tool-mediated collocation instruction, especially for dictionary refer-
ence skills.
5.2. Issues of navigation and helpfulness of collocation dictionaries by L2 writers.
The study has clearly suggested that tool navigation is a factor that can affect
students’ attitudes toward a tool. The findings from the questionnaire clearly

indicate that participants favored the WPI’s navigation because it had a what-
you-see-is-what-you-get interface—different from MCD and LDOCE diction-
aries. In addition to navigation, WPI was perceived to be more helpful than the
other two collocation tools, LDOCE and MCD, in finding collocations.
Possible reasons could be that WPI listed collocation choices according to
their parts of speech. In addition, the grammatical categories (e.g. verb, adjec-
tive, noun) were easy to notice because they were in boldface. Since students
had to supply verb and adjective collocations in classroom exercises and on
tests, boldfaced collocation categories were probably visually easy to capture.
Furthermore, students’ positive attitudes toward WPI may also have led them
to perform better on the test. It is hypothesized that learners’ willingness to use
a dictionary might be very much affected by its format (Nesi 2010). The par-
ticipants might have preferred WPI’s format, which could have led them to use
the WPI more effectively.
LDOCE was rated as the least preferred dictionary in terms of navigation
and helpfulness among the three tools. However, L2 writers made more collo-
cation corrections when they used online tools, namely LDOCE and WPI. It is
interesting to note that students’ attitudes toward LDOCE regarding helpful-
ness and their actual performance during the collocation tests contradict each
other. Participants might have thought of LDOCE negatively because LDOCE
was not a collocation dictionary; rather, it was a learner dictionary with col-
locations presented in special boxes or example sentences. Unlike WPI and
MCD, in LDOCE, some collocations were listed in collocation boxes while
others were available only in example sentences. Thus, finding a plausible col-
location in LDOCE was not necessarily an easy process; a student had to type a
key word, find the correct part of speech, read the definition(s), and pay at-
tention to the lists of collocations in the collocation box. If a collocation box
was not provided for the key word, the student had to read an example sen-
tence(s), and then determine whether the example sentence(s) contained a
plausible collocation choice or not. Browsing through an example sentence(s)
obviously required reading. Some students might not have opted to read
example sentences in search of collocations due to factors such as time, laziness
or fatigue. It is also evident that some learners do not pay attention to collo-
cations in example sentences (Laufer 2011).
6. Limitations
The study has limitations: only two of them will be addressed. First, it was
assumed that learners had understood the content of the essay-format collo-
cation test. It is possible that learners did not read through the text. Another
scenario is that they might have read the text but failed to understand some of
it. To help participants understand the text, the researcher should have added
around five to seven reading comprehension questions at the end of the text.
Before participants revised miscollocations, they should have answered the

comprehension questions. This would have ensured the teacher-researcher
that participants had comprehended most of the text. It might have contributed
to more successful collocation corrections. Second, it was assumed that learners
used the tool when they revised miscollocations in the essay-format collocation
tests. There was no control for whether or not participants used one of the
designated tools during the task. The teacher-researcher walked around the
classroom to encourage participants to take advantage of the tools. It is
quite possible that participants did not take advantage of the tool(s) to
revise some miscollocations; instead, they might have simply opted to use
their background knowledge. To address this issue, researchers can ask par-
ticipants to indicate on a piece of paper whether they have used a tool to
replace miscollocations or have used screen recording software to record
how or to what extent they have used online collocation tools to revise mis-
collocations (see Ranalli 2013 for discussion). Researchers might also consider
doing think-aloud protocol sessions to gain better insights whether students
actually take advantage of a tool during the task.
7. Concluding remarks
Online collocation tools were more effective in making successful collocation

