Learning by design: Enhancing online collaboration in developing pre-service TESOL teachers' TPACK for teaching with corpus technology

Received: 4 July 2023 | Accepted: 15 March 2024 DOI: 10.1111/bjet.13458 ORIGINAL ARTICLE Learning by design: Enhancing online collaboration in developing pre- service TESOL teachers' TPACK for teaching with corpus technology Qing Ma1 | Hiu Tung Hubert Lee1 Ching- sing Chai3 | Xuesong (Andy) Gao2 | 1 Department of Linguistics and Modern Language Studies, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China 2 School of Education, University of New South Wales, Kensington, New South Wales, Australia 3 Department of Curriculum and Instruction, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China Correspondence Qing Ma, Department of Linguistics and Modern Language Studies, The Education University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China. Email: maqing@eduhk.hk Abstract In this study, we integrated corpus technology in pre-service TESOL (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) teachers' technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) development in corpus technology, termed corpus-based language pedagogy (CBLP), and highlighted the collaborative effort for knowledge building among participants for TPACK development. The study examined the role of online collaboration in facilitating how pre-service TESOL teachers developed their CBLP (TPACK in corpus technology) using a learning-by-design approach, enacted it in co-designing lessons, revised their lessons and reflected on their collective knowledge building processes. Using a case study approach involving 33 participants, the study focused on both intra- and inter-group interactions to understand the pre-service teachers' learning dynamics/changes and unpack the interaction mechanism involved in online collaborative learning. To these ends, we collected data including CBLP group lesson designs, intra-group data (interviews) and inter- group peer critical comments and analysed them based on the two stages (comprehension and transformation) of Shulman's pedagogical reasoning. The results suggest that engaging in online collaboration, facilitated This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. © 2024 The Authors. British Journal of Educational Technology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Educational Research Association. Br J Educ Technol. 2024;00:1–29. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/bjet | 1 | MA et al. by the learning-by-design approach, is instrumental in enabling pre-service teachers to learn corpus technology and expand their repertoire of teaching strategies. Our findings imply that both intra- and inter-group collaboration modes are important to help pre-service TESOL teachers holistically develop TPACK for language teaching. Similar implications may be applied to other subject-specific TPACK training. KEYWORDS corpus- based language pedagogy, inter- group interactions, intra- group interactions, online collaborative learning, TPACK Practitioner notes What is already known about this topic • Teacher preparation programmes play a crucial role in developing pre-service teachers' technological, pedagogical, and content knowledge (TPACK) • TPACK integration into pedagogical practice and subject-specific professional development opportunities are important for effective teaching, but there is a lack of research on subject-specific TPACK development (eg, TPACK in language teaching) • Online collaborative learning can support TPACK development, but most studies focused on intra- group interactions with little attention to inter- group interactions What this paper adds • Introduces a new corpus-based language pedagogy (CBLP) for TESOL teachers to help them develop TPACK in language teaching • Presents an innovative two-step training framework for developing TESOL teachers' TPACK in corpus technology • Examines the role of online collaboration in developing pre-service TESOL teachers' TPACK for teaching with corpus technology through learning by design • Provides in- depth qualitative data analysed both qualitatively and quantitatively to investigate the specific roles that intra- group and inter- group interactions play in shaping pre-service TESOL teachers' CBLP development • Develops an analytical framework comprising nine categories (under the comprehension and transformation stages of Shulman's pedagogical reasoning model) to code pre-service TESOL teachers' TPACK development in corpus technology • Finds that intra- group interactions facilitate both comprehension and transformation stages, while inter- group interactions predominantly facilitate the transformation stage of CBLP Implications for practice • Emphasises hands- on corpus-searching skills and guidance on browsing corpora when designing CBLP lessons • Encourages both within- group and between- group interactions in online collaborative learning to foster TPACK development for using corpus technology in teaching language subjects • Considers incorporating similar approaches for developing other subject-specific TPACK for other teaching subjects 14678535, 0, Downloaded from https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13458, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 2 | 3 I NTRO DUCTI O N Due to the critical role of technology in the education process, teacher preparation programmes are crucial in helping pre-service teachers develop essential technological, pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) and realise the full potential of technology use in education (Tondeur et al., 2012). The TPACK framework constructed by Mishra and Koehler (2006) is an extension of Shulman's (1987) pedagogical content knowledge (PCK). Traditionally, the knowledge bases of teacher education focus on either content knowledge of the teaching subject or general pedagogical knowledge, and the two types of knowledge are taught separately. Shulman proposed PCK, which cuts across content and pedagogy to understand how subject matters can be transformed (eg, designed, organised, adapted, represented and evaluated) for teaching. Building on PCK, TPACK blends PCK with technology. Despite its importance, there has been limited research on TPACK in language teaching (Chai et al., 2013; Tseng et al., 2022). Most studies have focused on the quantitative measurement of TPACK for pre- and in-service teachers (Chai et al., 2013; Willermark, 2018), with less emphasis on the qualitative exploration of TPACK integration into pedagogical practice. A synthesis of language teachers' use of technology also suggests that most TPACK studies predominantly focus on in-service teachers, overlooking the challenges pre-service teachers face (Tafazoli, 2021). Furthermore, some researchers (eg, Graham et al., 2012; Lee & Tsai, 2010; Willermark, 2018) have argued that generic TPACK may not assist subject teachers in effectively integrating specific technology into teaching particular subjects. As a result, subject-specific professional development opportunities are needed to enable subject teachers to use the appropriate technologies to teach specific subjects effectively (Graham