研究普遍顯示，語料驅動學習可促進單字習得及記憶；然而，該學習模式仍有部份限制：推論過程所產生之困難及所耗費之大量時間。研究呼籲語料驅動學習應與傳統教學法結合，以彌補語料驅動學習之限制，但僅有少量研究響應該呼籲。為解決上述限制，本研究將語料驅動學習與傳統教學法所使用之演繹法做結合，並比較語料驅動學習環境下，演繹法及歸納法對單字習得及記憶之成效。此外，少量研究發現教學法（即歸納法及演繹法）與語言能力間相互衝突的互動效果。由於少量且相互衝突的研究結果、且單字量可能對使用歸納法語料驅動學習之學習者產生影響，本研究調查教學法與單字量間的互動效果對單字習得及記憶之影響。
二十七名具中高閱讀能力或以上的受試者，根據其單字量大小，被平均分佈至歸納法語料驅動學習組及演繹法語料驅動學習組，並接受改良過的字彙知識量表作為前測、立即後測及延期後測，以評估兩種教學法的習得及記憶成效。
結果顯示，語料驅動學習環境下，歸納法及演繹法皆可促進學習者對單字的習得及記憶，但兩種教學法在單字習得及記憶上沒有顯著差異。此外，演繹法在單字習得上較有效率。再者，語料驅動學習環境中，單字量及教學法在單字習得與記憶上沒有顯著互動。
結果顯示，演繹法語料驅動學習對單字習得有效果，且有效率，其表示該方式不僅保有歸納法語料驅動學習的優點，並改善歸納法語料驅動學習的缺點。本研究鼓勵英文老師採用演繹法語料驅動學習，促進學生單字習得。

Research on data-driven learning (DDL) has generally suggested that DDL can facilitate vocabulary acquisition (Bernhardt & Ellis, 1993; Gardner, 2013; Johns, 1991; Nation, 2001; Schmitt, 2000) and retention (Craik & Lockhart, 1972); however it still has some limitations: the difficulties and a great amount of time needed to make an inference. A call for a combination of DDL and the traditional teaching approach to compensate for the limitations was proposed (Balunda, 2009; Boulton, 2010; Chambers, 2007; Chan & Liou, 2005; Cobb & Boulton, 2014), but few studies (Kaur & Hegelheimer, 2005; Lin & Lee, 2015) have answered the call. To address aforementioned limitations, the current study combined DDL with the deductive approach employed in the traditional teaching approach and compared the effect of the deductive and inductive approach under DDL context on vocabulary acquisition and retention. Additionally, conflicting interaction effect between teaching approach (i.e. the inductive and deductive approach) and language proficiency was found by few studies (Eriksson, 2014; Shaffer, 1989; Wang, 2002). Because of the few and conflicting findings and the high possibility for vocabulary size to influence inductive DDL learners’ vocabulary acquisition, the present study examined the interaction effect between teaching approach and learners' vocabulary size on vocabulary acquisition and retention.
Twenty-seven (N=27) participants with high-intermediate reading proficiency or above were equally distributed into the inductive and deductive DDL group based on their large or small vocabulary size, and then received the modified VKS delivered as the pretest, immediate posttest, and delayed posttest to assess the acquisition and retention effect of two teaching approaches.
The results showed that both the inductive and deductive approaches were effective to facilitate learners' vocabulary acquisition and retention under DDL context, but the no significant differences were found in vocabulary acquisition and retention between the two teaching approaches. Additionally, the deductive approach appeared to be more efficient in vocabulary acquisition. Furthermore, no significant interaction was found between vocabulary size and teaching approach on vocabulary acquisition and retention in DDL context.
The results that deductive DDL was effective and efficient in vocabulary acquisition suggested it not merely maintained the advantages of inductive DDL, but also improved the limitations of it. EFL teachers are encouraged to adopt the deductive DDL to facilitate learners' vocabulary acquisition.