corrections than was the book collocation dictionary. The students obtained
higher scores when they used the online tools, namely LDOCE and WPI. This
means that L2 writers benefitted more from LDOCE and WPI than MCD
because the online collocation tools offered useful collocation choices for L2
writers, thereby meeting their productive collocation needs. Both WPI and
LDOCE resulted in accurate collocation responses on the tests. When the
participants used MCD, they made fewer accurate corrections than when con-
sulting WPI, and their mean scores for MCD were lower than LDOCE. In sum,
L2 writers, especially upper-intermediate to advanced learners, need to be
aware of collocations resources. Even if collocations are explicitly taught
through books and other materials, L2 writers will not be exposed to all the
useful collocations that the English language offers. These writers might even-
tually forget nouns that require verbs, adjectives, nouns, and prepositions.
Acknowledgment
I am grateful for the support of the Macmillan Publishing Company and

AZ-TESOL, which helped to purchase the MCD dictionaries for this project.
In addition, I would like to thank the student participants and administrators
of the Program in Intensive English at Northern Arizona University. Also, I
am indebted to my committee members, William Grabe, Joan Jamieson,
Fredricka Stoller and Randall Sadler, for their constructive and supportive
supervision. Special thanks go to three anonymous reviewers for their incisive

feedback on the earlier drafts of this manuscript.
Notes
1 The test items on the tests were wrong/awkward collocations (miscollocations). The
test items were derived from two sources. First, the researcher identified miscollocations
from students’ essays written during previous semesters. Second, the researcher devised
wrong/awkward verb or adjective collocates based on his background knowledge and
sample miscollocations identified in early studies (e.g., Fan, 2009; Laufer, 2011). A
wrong collocate was selected for the noun. For example, the following collocations,
make a decision and widespread belief, are correct collocations. The researcher chose an
incorrect verb, solve, for decision (solve a decision) and an incorrect collocate, long for
belief (long belief). These miscollocations were checked using the MI score feature of the
COCA corpus. The items embedded in the tests were found to have negative MI scores.
There is a lexical repulsion (Renouf & Banerjee, 2007) between these words, that is, these
words do not demonstrate any association. Negative MI scores meant that distracters
had incorrect collocations. In addition, the list of miscollocations was checked using the
combined intuition of two raters (native speakers of American English) who had MA
TESL degrees from the USA and a minimum of 3 three years of teaching experience.
References
A. Dictionaries
Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English [Online dictionary]. Essex, UK: Pearson.
Gibson, C. 2003. Longman Collocation Dictionary & Thesaurus. Harlow: Pearson.
Crowther, J. Dignen, S. and D. Lea. 2009. Oxford Collocations Dictionary for Students of
English. Oxford: Oxford University Press. (OCD)
Rundell, M. 2010. Macmillan Collocations Dictionary for Learners of English. Oxford:
Macmillan Publishers.
B. Other literature
Canning, N. 2014. ‘Corpora in the Language Classroom: A Guide to Usage.’ Language,
Individual & Society 8: 16–29.
Chan, T. and H. Liou. 2005. ‘Effects of web-based concordancing instruction on EFL
students’ learning of verb-noun collocations.’ Computer-Assisted Language Learning
18: 231–250.
Chon, Y. 2008. ‘The Electronic Dictionary for Writing: A Solution or a Problem?’
International Journal of Lexicography 22: 23-54.
Coxhead, A. 2000. ‘A New Academic Word List.’ TESOL Quarterly 34: 213–238.
Daskalovska, N. 2015. ‘Corpus-based versus Traditional Learning Collocations.’

Computer-Assisted Language Learning 28: 130–144.
Dziemianko, A. 2010. ‘Paper or Electronic? The Role of Dictionary Form in Language
Reception, Production and the Retention of Meaning and Collocations.’ International
Journal of Lexicography 23: 257–273.
Dziemianko, A. 2014. ‘On the Presentation and Placement of Collocations in
Monolingual English Learners’ Dictionaries: Insights into Encoding and
Retention.’ International Journal of Lexicography 27: 259–279.
Fan, M. 2009. ‘An Exploratory Study of Collocational Use by ESL Students: A Task
Based Approach.’ System 37: 110–123.