et al., 2012; Macrides & Angeli, 2018; Niess, 2008). In the context of teaching English as a foreign language (EFL) or Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), many learners face a significant challenge – the lack of up-to- date and authentic resources of the target language. Corpus technology, a large electronic language database operated through a search engine (concordancer), allows learners to observe rich language examples and study various linguistic features, providing an ideal venue for authentic language examples. However, many EFL and TESOL teachers are unfamiliar with this corpus technology (Ma, Tang, et al., 2022; Zareva, 2017). This calls for research regarding how to develop EFL or TESOL teachers' TPACK development in corpus technology (Ma, 2024; Ma, Yuan, et al., 2022; Meunier, 2019). In addition, research on TPACK research shows that online collaborative learning plays an important role in helping participants co- construct their knowledge (Saito & Atencio, 2016; Zhang et al., 2019) through learning by design (Yeh et al., 2021). Within TPACK research, learning by design is an educational framework that engages teachers in the creation of learning experiences tailored to integrate content, pedagogy, and technology in ways that foster deep and meaningful learning (Koehler & Mishra, 2005). Nonetheless, online collaborative learning through the learning-by- design approach typically focused on intra- group interactions (within the same group) with little attention to inter- group interactions (receiving feedback between different groups). To address these gaps, our study focused on pre-service TESOL teachers' TPACK development in using corpus technology in designing lessons and investigated both intra- and inter- group interactions in fostering their TPACK in corpus technology for language teaching. Our study holds the potential not only to advance TPACK research within the TESOL context but also to enhance TPACK training for pre-service teachers in other teaching subjects. Moreover, this study can unveil how participants develop their TPACK using a learning-bydesign approach. 14678535, 0, Downloaded from https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13458, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License LEARNING BY DESIGN | MA et al. CO R PUS TECH NO LOGY A N D L A NGUAG E EDUCATI O N Corpus technology, a valuable tool in language education, addresses the challenge of limited authentic language data for foreign language learners by offering unlimited, rich, authentic resources and promoting inductive discovery learning (Boulton, 2017; Johns, 1991). A digital corpus consists of a large, principled collection of naturally occurring texts stored electronically (Reppen, 2010). Corpus technology involves using tools for corpus linguistics in language teaching, providing authentic data for observing linguistic features (Ma, Tang, et al., 2022). Corpus data, including concordance lines, keywords, word frequency and collocations, facilitate the analysis of language patterns for research and pedagogical purposes. Over recent decades, corpus technology has gained significance in language learning. It can enhance various language skills, including vocabulary (Liu & Lei, 2018), grammar (Rodríguez- Fuentes & Swatek, 2022; Smart, 2014) and writing (Charles, 2011; Yoon, 2008). However, its adoption in classrooms remains limited, mainly because pre- and in-service teachers lack proper training in and knowledge of integrating corpus technology into classroom teaching (Boulton, 2017; Callies, 2019; Chambers, 2019; Karlsen & Monsen, 2020). Insufficient TPACK for corpus technology may hinder pre- or in-service teachers from utilising it in the classroom. CBLP: D ES I G N - BASE D TPACK FO R I NTEG R ATI NG CO R PUS TECH NO LOGY I NTO L A NGUAG E TE ACH I NG Corpus technology, representing technologically based linguistic expertise, blends with language pedagogy to form a subject and technology-specific TPACK, known as corpus-based language pedagogy (CBLP) (Ma, 2024; Ma, Tang, et al., 2022; Ma, Yuan, et al., 2022). CBLP is ‘the ability to use the technology of corpus linguistics to facilitate language teaching in a classroom context’ (Ma, Tang, et al., 2022, p. 2372). Shulman's (1987) pedagogical reasoning framework can help identify the essential knowledge and skills that pre-service teachers need for CBLP teaching and consists of the following five iterative stages (Ma, Tang, et al., 2022): (1) developing corpus literacy; (2) designing corpus-based teaching materials; (3) implementing CBLP lessons with suitable strategies; and (4) evaluating and (5) self-reflecting on CBLP teaching. The TPACK framework aligns with the design-based learning approach, emphasising the intersection of technology, pedagogy and content knowledge (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). Pedagogical strategies guide the integration and application of technology and content knowledge (Voogt et al., 2013). In CBLP (a language-specific TPACK), we encourage preservice teachers to design lesson materials that integrate corpus technology, thus enhancing language teaching materials and pedagogy for maximising student learning. Recent TPACK research (Papanikolaou et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2019) has indicated that developing TPACK requires both individual and collaborative works often related to concepts such as community of practice (Wenger, 1998), online learning community (Palloff & Pratt, 2007) and community of inquiry (Garrison et al., 2010). Our study examines how pre-service English teachers develop TPACK for corpus technology, using multiple sources of case study data to explore the fostering of this language domain-specific TPACK and its connection to online collaborative learning. ONLINE COLLABORATIVE LEARNING AND TPACK DEVELOPMENT Researchers grounded in Vygotsky's (1978) social constructivist framework have recognised the importance of situating learners in collaborative environments for knowledge 14678535, 0, Downloaded from https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13458, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 4 | 5 construction through peer negotiation and support (Cummings et al., 2017). Collaborative learning opportunities arise from various modes, such as e- classrooms (Kurth et al., 2022), blended learning (Al- Samarraie & Saeed, 2018; Papanikolaou et al., 2017), flipped classrooms (Herrera- Pavo, 2021), interactive simulations (Cummings et al., 2017) and role- playing or problem-, project- or case- based learning (Hovancsek, 2007). Online collaborative learning has become essential in education, promoting inductive learning (Prensky, 2007), learner motivation and autonomy (Wang & Zhang, 2014) and shared interests (Herrera- Pavo, 2021). Online collaborative learning has been applied to understand, with positive outcomes, pre- and in-service teachers' knowledge and TPACK development. Such learning enhances connectedness among teacher trainees in a learning community (Chong & Kong, 2012; Saito & Atencio, 2016). In reality, teachers' online collaborative learning may take place in mixed modes: face-to-face interaction