摘要 i
ABSTRACT ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS iv
LIST OF TABLES vii
LIST OF FIGURES x
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW 3
2.1 Vocabulary 3
2.1.1 Word knowledge 3
2.1.1.1 What is involved in knowing a word 3
2.1.1.2 Multiple meanings of a word 5
2.1.1.3 Collocation of a word 5
2.1.2 Essential elements in vocabulary instruction 8
2.1.3 The Vocabulary Knowledge Scale 9
2.1.3.1 Studies employing the VKS 11
2.1.3.2 Limitations of the VKS 14
2.2 Data-driven learning (DDL) 14
2.2.1 Corpora 15
2.2.2 Data-driven learning (DDL) 16
2.2.3 The main element in DDL 18
2.2.4 DDL studies 19
2.2.4.1 The treatment design of DDL 19
2.2.4.2 The target of instruction 22
2.2.4.3 Instruments used to measure effect of DDL on vocabulary 22
2.2.4.4 The results of DDL studies 23
2.2.4.5 Limitations of DDL studies 27
2.3 The inductive approach and deductive approach 29
2.3.1 Theories underlying the inductive approach and deductive approach 31
2.3.2 Studies that compare the inductive approach and deductive approach 32
2.3.3 Studies that examine the inductive and deductive approach under DDL environment 35
2.3.3.1 Inductive DDL approach alone 36
2.3.3.2 Inductive DDL approach vs. Deductive approach 36
2.3.3.3 Inductive DDL approach vs. Inductive plus Deductive DDL approach 37
2.3.3.4 Inductive DDL approach vs. Deductive DDL approach 37
2.3.4 Studies that examine the interaction between learner proficiency and the inductive and deductive approach 38
2.4 Conclusion 39
2.5 Definition of terms 40
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD 41
3.1 Participants 41
3.2 Instructional materials 41
3.2.1 Target words 41
3.2.2 Word list 44
3.2.3 Guide pamphlet of corpora 50
3.2.4 Instructional manual of COCA 51
3.2.1 Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) 52
3.3 Treatment groups 53
3.4 Treatments 53
3.4.1 Principle to design inductive and deductive DDL groups' worksheets and treatments 53
3.4.2 Worksheets 55
3.4.3 Treatments 55
3.4.3.1 The inductive DDL group 55
3.4.3.2 The deductive DDL group 56
3.5 Instruments 57
3.5.1 Pretest, immediate posttest, delayed posttest 57
3.5.2 Vocabulary size test 68
3.6 Experimental procedures 69
CHAPTER IV RESULTS 72
4.1 The effect of inductive and deductive DDL on learners' vocabulary acquisition and retention (RQ1) 72
4.2 Exploratory analysis: the change of vocabulary knowledge for inductive and deductive DDL groups (RQ2) 74
4.3 The effect of teaching approach and vocabulary size on learners' vocabulary acquisition and retention (RQ3) 84
CHAPTER V DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION 91
5.1 The effect of teaching approaches 91
5.1.1 Differences in the effect of the inductive and deductive approach on vocabulary acquisition and retention 91
5.1.2 The effect of inductive and deductive approach on vocabulary knowledge change 93
5.1.3 Interaction of teaching approach and vocabulary size on vocabulary acquisition and retention 98
5.2 Critique of the modified VKS 99
5.3 Conclusion 100
REFERENCES 103
Appendix A The Instruction Manual of the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) (English version) 113
Appendix B The Instruction Manual of the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) (Chinese version) 116
Appendix C The Guide Pamphlet of Corpora 119
Appendix D The Vocabulary Learning Worksheet for the Inductive DDL Group (English version) 132
Appendix E The Vocabulary Learning Worksheet for the Deductive DDL Group (English version) 138
Appendix F The Vocabulary Learning Worksheet for the Inductive DDL Group (Chinese version) 141
Appendix G The Vocabulary Learning Worksheet for the Deductive DDL Group (Chinses version) 146

AbuSeileek, A. F. (2009). The effect of using an online-based course on the learning of grammar inductively and deductively. ReCALL, 21(03), 319-336.
Allahyar, N., & Ramezanpour, S. (2011). No extreme any more, strike a balance. Asian Social Science, 7(5), 240.
Allan, Q. G. (1999). Enhancing the language awareness of Hong Kong teachers through corpus data: The Telenex experience. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 7, 57-74.
Alzu’bi, M. A. (2015). Effectiveness of Inductive and Deductive Methods in Teaching Grammar. Advances in Language and Literary Studies, 6(2), 187-193.
Anani Sarab, M. R., & Kardoust, A. (2014). Concordance-Based Data-Driven Learning Activities and Learning English Phrasal Verbs in EFL Classrooms. Issues in Language Teaching, 3(1), 112-189.
Ausubel, D. P., Novak, J. D., & Hanesian, H. (1968). Educational psychology: A cognitive view.