Gao, J. 2013. ‘Basic Cognitive Experiences and Definitions in the Longman Dictionary
of Contemporary English.’ International Journal of Lexicography 26: 58–89.
Geluso, J. and A. Yamaguchi. 2014. ‘Discovering Formulaic Language Through Data-
driven Learning: Student Attitudes and Efficacy.’ ReCALL 26: 225–242.
Groom, N. 2009. ‘Effects of Second Language Immersion on Second Language
Collocational Development.’ In Barfield, A. and H. Gyllstad (eds), Researching
Collocations in Another Language: Multiple Interpretations. Basingstoke: Palgrave
Macmillan, 21–33.
Henriksen, B. 2013. ‘Research on L2 Learners’ Collocational Competence and
Development – A Progress Report [Monograph].’ EUROSLA Monograph Series 2:
29–56.
Hubbard, P. 2013. ‘Making a Case for Learner Training in Technology Enhanced
Language Learning Environments.’ CALICO Journal 30: 163–178.
Hubbard, P. 2005. ‘A Review of Subject Characteristics in CALL Research.’ Computer
Assisted Language Learning 18: 351–368.
Jiang, J. 2009. ‘Designing Pedagogic Materials to Improve Awareness and Productive
Use of L2 Collocations.’ In Barfield. A. and H. Gyllstad (eds), Researching
Collocations in Another Language: Multiple Interpretations. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan, 99–113.
Komuro, Y. 2009. ‘Japanese Learners’ Collocation Dictionary Retrieval Performance.’
In Barfield, A. and H. Gyllstad (eds.), Researching Collocations in Another Language:
Multiple Interpretations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 86–98.
Laufer, B. 2011. ‘The Ccontribution of Dictionary Use to the Production and Retention
of Collocations in a Second Language.’ International Journal of Lexicography 24:
29–49.
Lew, R. and M. Galas. 2008. ‘Can Dictionary Skills be Taught? The Effectiveness of
Lexicographic Training for Primary-school-level Polish Learners of English.’ In
Bernal, E and J. DeCesaris (eds), Proceedings of the XIII EURALEX international
congress. Barcelona, Spain: Universitat Pompeu Fabra, 1273–1285.
Lew, R. and M. Radlowska. 2010. ‘Navigating Dictionary Space: The Findability of
English Collocations in a General Learner’s Dictionary (LDOCE4) and Special-
Purpose Dictionary of Collocations (OCD).’ In Andrzej Ciuk and Katarzyna
Molek-Kozakowska (eds), Exploring Space: Spatial Notions in Cultural, Literary
and Language Studies; Volume 2: Space in Language Studies. Newcastle upon Tyne:
Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 34–47.
McGee, I. 2012. ‘Collocation Dictionaries as Inductive Learning Resources in Data-
driven Learning: An Analysis and Evaluation.’ International Journal of Lexicography
25: 319–361.
Nation, P. and S. Webb. 2011. Researching and Analyzing Vocabulary. Boston: Heinle
Cengage.
Nesi, H. 2010. ‘Dictionary in Electronic Form.’ In Granger, S. and M. Paquot (eds),
Electronic Lexicography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 458–478.
Nesselhauf, N. 2003. ‘The Use of Collocations by Advanced Learners of English and
Some Implications for Teaching.’ Applied Linguistics 24: 223–242.
Ranalli, J. 2013. ‘Designing Online Strategy Instruction for Integrated Vocabulary
Depth of Knowledge and Web-based Dictionary Skills.’ CALICO Journal 30: 16–43.
Ranalli, J. and U. Nurmukhamedov, 2014. ‘Learner Dictionaries.’ In Chapelle C. (ed),
The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. London: Wiley-Blackwell, 1–6.