mixed with online collaboration (asynchronous Facebook chats and email or synchronous web- conferencing meetings) (Yeh et al., 2021). When group members share common interests, connections and mutual trust develop, improving their self- efficacy and motivation for teaching performance. Collaboration also helps teachers identify knowledge gaps and build collective knowledge (Donnelly & Hume, 2015). Although the above advantages have been proposed, the literature suggests that there is still a paucity of attention directed to the potential growth of collective TPACK facilitated by collaborative learning environment featuring learning by design (Yeh et al., 2021). I NTR A- A N D I NTE R- G ROUP I NTER ACTI O NS I N CO LL A BO R ATI V E LE A R N I NG FO R TPACK Interaction is crucial for cognitive and social support in student learning engagement (Merry & Orsmond, 2008). In online learning, interactions facilitate practice and sharing among members, contributing to successful learning (Hoadley, 2012). We believe it is important to differentiate intra- group (within the same group) and inter- group (between different groups) interactions. Intra- group interactions involve negotiation and experience sharing among members, either in-person or via telecommunication (Vuogan & Li, 2022). Inter- group interactions, occurring among groups on online platforms, include idea exchange, experience sharing, comment provision and post follow-up. Online platforms support complex asynchronous communication with a dialogical discussion structure (Tan, 2017). The existing TPACK research on online collaborative learning (Chong & Kong, 2012; Donnelly & Hume, 2015; Gallardo et al., 2017) has mainly focused on intra- group mechanisms, but research shows that peer feedback from other groups also plays a vital role in improving group (Ma, 2020) or individual (Cho & Cho, 2010) work. Nevertheless, few studies have investigated such intergroup interactions within TPACK research. Regarding research on CBLP, most studies have concentrated on individual learning (Crosthwaite et al., 2021; Heather & Helt, 2012; Leńko- Szymańska, 2017), and there has been limited exploration of participants developing CBLP through online collaborative learning. Ma, Tang, et al. (2022) examined pre- service teachers' collaborative CBLP lesson design but did not investigate how CBLP was influenced by separate intra- and inter- group interaction processes, both integral to collaborative learning. In the current study, we investigated how our pre- service teachers co- designed their lesson as a form of intra- group interactions; we focused on what constructive comments other groups provided which resulted in improving the group lesson design as a form of inter- group interactions. 14678535, 0, Downloaded from https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13458, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License LEARNING BY DESIGN | MA et al. A TH EO R ETI CA L FR A M E WO R K FO R CBLP TR A I N I NG I N VO LV I NG O NLI N E CO LL A BO R ATI O N Research on language teachers' integration of corpus technology into teaching has focused on developing teachers' corpus technology and pedagogical skills in lesson design (Pérez- Paredes et al., 2018; Tribble, 2015). Regarding knowledge of corpus technology, Mukherjee (2006, p. 14) raised ‘corpus literacy’ (CL), comprising four components: (1) understanding what constitutes a corpus, (2) recognising what can and cannot be achieved with corpora, (3) analysing concordances and (4) extrapolating general language use trends from corpus data. Heather & Helt (2012) further defined that CL as ‘the ability to use the technology of corpus linguistics to investigate language and enhance the language development of students’ (p. 417). In terms of pedagogical skills for corpus-based teaching, Ma, Tang, et al. (2022) framed them within CBLP, proposing a two-step framework for CBLP teacher training. First, teachers are trained in CL, including essential corpus search skills to find language information/patterns; second, they are helped to develop CBLP for designing corpus-based teaching materials and conducting corpus-based teaching. Despite their interrelated and complementary nature, CL and CBLP are conceptually distinct constructs. They correspond to technological content knowledge and TPACK. Teachers must also develop both their CL and CBLP for successful corpus-based language teaching. This two-step framework not only incorporates corpus linguistics and technology but also amalgamates theories from various learning paradigms, including experiential learning (Kolb, 1984), socio- cultural learning (Vygotsky, 1978) and community learning (Wenger, 1998). See Figure 1 for this CBLP training framework. Since TPACK is an extension of PCK, Shulman's (1987) pedagogical reasoning, emphasising teachers' ability to transform content knowledge (and technological knowledge) into pedagogically appropriate forms, can serve as a useful analytical framework for examining CBLP development. It consists of five stages: comprehension, transformation, instruction, evaluation and reflection. The first two stages concern lesson design and the last three are to instruct, evaluate and reflect on the actual lesson. This article adopts the first two stages (comprehension and transformation) for data analysis since we involved pre-service TESOL teachers who did not have the opportunity to teach their designed lessons. In our study, comprehension refers to teachers' understanding of teaching purposes, content, students, objectives and how to achieve them with corpus technology, and transformation involves preparing and designing corpus-based lesson materials and considers organisation and student interaction. As both stages integrate corpus technology as core element, the preservice teachers can develop their TPACK in corpus technology. R ESE A RCH QUESTI O NS To explore the role of online collaborative learning in developing pre-service English teachers' CBLP, we investigated intra- and inter- group interactions and their influence on lesson design. Intra- group interactions involve negotiation and sharing within a single group (face to face or online), while inter- group interactions include idea exchange and feedback between groups on an asynchronous online platform (Moodle). Our study is guided by the following research questions: 1. What are the features of pre-service TESOL teachers' emerging TPACK in corpus technology in their lesson design experience? 2. What is the role of online collaboration (intra- and inter- group interactions) in facilitating their TPACK in corpus technology development? 