Balunda, S. A. (2009). Teaching academic vocabulary with corpora: Student perceptions of data-driven learning. faculty of the University Graduate School in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Arts in the Department of English, Indiana University.
Bennett, G. R. (2010). Using corpora in the language learning classroom: Corpus linguistics for teachers: University of Michigan Press Ann Arbor, Mich.
Benson, M., Benson, E., & Ilson, R. (1997). The BBI dictionary of English word combinations: John Benjamins Pub. Co.
Berendse, E. (2012). A comparison between the effectiveness of inductive and deductive instruction in the L2 English classroom in a L1 Dutch environment.
Bernhardt, E. B., & Ellis, R. (1993). Second Language Acquisition and Language Pedagogy: JSTOR.
Bialystok, E. (1983). Inferencing: Testing the “hypothesis-testing” hypothesis. Classroom oriented research in second language acquisition, 104-123.
Binh, T. T., & Lan, N. T. H. (2013). The use of inductive consciousness-raising activities in promoting English use and improving grammatical knowledge. Jurnal of Science and Technology UD, 2(63), 2013.
Boulton, A. (2009). Testing the limits of data-driven learning: language proficiency and training. ReCALL, 21(1), 37-54.
Boulton, A. (2010). Data‐driven learning: Taking the computer out of the equation. Language Learning, 60(3), 534-572.
Boulton, A. (2011). Data-driven learning: the perpetual enigma. Explorations across languages and corpora, 563-580.
Breyer, Y. (2011). Corpora in Language Teaching and Learning. Potential, Evaluation, Challenges. Collection: English Corpus Linguistics, 13.
Bruner, J. S. (1961). The act of discovery. Harvard educational review.
Bruner, J. S. (1973). Beyond the information given: Studies in the psychology of knowing: WW Norton.
Bruton, A. (2009). The vocabulary knowledge scale: A critical analysis. Language Assessment Quarterly, 6(4), 288-297.
Chambers, A. (2007). Popularising corpus consultation by language learners and teachers. Language and Computers, 61(1), 3-16.
Chan, T. P. (2004). Effects of CALL approaches on EFL college students’ learning of verb-noun collocations. Unpublished master’s thesis). National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan.
Chan, T. P., & Liou, H. C. (2005). Effects of web-based concordancing instruction on EFL students' learning of verb–noun collocations. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 18(3), 231-251.
Chen, C. C. (1979). An error analysis of English compositions written by Chinese college students in Taiwan. University of Texas at Austin.
Chen, J. H. (2004). Interference of L1 on L2 in College Students’ Writing: A case study of Chinese EFL Learners in Taiwan. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, Fu Jen Catholic University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chen, M. H. (2008). A study of the English collocation competence of college students in Taiwan. Unpublished MA Thesis, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology.
Chen, P. C. (2002). A corpus-based study of the collocational errors in the writings of the EFL learners in Taiwan. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Taiwan Normal University, Taipei.
Cheng, W. (2011). Exploring corpus linguistics: Language in action: Routledge.
Cho, Y. A., & Ma, J. H. (2012). The Effects of Differential Instruction and Learning Styles of Low-level L2 College Students’ Grammar Acquistition. 어학연구, 48(1), 149-174.
Chujo, K., Anthony, L., Oghigian, K., & Uchibori, A. (2012). Paper-based, computer-based, and combined data-driven learning using a web-based concordancer. Language Education in Asia, 3(2), 132-145.
Clear, J. (1993). From Firth principles: Computational tools for the study of collocation. M. Baker, G. Francis & E. Tognini-Bonelli (eds.), 271-292.
Clifton, J., & Phillips, D. (2006). Ensuring High Surrender Value for Corporate Clients and Increasing the Authority of the Language Instructor: The Dividends of a Data-Driven Lexical Approach to ESP. The Journal of Language for International Business, 17(2), 72.
Cobb, T. (1999). Breadth and depth of lexical acquisition with hands-on concordancing. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 12(4), 345-360.
Cobb, T., & Boulton, A. (2014). Classroom applications of corpus analysis. Cambridge Handbook of Corpus Linguistics, XX-XX.
Craik, F. I., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior, 11(6), 671-684.
Cresswell, A. (2007). Getting to'know'connectors? Evaluating data-driven learning in a writing skills course. Language and Computers, 61(1), 267-287.