Renouf, A. and J. Banerjee. 2007. ‘Lexical Repulsion between Sense-Related Pairs.’
International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 12: 415–443.
Subkoviak, M. 1988. ‘A Practitioner’s Guide to Computation and Interpretation of
Reliability Indices for Mastery Tests.’ Journal of Educational Measurement 25: 47–55.
Tsai, K. 2015. ‘Profiling the Collocation Use in ELT Textbooks and Learner Writing.’
Language Teaching Research 19: 723–740.
Appendix 1: Practice Activities
Exercise 1 Use the tool to find one verb collocation and one adjective collo-
cation for each noun listed. The first example word, language, was done for
you. The teacher will demonstrate the strategies he used to find the collocations
for language.
Example:
Noun Verb Adjective

language speak foreign
Noun Verb Adjective

1. child
2. argument
3. project
Exercise 2 Use the tool to fix the wrong/awkward collocations (bolded) in

the sentences. Write the correct collocation inside the brackets. One example
was done for you.
Pay attention to parts of speech and collocation meaning(s).
Example: She answers her responsibility as a nurse very seriously. [answer:
takes]
(1) The scandal is expected to throw the headlines tomorro-

w. [answer: _______________]
(2) Harry is planning to study law at the university, but he may differ his
mind. [answer: _______________]
(3) The high cause of the problem was an oil leak
[answer: _______________]
(4) Do you have time for a tiny chat about the composition
class?

[answer: _______________]
Exercise 3 Read the two short paragraphs and use the tool to fix the wrong/
awkward collocations (bolded). Write down your answers in the Revised
Collocations box.
A. Bella’s Job
Bella has a job as a personal assistant. Basically her role is to (1) give charge
of her boss’s schedule, who is not a very organized person, and make sure
nothing goes wrong. She schedules appointments for her boss and she makes
sure that he keeps his appointments. When her boss has to travel, she (2) does
reservations for him. This month, she has a really (3) strong workload.
WRONG Collocations REVISED Collocations
1. give charge
2. does reservations
3. strong workload
B. Henry’s Job
Over the years, Henry has (1) bought the respect of his colleagues, and now,
as he retires, we all hope he can enjoy the fruits of his many years of hard work.
His career has been a (2) nice success, and he has (3) done enormous contribu-
tions to our profession. Thank you from all of us.
1. bought the respect

2. nice success
3. done . . . contributions
Exercise 4 What is the best and most efficient way to travel? This short essay
will teach you how to travel without using a lot of money. There are 6 bolded
wrong/awkward collocations (3 verbs and 3 adjectives) in the paragraphs
below. Use the tool to fix these problems. Write down your answers in the
Revised Collocations box.
Do you think you cannot travel because you are on a (1) closed budget? It is
certainly possible to travel cheaply, but you need to use the Internet to carry out

some basic research first. There are thousands of sites providing a wealth of infor-
mation on budget travel, and you will find all sorts of (2) kind hints on how to have
a great time without spending too much money. Even better, if you know someone
who has been to the area you are interested in, talk to him or her. They may be able
to (3) do recommendations about places to stay and things to do.
If you plan to travel somewhere very remote, it is best to (4) set advice from
someone who knows the area well. If you need any (5) wealthy information,
online message boards can be very useful. Some travel agents can (6) write
guidance on specialist holidays such as wildlife or archeological tours. Agents
will help you to make an informed decision about the best ones to choose.
1. closed budget
2. kind hints
3. do recommendations
4. set advice
5. wealthy information
6. write guidance
Appendix 2: COLLOCATION TEST #1
Directions
The essay below discusses the advantages of studying in a foreign country.
These advantages are as follows: learn a second language, become an indepen-
dent person, and make many friends.
There are 16 bolded wrong/awkward collocations in the paragraphs below: 8
verb + noun collocations and 8 adjective + noun collocations. Use the col-
location tool to fix these problems. Write down your answers in the Revised
Collocations box in the Test Reporting Sheet.
Keep in mind the following strategies while looking for collocations:
(1) Read collocation boxes and example sentences to find collocations.