14678535, 0, Downloaded from https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13458, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 6 FIGURE 1 | 7 A two-step framework for providing CBLP training. M ETHO DS Research context and participants This study involved 33 pre-service TESOL teachers aged 24–30 enrolled in a Master's vocabulary learning and teaching course at a university in Hong Kong. Most of the participants were from Hong Kong or mainland China. After obtaining consent, they participated in a 4week CBLP training programme guided by a two-step framework (Figure 1) that constituted part of their course. Finally, they were required to work in group and design a CBLP lesson plan. They selected their own partners and formed eight groups on a voluntary basis. CBLP training Step 1 of the training involved a 3-hour workshop to develop the pre-service teachers' initial CL by introducing them to corpus technology, including corpus linguistics and corpora. The participants were introduced to two online websites, Lextutor (www.lextutor.ca) and the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) (https://www.english- corpora.org/ coca/ ), on which they conducted hands- on corpus searches and collaborated on ideas for designing corpus-based language learning activities. In Step 2, the focus shifted to developing the participants' pedagogical skills for teaching with corpus technology. They were provided with various pedagogical resources, including the CAP website (https://corpus.eduhk.hk/cap/) designed by the research team, to deepen their learning through independent and collaborative online tasks. The participants followed a four-step corpus-based lesson design model (Ma, Tang, et al., 2022) emphasising inductive discovery and collaborative learning for summarising language patterns. They formed eight groups to co- design a CBLP lesson plan to help target students at primary or secondary level to learn easily confused lexical pairs (eg, ‘but’ vs. ‘however’). 14678535, 0, Downloaded from https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13458, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License LEARNING BY DESIGN | MA et al. After drafting a lesson design, each group uploaded it to Moodle and provided written feedback on four other groups' work, fostering inter- group interactions. Groups then discussed the feedback, revisited their CBLP knowledge, revised their designs and submitted the final versions for grading. The pre-service teachers engaged in both online and offline communications, predominantly through asynchronous chats and Moodle comments. Interviews revealed that intra- group interactions consisted mostly of asynchronous communication via tools like WhatsApp or WeChat, while inter- group interactions took place on the Moodle forum via asynchronous exchange of constructive comments on lesson designs. Procedure We adopted a case study approach involving qualitative data that were analysed both qualitatively and quantitatively. We provided 4-week CBLP training for the pre-service teachers. Week 1 featured a workshop, and weeks 2–4 emphasised self-learning of online resources, completing individual learning and collaborating on design tasks. Each group spent 2–3 hours per week on online tasks through Moodle. The two-step CBLP training procedures are detailed in Table 1. Instruments, data collection and analysis Each group submitted their finalised collaborative lesson designs to Moodle, on which the inter- group written comments were collected. Additionally, each group participated in a semi-structured interview (Appendix A) to reflect on their within- group learning experiences. The interviews, each lasting approximately 1.5 hours were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim and anonymised. Each interview consists of three sections: understanding corpus technology, its application to language learning and teaching, and intra- group interaction dynamics. Focusing on the lesson designs, the study investigated the first two stages of Shulman's pedagogical reasoning, comprehension and transformation, as reflected in the lesson plans. It should be noted that these two stages within Shulman's framework were chosen to study because the pre-service teachers' ultimate objective was to prepare a lesson plan through peer online collaboration. Our focus remains on analysing the dynamics of intra- and intergroup collaboration that influence their pedagogical decisions and changes in the reasonings behind their CBLP lessons, and hence, the development of their competence in CBLP. Enacting the lesson plan in classroom context is omitted because of limited access to real classrooms. Based on Shulman's (1987) pedagogical reasoning model, nine categories TA B L E 1 Procedures of the two-step corpus training. Time Training steps Training activities Week 1 Step 1: CL (Face- to- face learning) Workshop (3 hours) Week 2 Step 2: CBLP (Online learning on Moodle platform) Self- learn pedagogical resources available on the CAP website Week 3 Complete three individual learning tasks on how to design corpus- based lessons Week 4 Complete one collaborative corpus- based lesson design Provide online peer feedback on each collaborative lesson design 14678535, 0, Downloaded from https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13458, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 8 9 (Table 2) concerning the comprehension and transformation stages were pre- established in relation to CBLP development. These categories serve as an analytical framework to guide the data analysis for coding the CBLP (or TPACK in corpus technology) features. Phase I analysis: CBLP features To answer the first research question (common features of pre-service teachers' emerging CBLP), the data included the following: (1) eight finalised lesson plans (including revisions based on inter- group comments), (2) eight group interviews and (3) online inter- group comments received for each group lesson on Moodle. Qualitative analysis followed Braun and Clarke's (2006, 2022) six steps with minor modification: familiarisation with the data, identification of initial codes, mapping initial codes to pre- established nine categories (main codes), reviewing main codes, defining and naming themes and writing up. The teaching activities or pedagogical decisions identified in the lesson plans were mapped onto specific CBLP categories (Table 2). Similar analyses were conducted for interviews and inter- group comments, with frequency counts performed for all CBLP categories. Figure 2 illustrates mapping a teaching activity in the lesson plan onto a CBLP feature under comprehension. The lesson begins with students identifying the overused adverb ‘very’ in secondary school student writing, demonstrating the teachers' awareness of junior secondary language issues. The group's pedagogical decisions were categorised as ‘comprehension: understanding’ (of their target students). It is important in CBLP design to guide students who are unfamiliar with corpus technology to notice problematic language use and to demonstrate TA B L E 2 Analytical framework: Nine categories for coding CBLP features. Shulman's (1987, p. 15) model of pedagogical reasoning (adapted) Comprehension Transformation Categories for CBLP features Of purposes The purpose of using corpus technology in language learning and teaching Of subject matter Knowledge of corpus technology (corpus linguistics and corpus search skills) and subject matter included in the CL proposed by Mukherjee (2006) Of students Understanding target students' (1) English proficiency, (2) difficulties faced in English learning and (3) experience in corpus use New comprehension New understandings