Culligan, B. (2015). A comparison of three test formats to assess word difficulty. Language Testing, 32(4), 503-520.
Davies, M. (2008). The corpus of contemporary American English: BYE, Brigham Young University.
De La Fuente, M. J. (2002). Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2 vocabulary. Studies in second language acquisition, 24(01), 81-112.
Decoo, W. (1996). The induction-deduction opposition: Ambiguities and complexities of the didactic reality. IRAL-International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching, 34(2), 95-118.
DeKeyser, R. M. (1994). Implicit and explicit learning of L2 grammar: A pilot study. TESOL Quarterly, 28(1), 188-194.
DeKeyser, R. M. (1995). Learning second language grammar rules. Studies in second language acquisition, 17(03), 379-410.
Dewey, D. P. (2008). Japanese Vocabulary Acquisition by Learners in Three Contexts. Frontiers: The Interdisciplinary Journal of Study Abroad, 15, 127-148.
Ebbinghaus, H. (1913). Memory: A contribution to experimental psychology: University Microfilms.
Ellis, N. C. (2011). Implicit and explicit SLA and their interface. Implicit and explicit language learning, 35-47.
Ellis, R. (2008). 31 Explicit Form-Focused Instruction and Second Language Acquisition. The handbook of educational linguistics, 437.
Eriksson, L. (2014). The Effectiveness of Modified Inductive Versus Deductive Teaching: A case study on word order amongst a group of English as a foreign language learners.
Erlam, R. (2003). The effects of deductive and inductive instruction on the acquisition of direct object pronouns in French as a second language. The Modern Language Journal, 87(2), 242-260.
Eskey, D. E. (1973). A model program for teaching advanced reading to students of English as a foreign language. Language Learning, 23(2), 169-184.
Evert, S., & Krenn, B. (2001). Methods for the qualitative evaluation of lexical association measures. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 39th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics.
Ferris, D. (2009). Teaching college writing to diverse student populations: University of Michigan Press.
File, K. A., & Adams, R. (2010). Should vocabulary instruction be integrated or isolated? TESOL Quarterly, 44(2), 222-249.
Fischer, R. A. (1979). The inductive‐deductive controversy revisited. The Modern Language Journal, 63(3), 98-105.
Flowerdew, L. (2011). Corpora and language education: Palgrave Macmillan.
Folse, K. S. (2004). Vocabulary myths: Applying second language research to classroom teaching: University of Michigan Press Ann Arbor, MI.
Folse, K. S. (2006). The effect of type of written exercise on L2 vocabulary retention. TESOL Quarterly, 40(2), 273-293.
Francis, W. N. (1982). Problems of assembling and computerizing large corpora: na.
Götz, S. (2012). Testing Task Types in Data-Driven Learning: Benefits and Limitations1. Aufgaben 2.0: Konzepte, Materialien und Methoden für das Fremdsprachenlehren und-lernen mit digitalen Medien, 249.
Gardner, D. (2013). Exploring vocabulary: language in action: Routledge.
Ghorbani, M., & Younesi, H. (2013). Evaluating the Effectiveness of Deductive and Inductive Form-Focused In-struction on Iranian EFL Learners' Implicit and Explicit Knowledge of Non-Generic Definite Article.
Greene, R. L. (1989). Spacing effects in memory: Evidence for a two-process account. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15(3), 371.
Haight, C. E., Herron, C., & Cole, S. P. (2007). The effects of deductive and guided inductive instructional approaches on the learning of grammar in the elementary foreign language college classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 40(2), 288.
Halliday, M. A. (1966). Lexis as a linguistic level. In memory of JR Firth, 148-162.
Hammerly, H. (1975). The deduction/induction controversy. The Modern Language Journal, 59(1‐2), 15-18.
Herron, C., & Tomasello, M. (1992). Acquiring grammatical structures by guided induction. The French Review, 65(5), 708-718.
Horst, M. E. (2001). Text encounters of the frequent kind: Learning L2 vocabulary through reading. University of Wales Swansea.
Huang, H. T., & Liou, H. C. (2007). Vocabulary learning in an automated graded reading program. Language Learning & Technology, 11(3), 64-82.
Huang, S. L. (2001). Error analysis and teaching Composition. Unpublished master's thesis. National Tsing Hua University.
Hulstijn, J. H. (1992). Retention of inferred and given word meanings: Experiments in incidental vocabulary learning Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 113-125): Springer.