(2) Pay attention to the parts of speech (verb or adjective).
(3) Pay attention to the meaning of the collocations that you find.
== START THE TEST ==

You have 30 minutes to complete the test

Not all people have the chance to study in another country. When students
in Kuwait finish high school, they need to (1) solve a decision: what should I do
next? Most of them decide to go abroad to study because they believe that
study abroad could have a (2) fantastic role in their future career. In addition,
most parents believe that study abroad can have a (3) nice impact on their
children. Both students and their parents strongly believe that study abroad
experiences (4) arrange a student’s future. In my opinion, there are many other
reasons why studying in a foreign country could be important.
First, study abroad is a (5) cool chance to learn a second language.
Everybody in the environment speaks this language; thus, this could be the
most (6) awesome method to improve your second language skills. You need to
read, write, listen, and speak a foreign language in order to survive in a new
environment. For instance, I am studying in the United States now. During my
first two weeks, I had (7) heavy difficulty in understanding when I talked to
native speakers of English. Because I started taking English classes, I was able
to (8) lift English skills. That is why I strongly believe that study abroad is the
best way to learn a foreign language.
Second, students can (9) raise experience and become more independent.
There is a (10) long belief that a person who studies abroad will learn about
himself. Study abroad will definitely (11) draw your horizon. While living
abroad, a student will learn about his/her traditional, cultural, and religious
values, and be able to strengthen these values. In addition, it can teach us how
to be responsible. Before I came to the United States, I could not do anything
without my father; he helped me with everything. However, since I came here, I
decided to (12) catch responsibility for my everyday life. At the beginning, it
was so hard, but I gradually got used to it.
Third, you will make many friends from all over the world. When I studied
at San Diego State University, I met people from Turkey, China, France, and
Sweden; they all became my friends. In the (13) close future, my friend from
Turkey and I are planning to (14) fly a business together. In US universities,
you will also meet and talk with some of the greatest scientists in the world.
Meeting and talking to these scientists can be a (15) lonely opportunity in your
life. Study abroad can give the person memorable experiences. I strongly
believe that study abroad will help you (16) earn your goal.
Appendix 3: TEST REPORTING SHEET #1
# WRONG collocations REVISED collocations

1. solve decision
2. fantastic role
3. nice impact
4. arrange future
5. cool chance
6. awesome method
7. heavy difficulty
8. lift skills
9. raise experience
10. long belief
11. draw horizon
12. catch responsibility
13. close future
14. fly a business
15. lonely opportunity
16. earn goal
Appendix 4: Quality Review Checklist for Longman Dictionary of Contemporary

English
Directions: Please respond by CIRCLING or WRITING the most appropriate

answer. There are no right or wrong answers. Be honest about your
experience.
1. The information in the YouTube video tutorial helped me understand the

Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English website.
4 3 2 1
Helpful Not Helpful
2. The YouTube video helped me finish the in-class practice activities.
4 3 2 1
Helpful Not Helpful
3. The in-class practice activities helped me learn how to find collocations

using the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English.
4 3 2 1

Helpful Not Helpful
4. The in-class practice activities were helpful because they taught me how
to fix wrong collocations using the Longman Dictionary of
Contemporary English.
4 3 2 1
Helpful Not Helpful
5. The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English website was easy to

use.
4 3 2 1
Easy Difficult
6. The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English website was difficult

to navigate (search, find) to look for correct collocations?
4 3 2 1
Easy Difficult
7. I was frustrated when I used the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary

English website.
4 3 2 1
Not Frustrated Very Frustrated
8. The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English website helped me fix

collocation errors in my essay.
4 3 2 1
Very Helpful Not Helpful
see other side !

9. The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English website was always

helpful because I found correct collocations when I searched a word.
4 3 2 1
Always Not Always
10. In the future, I am sure that I will use the Longman Dictionary of
Contemporary English website.