concerning language learning and teaching with corpus technology Preparation Critically interpreting corpus- related teaching materials; structuring and planning corpus-informed classes Representation Using an appropriate representational repertoire to teach with corpus data (eg, analogies, metaphors, demonstrations, exemplification and explanations) Selection Selecting the instructional mode for teaching, arranging and managing corpus-informed learning material Adaptation Considering students' conceptions, preconceptions, misconceptions, motivations, interests and attention regarding language or corpora Monitoring Checking/testing students' understanding of corpus knowledge; students' monitoring of their own performances in the corpus learning experience 14678535, 0, Downloaded from https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13458, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License | LEARNING BY DESIGN | FIGURE 2 MA et al. Excerpt coded under comprehension from a lesson plan designed by Group A. corpus-assisted solutions. An example of the detailed coding procedure is provided in Appendix B, showing how the initial codes were identified and mapped to the comprehension or transformation stage in Shulman's pedagogical reasoning. In the example shown in Appendix B, when Kyle (pseudonym) positively evaluated COCA for teaching, this hinted at his familiarity and understanding of corpora, and it was assigned an initial code of ‘positive evaluation of COCA’, which belonged to the comprehension stage. Such initial codes were then sorted to match the nine CBLP categories. Each code occurrence was counted for the nine categories. Salient CBLP features were interpreted using extracts from interviews, lesson plans or Moodle comments. Regarding the analysis of inter- group comments, two types of comments (positive and critical) were collected for analysis. Positive comments occurred in the form of praise to compliment the strengths of the lesson plans (eg, addressing the students' needs or 14678535, 0, Downloaded from https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13458, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 10 | 11 incorporating a wide variety of activities). Critical comments appeared in the form of criticism (eg, unclear teaching instructions, boring tasks or lack of coherence or logic in sequencing activities), sometimes accompanied by suggestions for improvement. The comments received by each group and the corresponding revisions that they made in their lesson plans were categorised into positive or critical comments and corresponding changes. The frequency of each type was then calculated. Finally, each coded comment and corresponding change in the finalised lesson plans were mapped into specific CBLP features. Appendix C demonstrates how the inter- group peer constructive comments and the corresponding revisions in the finalised lesson plans were analysed, coded and mapped to develop themes. The first and second authors coded the data independently, with an inter- coder reliability of 0.90. Disputed codes were resolved through discussion and mutual agreement. Phase II analysis: The role of intra- and inter-group interactions To answer the second research question, we explored the role of intra- and inter- group interactions in facilitating CBLP development. After identifying all the CBLP features in the phase I analysis, those related to intra- or inter- group interactions were teased out. Intra- group interaction data stemmed from the third section of the interview, on within- group communication, while inter- group interaction data involved positive and critical Moodle comments on group lessons and corresponding revisions made in the finalised lesson plans. Following Creswell (2009), we used both quantitative and qualitative data in this case study by providing a more comprehensive understanding of the case, enhancing the reliability and validity of the research findings. Table 3 provides all data sets, data analysis and its alignment with research questions. R ESULTS Common features of pre- service TESOL teachers' emerging TPACK in corpus technology A total of 280 CBLP features were summarised after the data had been analysed from all three sources. These were grouped under two broad categories: comprehension and transformation (Table 4). Table 4 shows that the CBLP features for the two broad categories were very similar (48% for comprehension vs. 52% for transformation). Regarding comprehension, the largest proportion of features concerned the comprehension of subject matter (28%), including knowledge of corpus linguistics and corpus tools (eg, the benefits and limitations of using corpus technology in classroom teaching, the evaluation of different corpus tools and the multifarious corpus search functions). These CBLP features were corroborated by the interview data. The following example demonstrates how one interviewee discussed how to choose a particular search function of COCA to design their teaching activities (eg evaluation of search functions): We discussed which corpus was more suitable. Later on, because we were comparing the two words ‘economic’ and ‘economical,’ we finally chose to use the ‘compare’ function included in COCA, thinking it was more appropriate. (Interview with ‘Haley’, Group E) 14678535, 0, Downloaded from https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13458, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License LEARNING BY DESIGN 12 | TA B L E 3 Overview of the data sets, analysis and alignment with the RQs. Alignment with RQ1: CBLP features Alignment with RQ2: Role of intra- and intergroup interactions Data set Data description Data analysis Group CBLP lessons Eight lessons Coding and thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006, 2022); mapping the data onto CBLP features (nine categories of CBLP in Table 2); counting frequency for each CBLP category Frequency counts for all CBLP features derived from lesson analysis Excerpts Frequency counts for CBLP features resulting from lesson revisions corresponding to critical comments Excerpts Group interviews Section 1: Understanding of corpus technology Section 2: Corpus technology for learning and teaching Section 3: Intra- group interactions Eight interviews See above Frequency counts for all CBLP features derived from the three sections of the interview Excerpts Frequency counts for the nine categories of CBLP features using the data from Section 3: intra- group interactions Excerpts Inter- group peer comments Seventy-five pieces of comments See above Frequency counts for all CBLP features derived from the inter- group comments Excerpts Frequency counts for the nine categories of CBLP features Excerpts MA et al. 14678535, 0, Downloaded from https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13458, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License TA B L E 4 13 Features of pre-service TESOL teachers' emerging CBLP. CBLP feature Comprehension Comprehension of purposes No. % 135 48% 18 6% Comprehension of subject matter 79 28% Comprehension of students 28 10% New comprehension Transformation 10 4% 145 52% Transformation: Preparation 23 