Hunston, S. (2002). Corpora in applied linguistics: Ernst Klett Sprachen.
Hwu, F. F., & Sun, S. Y. (2012). The aptitude-treatment interaction effects on the learning of grammar rules. System, 40(4), 505-521.
Jafarpour, A. A., Hashemian, M., & Alipour, S. (2013). A corpus-based Approach toward teaching collocation of synonyms. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 3(1), 51-60.
Jean, G., & Simard, D. (2013). Deductive versus inductive grammar instruction: Investigating possible relationships between gains, preferences and learning styles. System, 41(4), 1023-1042.
Johns, T. (1986). Micro-concord: A language learner's research tool. System, 14(2), 151-162.
Johns, T. (1991). Should you be persuaded: Two samples of data-driven learning materials: na.
Johns, T. (1994). 1 9 From printout to handout: Grammar and vocabulary teaching in the context of Data-driven Learning. Perspectives on pedagogical grammar, 293.
Johns, T. (1997). Contexts: The background, development and trialling of a concordance-based CALL program. Paper presented at the Teaching and language corpora.
Johns, T. (2002). Data-driven learning: The perpetual challenge. Language and Computers, 42(1), 107-117.
Karakaş, A., & Sariçoban, A. (2012). The impact of watching subtitled animated cartoons on incidental vocabulary learning of ELT students. Teaching English with Technology, 12(4), 3-15.
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.
Kim, Y. J. (2008). The contribution of collaborative and individual tasks to the acquisition of L2 vocabulary. The Modern Language Journal, 92(1), 114-130.
Kirschner, P., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why unguided learning does not work: An analysis of the failure of discovery learning, problem-based learning, experiential learning and inquiry-based learning. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75-86.
Koosha, M., & Jafarpour, A. A. (2006). Data-driven learning and teaching collocation of prepositions: The case of Iranian EFL adult learners. Asian EFL journal, 8(4), 192-209.
Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition (Vol. 2): Oxford Pergamon.
Kweon, S. O., & Kim, H. R. (2008). Beyond raw frequency: Incidental vocabulary acquisition in extensive reading. Reading in a Foreign Language, 20(2), 191.
Laufer, B. (1992). How much lexis is necessary for reading comprehension? Vocabulary and applied linguistics (pp. 126-132): Springer.
Laufer, B. (1997). The lexical plight in second language reading: Words you don’t know, words you think you know, and words you can’t guess. Second language vocabulary acquisition, 3034.
Lee, C. T., & Haseltine, P. (2001). Basic English Grammar.
Lee, Y. H. (2005). The effects of online learning units on synonymous adjectives for EFL college students. Unpublished master’s thesis. National Tsing Hua University, Taiwan.
Lin, M. H. (2007). The effects of the inductive and deductive approaches on elementary school students’ English grammar acquisition (Unpublished master’s thesis). Chaoyang University of Technology, Taiwan.
Lin, M. H., & Lee, J. Y. (2015). Data-driven learning: changing the teaching of grammar in EFL classes. ELT Journal, ccv010.
McEnery, T., & Wilson, A. (2001). Corpus linguistics: An introduction: Edinburgh University Press.
Mezynski, K. (1983). Issues concerning the acquisition of knowledge: Effects of vocabulary training on reading comprehension. Review of educational research, 53(2), 253-279.
Min, H. T. (2008). EFL vocabulary acquisition and retention: Reading plus vocabulary enhancement activities and narrow reading. Language Learning, 58(1), 73-115.
Moon, R. (1987). The analysis of meaning. Looking Up: An Account of the COBUILD Project in Lexical Computing and the Development of the Collins COBUILD English Language Dictionary, 86-103.
Na, L., & Nation, I. S. P. (1985). Factors affecting guessing vocabulary in context. RELC journal, 16(1), 33-42.
Nation, I. S. P. (1982). Beginning to learn foreign vocabulary: A review of the research. RELC journal, 13(1), 14-36.
Nation, I. S. P. (1993). Vocabulary size, growth, and use. The bilingual lexicon, 115-134.
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning vocabulary in another language: Ernst Klett Sprachen.
Nation, I. S. P., & Beglar, D. (2007). A vocabulary size test. The language teacher, 31(7), 9-13.
Nation, P., & Coady, J. (1988). Vocabulary and reading. Vocabulary and language teaching, 97, 110.