4 3 2 1
Sure Not Sure
11. Based on your response to question 10, please write your reason(s) from
one to three sentences below.
Sure. Why?
————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————
Not Sure. Why not?
————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————
————————————————————————————
12. I am sure that I will recommend the Longman Dictionary of
Contemporary English website to my friend.
4 3 2 1
Sure Not Sure

Collocation Tools

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Collocation Tools

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Collocation Tools

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

International Journal of Lexicography, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp.

Ulugbek Nurmukhamedov: TESOL Program, Northeastern Illinois University, Chicago

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/30/4/454/2555491 by guest on 06 January 2022

L2 writers of English (N = 45) in an intensive English program in the southwestern part

# 2016 Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/30/4/454/2555491 by guest on 06 January 2022

(a collocation dictionary) – to determine which would help university-level

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/30/4/454/2555491 by guest on 06 January 2022

were presented in bold before examples or bold within examples. In terms of

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/30/4/454/2555491 by guest on 06 January 2022

The overall number of participants (N = 45) comprised three intact ESL

of 45 decided to complete the demographic questionnaire. There were 26 male

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/30/4/454/2555491 by guest on 06 January 2022

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/30/4/454/2555491 by guest on 06 January 2022

Figure 2: Example sentence for opportunity and its collocates in LDOCE.

collocations by reading example sentences, especially in cases where a colloca-

Figure 3: An illustration of damage in wordandphase.info.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/30/4/454/2555491 by guest on 06 January 2022

word, sentence, and short paragraph to long-paragraph collocation exercises

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/30/4/454/2555491 by guest on 06 January 2022

. Search for a word in a tool;

3.2.3 Instruments. Three data-collection instruments were utilized in the study:

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/30/4/454/2555491 by guest on 06 January 2022

3.3. Study Design

Table 1: Descriptive statistics (Means and SD) of collocation correction by

LDOCE MCD WPI

10.69 (2.43) 8.44 (2.31) 10.58 (2.15)

Note. The maximum score was 16.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/30/4/454/2555491 by guest on 06 January 2022

In order to examine the effectiveness of a tool on the collocation corrections,

Table 2: A Repeated Measures ANOVA for 3X3 Latin Square Design

Variable and source SS df MS F p

Group 15.61 2 7.80 1.47 .23

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/30/4/454/2555491 by guest on 06 January 2022

Table 3: Means and standard deviations on attitudes toward tool training

Quality Review LDOCE WPI MCD

1 YouTube video was 3.73 (0.50) 3.71 (0.45) 3.70 (0.46)

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/30/4/454/2555491 by guest on 06 January 2022

4 [Helpful] - 1 [Not Helpful]

Table 4: Means and standard deviations on attitudes toward tool navigation

Quality Review LDOCE WPI MCD

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/30/4/454/2555491 by guest on 06 January 2022

*4 [Easy] - 1 [Difficult] order of responses reversed from 5 and 6 **4 [Not

and LDOCE (Z = 1.521, p = 0.128) or between the MCD and WPI

Table 5: Means and standard deviations on attitudes toward tool helpfulness

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/30/4/454/2555491 by guest on 06 January 2022

*4 [Helpful] - 1 [Not Helpful] **4 [Sure] - 1 [Not Sure]

4.1. Students’ insights from the Checklist and Interviews

Qualitative results based on the Checklist and teacher-student interviews are

on WordAndPhrase from the corpus.byu.edu homepage, and click on

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/30/4/454/2555491 by guest on 06 January 2022

4.1.2 Macmillan collocation dictionary (MCD). Participants expressed both positive

4.1.3 Longman dictionaryofcontemporary English (LDOCE). With regard to LDOCE,

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/30/4/454/2555491 by guest on 06 January 2022

The effect of the three collocation tools on the correction of miscollocations by

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/30/4/454/2555491 by guest on 06 January 2022

5.1. Attitudes towards tool training

sum, systematic training encompassing form-focused activities seems to be es-

5.2. Issues of navigation and helpfulness of collocation dictionaries by L2 writers.

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ijl/article/30/4/454/2555491 by guest on 06 January 2022