8% Transformation: Representation 37 13% Transformation: Instructional selection 53 20% Transformation: Adaptation 18 6% Transformation: Monitoring 14 5% 280 100% Total features The following example shows how an interviewee was attentive to certain limitations related to the use of corpus technology, which are mainly due to policy issues regarding the use of IT resources/devices in schools in mainland China: Students must have a computer to learn from a corpus. But currently, many schools in mainland China prohibit such learning activities with computers or mobile devices in class. This will become one of the obstacles for teachers when we teach with corpora. (Interview with ‘Linda’, Group E) Similar perceptions and evaluations of corpus linguistics, tools and operations were identified across the interview data, indicating that the pre-service teachers placed great importance on subject knowledge. For example, corpus literacy consists of relevant corpus knowledge and understanding the limitations of corpus usage. Within all the CBLP features of transformation, 20% concerned selecting appropriate pedagogical instructions. Some groups created a collaborative learning environment in designing their lessons. They also adopted the discovery learning approach (involving individual hands- on corpus searches) for their target students (Table 5). A combination of these two approaches can take place frequently, including activities in which the target students work in groups/pair and inductively summarise the language patterns and co-produce language output after corpus learning. Figure 3 shows that the discovery and collaborative learning approaches were often combined. Actually, hands- on corpus-searching opportunities were frequently included in many of the lesson plans. The role of online collaboration in facilitating pre- service TESOL teachers' TPACK development Intra-group influences Table 6 documents the CBLP features facilitated by intra-group interactions. It shows that the intra-group interactions facilitated similarly transformation (53%) and comprehension (47%). 14678535, 0, Downloaded from https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13458, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License | LEARNING BY DESIGN | TA B L E 5 MA et al. Different types of instructional approaches included in the lesson plans. Type of instructional approach No. % Collaborative learning 4 15% Individual discovery learning 7 27% Collaborative discovery learning 9 35% Using printed concordance lines 2 8% Oral practice 2 8% Homework 2 8% 26 100% Others Total FIGURE 3 Collaborative discovery learning approach (lesson plan by Group D). In particular, the comprehension of purposes received considerable attention (25%; see Table 6). The interview data indicated that almost all within- group discussions were concerned with teaching purposes, such as determining the language objectives suitable for students. Moreover, they discussed whether their chosen topics were teachable by negotiating and resolving any problems. The following example demonstrates how one interviewee dealt with diverse opinions in the group regarding what language focus they should select: 14678535, 0, Downloaded from https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13458, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 14 TA B L E 6 15 CBLP features facilitated by intra- group interactions. CBLP feature Comprehension No. % 17 47% Comprehension of purposes 9 25% Comprehension of subject matter 3 8% Comprehension of students 3 8% New comprehension Transformation 2 6% 19 53% Transformation: Preparation 9 25% Transformation: Representation 1 3% Transformation: Instructional selection 5 14% Transformation: Adaptation 4 11% Transformation: Monitoring 0 0% 36 100% Total features manifested I was shocked when she said we should select ‘make’ and ‘do’ as the language focus, as I did not think she would pick these two. <…> I told them it wasn't quite right, but she insisted. So I searched on COCA to show them the topic would not work. <…> It was only then that I realised there were great differences between the two words and I could sort them out clearly, <…> So, finally, our group picked ‘make’ and ‘do’ as the topic and presented it in the project. (Interview with ‘Kathy’, Group B) Initially, Kathy opposed the language focus chosen by her group. Through negotiation and by reaching a compromise, she was convinced of the appropriateness of the chosen topic and gained new learning in the subject language. Moreover, the participants believed that agreeing on what was worth teaching was crucial to guaranteeing a smooth process throughout their collaboration. For example, when Mary provided many ideas regarding whether we should differentiate ‘alone’ or ‘lonely’, or whether we should differentiate ‘this’ or ‘that’, we named a few more such pairs. <…> After we settled the direction, everything that came after was so smooth. (Interview with ‘Bella’, Group C) In the transformation stage, the within-group peer influences aided in preparation (25%; see Table 6), which involved critically interpreting teaching materials and selecting an appropriate corpus and suitable corpus data. The organisation, segmentation and structuring of teaching materials were also discussed in preparation. The participants worked together with their peers to determine the logical flow and sequencing of the teaching activities, including the necessary scaffolding for their target students. The intra-group dynamics also facilitated their instructional selection (14%) and adaptation (11%). These pre-service teachers were aware of the importance of modulating and fine-tuning the corpus materials to suit their target students' proficiency levels and contexts: [But] there were time constraints; <…> for example, when ‘Ray’ selected some sentences (from the corpus), I found them too difficult for our target students 14678535, 0, Downloaded from https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13458, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License | LEARNING BY DESIGN | MA et al. [junior secondary]. Anyway, I finally crossed out a few sentences [from the corpus search results], and I told the group about this decision. (Interview with ‘Gil’, Group E) Inter-group influences Table 7 documents those resulting from inter- group interactions. The data presented in the table indicate that inter- group exchanges and feedback predominantly facilitated the transformation stage, accounting for 87% of contributions, while only 11% pertained to the comprehension stage. The observed disparity may be explained by the sequence of designing stage associated with intra- group and inter- group interactions, respectively. During the initial lesson design stage, each group discussed various aspects related to both comprehension and transformation within their group (see Table 6). However, the inter- group comments were provided after the lesson design, inherently fostering critical feedback that is conducive to more profound reflections on transformation. Specifically, most of the inter- group comments concerned the representation of teaching materials (28%) and the selection