Nemati, A. (2009). Memory vocabulary learning strategies and long-term retention. International Journal of Vocational and Technical Education, 1(2), 014-024.
Norris, J. M., & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta‐analysis. Language Learning, 50(3), 417-528.
O'keeffe, A., McCarthy, M., & Carter, R. (2007). From corpus to classroom: Language use and language teaching: Cambridge University Press.
The Online Slang Dictionary. (n.d.). Retrieved September 21, 2016, from http://onlineslangdictionary.com/
Oxford Learner's Dictionaries | Find the meanings, definitions, pictures, pronunciation of words at OxfordLearnersDictionaries.com. (n.d.). Retrieved September 21, 2016, from http://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/
Paivio, A. (2013). Imagery and verbal processes: Psychology Press.
Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. B. (1993). Reading comprehension and second language development in a comprehension-based ESL program. TESL Canada journal, 11(1), 09-29.
Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. B. (1997). Vocabulary enhancement activities and reading for meaning in second language vocabulary acquisition. Second language vocabulary acquisition: A rationale for pedagogy, 55(4), 174-200.
Partington, A. (1998). Patterns and meanings: Using corpora for English language research and teaching (Vol. 2): John Benjamins Publishing.
Pearson, P. D., Hiebert, E. H., & Kamil, M. L. (2007). Vocabulary assessment: What we know and what we need to learn. Reading research quarterly, 42(2), 282-296.
Prince, M. J., & Felder, R. M. (2006). Inductive teaching and learning methods: Definitions, comparisons, and research bases. Journal of engineering education, 95(2), 123-138.
Pulido, D. (2004). The effect of cultural familiarity on incidental vocabulary acquisition through reading. The Reading Matrix, 4(2).
Römer, U. (2008). Corpora and language teaching. Corpus linguistics. An international handbook, 1, 112-130.
Read, J. (2000). Assessing vocabulary: Cambridge University Press.
Read, J. (2010). Methodological issues in research on vocabulary learning. Paper presented at the Proceedings from the 19th International Symposium on English Teaching, Taiwan.
Redouane, R. (2011). Assessing instructional methods in L2 French vocabulary acquisition: Guessing-from-context method versus a word-list method. Economics, Management and Financial Markets, 6(2), 710.
Richards, J. C. (1976). The role of vocabulary teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 77-89.
Richards, J. C., & Rodgers, T. S. (2014). Approaches and methods in language teaching: Cambridge university press.
Rokni, S. J. A. (2009). A Comparative Study of the Effect of Explicit-inductive and Explicit-deductive Grammar Instruction in EFL Contexts. Language in India, 9(11).
Rott, S. (2003). Making form-meaning connections while reading: A qualitative analysis of word processing. Reading in a Foreign Language, 15(1), 45.
Rott, S., Williams, J., & Cameron, R. (2002). The effect of multiple-choice L1 glosses and input-output cycles on lexical acquisition and retention. Language Teaching Research, 6(3), 183-222.
Schmidt, R. W. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning1. Applied Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
Schmitt, N. (1998). Tracking the incremental acquisition of second language vocabulary: A longitudinal study. Language Learning, 48(2), 281-317.
Schmitt, N. (2000). Vocabulary in language teaching: Ernst Klett Sprachen.
Schmitt, N. (2010). Researching vocabulary: A vocabulary research manual: Palgrave Macmillan.
Schwanenflugel, P. J., & Akin, C. E. (1994). Developmental trends in lexical decisions for abstract and concrete words. Reading research quarterly, 251-264.
Shaffer, C. (1989). A comparison of inductive and deductive approaches to teaching foreign languages. The Modern Language Journal, 73(4), 395-403.
Shaw, E. M. (2011). Teaching vocabulary through data-driven learning.
Shye, S. (1988). Inductive and deductive reasoning: A structural reanalysis of ability tests. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73(2), 308.
Silvia, A. (2004). Deductive and inductive grammar teaching. Applied Linguistics, 24, 126-145.
Sinclair, J. (1991). Corpus, concordance, collocation: Oxford University Press.
Smart, J. (2014). The role of guided induction in paper-based data-driven learning. ReCALL, 26(02), 184-201.
Sun, Y. C., & Wang, L. Y. (2003). Concordancers in the EFL classroom: Cognitive approaches and collocation difficulty. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 16(1), 83-94.