of instructional approaches (33%) (see Table 7). The participants carefully evaluated how other groups had made use of certain pedagogical instructions in designing their lessons. This corroborates the overall CBLP features presented in Table 4, indicating that the participants prioritised the selection of appropriate instructional strategies at transformation. For instance, many groups expressed appreciation (positive comments) for the lesson plans that featured collaborative learning. They also detected some weaknesses, such as a lack of summative tasks or scaffolding. Since the target students are from secondary school, it is better to teach some sentence patterns with the [collocations] after students grasp the usage of these TA B L E 7 CBLP features facilitated by inter- group interactions. CBLP feature No. of positive comments No. of critical comments No. of revisions in response to comments Total no. of comments/ revisions % Comprehension 6 2 0 8 11% Comprehension of purposes 2 0 0 2 3% Comprehension of subject matter 0 0 0 0 0% Comprehension of students 4 2 0 6 8% New comprehensions 0 0 0 0 0% Transformation 42 23 0 65 89% Transformation: Preparation 12 0 0 12 16% Transformation: Representation 11 10 4 21 28% Transformation: Instructional selection 14 11 4 25 33% Transformation: Adaptation 5 2 4 7 9% Transformation: Monitoring 0 2 1 2 2% 48 27 11 73 100% Total comments 14678535, 0, Downloaded from https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13458, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 16 | 17 two words. Secondly, it would be better to design some oral tasks so that students can practice their spoken English. (Moodle comments received by Group F) They also exerted considerable effort in evaluating how other designs presented teaching materials to students. These included the following: (1) explicating clearly the learning or language objectives, (2) including step-by-step demonstrations when teaching students hands-on corpus-searching skills, (3) selecting appropriate language examples to illustrate the use of target language items and (4) presenting corpus search results accurately. The following comment describes how to improve a particular teaching activity: This activity may be too broad and ambiguous. <…> There can be several translation versions for each sentence. Scaffolding can be provided in this part. For example, provide students with the specific keywords (important/ significant/…) or the collocation (important to/that/…) that they may use in the translation. (Moodle comments received by Group A) D I SCUSS I O N Characteristics of pre- service TESOL teachers' emerging TPACK in corpus technology Understanding the subject matter: The base for developing CBLP Our results (Table 4) revealed that the pre-service teachers prioritised understanding corpus technology–related subject matter, including corpus linguistics, tools and potential limitations in implementing CBLP teaching, at the comprehension stage. Essential corpus literacy formed the foundation for teaching with corpus technology, prompting the pre-service teachers to acquire and practise corpus skills. They also attempted to overcome obstacles related to corpus use or teaching contexts (eg, understanding concordance lines, time constraints, school policy and hardware). Focusing on transforming corpus knowledge into pedagogical applications The pre- service teachers made considerable efforts to transform subject knowledge by selecting appropriate instructional approaches, such as discovery, collaborative learning or a combination. Although collaborative learning has proven useful in developing learner language (Ammar & Hassan, 2018; Zhang et al., 2021), it has rarely been adopted in corpus- based student learning. Our study encourages collaborative learning in designing CBLP teaching activities to fully engage students. Direct hands- on corpus search activities were often included in the designed lessons (see Figure 3), indicating a strong interest among the pre- service teachers to engage students in active sense making. This is aligned with the general emphasis of TPACK studies (Chai et al., 2013). Appropriating instructional strategies is central to pre- service teachers' TPACK base for corpus knowledge, aligning with Shi et al.'s (2022) findings. Optimising instructional strategies is an essential skill for pre- service teachers to develop CBLP or other TPACK for specific technologies. 14678535, 0, Downloaded from https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13458, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License LEARNING BY DESIGN | MA et al. Intra- and intra- group influence on TPACK development in corpus technology Intra-group interactions: Essential for comprehension and transformation in TPACK development Our results (Table 6) reveal that intra- group interactions are crucial in helping pre-service teachers with the comprehension stage, including establish teaching purposes, including determining language foci, clarifying misconceptions, filling knowledge gaps and gauging target student understanding. Since the participants were busy with drafting their first version of lesson design, their group discussion and co- construction of knowledge were focused on understanding all essential elements related to the subject, teaching objectives, context, target students and integration of corpus technology into this complex design process. These processes are primarily facilitated by within- group interactions. Baecher et al. (2014) found setting appropriate language objectives to be challenging for pre-service teachers. In our study, under intra- group peer influences, disorientated individuals had the chance to engage in negotiations, leading to the creation of coherent CBLP lessons. Donnelly and Hume (2015) also concluded that co- designing teaching materials might help pre-service teachers fill their professional knowledge gaps, co- construct missing knowledge and correct any misconceptions. Therefore, intra- group collaboration acts as a catalyst to understand the teaching purposes. Intra- group interactions also facilitated group lesson designs during the preparation phase at the transformation stage. Group members discussed the importance of selecting suitable corpus data to embody language objectives and collaboratively interpreted corpus search results critically. This involved judging concordance line accuracy, suitability for the teaching context and L1 translatability for scaffolding. Within- group collaborative efforts also aided in arranging lesson activities into a logical sequence. This benefit of collegiality resulting from collaboration aligns with general TPACK research (Chong & Kong, 2012; Saito & Atencio, 2016). Inter-group interactions: Fostering transformation in TPACK development After uploading their draft of the lesson design, it is beneficial for students to receive more varied feedback from other groups on their lesson design to add new perspective to their repertoire. This explains why Table 7 reveals that inter- group critical comments primarily contributed to the transformation stage of CBLP development. Peer critical feedback from other groups