Swanborn, M. S., & De Glopper, K. (1999). Incidental word learning while reading: A meta-analysis. Review of educational research, 69(3), 261-285.
Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and instruction, 4(4), 295-312.
Talaei, T., & Fotovatnia, Z. (2012). The Influence of Data-Driven Exercises Through Using a Computer Program on Vocabulary Improvement in an EFL Context. International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 1(1), 84-94.
Tammenga-Helmantel, M., Arends, E., & Canrinus, E. T. (2014). The effectiveness of deductive, inductive, implicit and incidental grammatical instruction in second language classrooms. System, 45, 198-210.
Tekin, B. (2015). Data-driven Vocabulary Learning vs Traditional Instruction at a High School in Uganda. Journal of Education, 4(1), 79-85.
Tian, C. G. (2014). An Empirical Research on the corpus-driven lexical chunks instruction. International Journal of English Language Teaching, 2(2), 1-36.
Tian, S. P. (2005). Data-driven learning: do learning tasks and proficiency make a difference? Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 9th Conference of the Pan-Pacific Association of Applied Linguistics. Tokyo: Waseda University Media Mix Corp.
Todd, R. W. (2001). Induction from self-selected concordances and self-correction. System, 29(1), 91-102.
Townsend, D., & Collins, P. (2009). Academic vocabulary and middle school English learners: An intervention study. Reading and Writing, 22(9), 993-1019.
Verhelst, N., Van Avermaet, P., Takala, S., Figueras, N., & North, B. (2009). Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment: Cambridge University Press.
Vidal, K. (2003). Academic listening: A source of vocabulary acquisition? Applied Linguistics, 24(1), 56-89.
Vidal, K. (2011). A comparison of the effects of reading and listening on incidental vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 61(1), 219-258.
Vogel, S., Herron, C., Cole, S. P., & York, H. (2011). Effectiveness of a guided inductive versus a deductive approach on the learning of grammar in the intermediate‐level college French classroom. Foreign Language Annals, 44(2), 353-380.
Vogel, S. P. (2010). Teaching Grammar Through Cultural Presentations: Investigating the Effects of a Guided Inductive and a Deductive Approach on the Learning of Grammar and Culture in Intermediate-Level College French. Emory University.
Wang, L. Y. (2002). Effects of inductive and deductive approach on EFL learning collocation patterns by using concordancers. Unpublished master’s thesis, National Yunlin University of Science and Technology, China, Institute of Applied Foreign Languages.
Wang, P. L. (2012). Teaching and learning English verb tenses in a Taiwanese university. English Linguistics Research, 1(1), p18.
Wesche, M. B., & Paribakht, T. S. (1994). Enhancing Vocabulary Acquisition through Reading: A Hierarchy of Text-Related Exercise Types.
Wesche, M. B., & Paribakht, T. S. (1996). Assessing Second Language Vocabulary Knowledge: Depth Versus Breadth. Canadian Modern Language Review, 53(1), 13-40.
Widdowson, H. G. (1998). Context, Community, and Authentic Language*. Tesol Quarterly, 32(4), 705-716.
Widodo, H. (2006). Approaches and procedures for teaching grammar. English Teaching, 5(1), 121.
Wu, W. S. (1996). Lexical collocations: One way to make passive vocabulary active. Paper presented at the The Proceedings of the 11th Conference on English Teaching and Learning in the Republic of China.
Yahoo奇摩字典. (n.d.). Retrieved September 21, 2016, from https://tw.dictionary.yahoo.com/
Yılmaz, E., & Soruç, A. (2015). The use of Concordance for Teaching Vocabulary: A Data-driven Learning Approach. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 191, 2626-2630.
Yoon, H., & Hirvela, A. (2004). ESL student attitudes toward corpus use in L2 writing. Journal of second language writing, 13(4), 257-283.
Yuksel, D., & Tanriverdi, B. (2009). Effects of watching captioned movie clip on vocabulary development of EFL learners. TOJET: The Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 8(2).
百度词典 - 汉语字词成语 - 权威在线词典. (n.d.). Retrieved September 21, 2016, from http://dict.baidu.com/
前原, & 由紀. (2008). The effectiveness of learner-centered grammar teaching.
劍橋免費英語詞典和同義詞詞典. (n.d.). Retrieved September 21, 2016, from http://dictionary.cambridge.org/zht/