played a vital role in helping pre-service teachers to refine and improve their lesson design (ie, the constructed CBLP) which further transform the pre-service teachers' subject knowledge (eg, corpus technology, English). The changes are particularly in representing teaching materials and selecting instructional approaches. Inter- group communications enable groups to receive different views, contributing to the negotiation of new learning (Ma, 2020). Most Moodle comments involved recommendations for more appropriate corpus examples, and revisions to lesson plans were mainly related to instructional strategies. The pre-service teachers who received inter- group critical feedback were exposed to a larger repertoire of instructional approaches by observing and evaluating others' work. Identifying strengths and weaknesses, adapting to target students, and creating an interactive learning environment supported TPACK research findings (Wu & Yu, 2017). In contrast, Crosthwaite et al. (2021) found that pre-service teachers designing CBLP lesson plans individually lacked instructional strategies. To address the diverse backgrounds of school 14678535, 0, Downloaded from https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13458, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 18 | 19 environment and needs of students, rich ideas are needed and collaborative design is advisable (Tseng et al., 2022). Our study suggests that allowing pre-service teachers to work collaboratively and receive inter- group peer critical feedback can help develop instructional strategies relevant to CBLP or other subject-specific TPACK. Our finding also responds well to the issue raised in Yeh et al. (2021) that TPACK research predominantly describes teachers' TPACK knowledge categories but rarely reports the dynamics of the knowledge construction process, especially in identifying the changes in teacher knowledge. Our study clearly illustrates the dynamics of the pre-service teachers' knowledge co- construction process which resulted in important changes in their TPACK repertoire. Inter-group written feedback supporting high-level cognitive and metacognitive behaviours In this study, almost all the inter- group asynchronous written feedback critiqued other groups' existing knowledge and pushed them to reflect on their metacognitive abilities to develop CBLP. This aligns with Klisc et al. (2017), who highlighted asynchronous online discussions in helping teachers develop critical thinking skills and evaluate their own ideas. Online learning platforms hosting asynchronous peer-written feedback create open, ridicule-free spaces for learning, fostering constructive critiques and peer expression (Gallardo et al., 2017). Chong and Kong (2012) agreed that online collaborative learning environments help participants challenge thinking, take risks and work towards shared goals. We believe it is the ‘delay’ rendered by asynchronous peer-written critical feedback that enables pre-service teachers to engage in metacognitive reflection of their knowledge and learning processes. Developing pre-service teachers' TPACK through the learning-by-design approach The learning-by- design framework, when applied to TPACK training, offers substantial benefits for both educational design and the professional development of teachers. By integrating intra- and inter- group interactions, this approach fosters a comprehensive understanding of TPACK, which is crucial for refining subject-specific teaching methodologies (Koehler & Mishra, 2009). This strategy not only facilitates within- group knowledge construction but also enhances the learning experience through the exchange of ideas between groups—a synergy that can lead to innovative educational practices and effective teacher development. Our research responds to Tafazoli's (2021) call for a deeper exploration of pre-service language teachers' TPACK development, an area previously overshadowed by the focus on in-service teachers (Tafazoli, 2021). By examining the evolution of collaborative discourse and the quality of the resulting designed artefacts, such as lesson plans, our study makes a significant contribution to the field. It investigates the tangible outcomes of teachers' collective design efforts, an area that has received limited attention according to Yeh et al. (2021). In practice, applying the learning-by- design approach within TPACK training equips preservice teachers with the skills to create and evaluate educational materials collaboratively, thereby enhancing their pedagogical repertoire (Voogt et al., 2013). This process not only improves immediate teaching practices but also contributes to the long-term professional growth of teachers as they adapt to and integrate new technologies and pedagogical strategies within their classrooms (Chai et al., 2013). 14678535, 0, Downloaded from https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13458, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License LEARNING BY DESIGN | MA et al. CO NCLUS I O N Our study revealed features relevant to pre-service TESOL teachers' TPACK development. We also illustrated the dynamics of online collaboration in both intra- and inter-group mechanisms. Our analysis of qualitative data also shows that a coding scheme based on Shulman's pedagogical reasoning is feasible for studying teachers' development of TPACK through learning by design facilitated by collaborative learning in future. We found that the pre-service teachers emphasised subject matter knowledge (ie, corpus literacy) and the representation of CBLP materials when designing lessons. In particular, they considered hands-on corpus-searching skills and guidance on how to browse corpora to be key components in designing CBLP lessons. Regarding online collaboration, within-group interactions facilitated both comprehension and transformation of relevant knowledge. As providing and receiving inter-group feedback happened after the within-group lesson design, the between-group interactions naturally helped the participants transform their knowledge by selecting more appropriate examples and adopting a wider range of teaching activities, resulting in new learning in their existing TPACK. A combination of the two collaboration modes should be adopted to help pre-service and inservice teachers develop more holistic CBLP or other subject-specific TPACK. There are several limitations. First, our study only focused on pre-service TESOL teachers, and future research could involve in-service teachers to determine whether similar patterns are observed when they collaboratively develop CBLP or other subject-specific TPACK. Second, we investigated lesson designs and covered only two stages (comprehension and transformation) of Shulman's pedagogical reasoning, leaving three stages (instruction, evaluation and reflection) to be explored. In future research, we may investigate all the five stages by examining how pre- or in-service teachers understand, design, teach, evaluate and reflect on their CBLP or other subject-specific TPACK lessons. Third, we only collected data from a single site, and it is desirable to see whether studies from other sites and contexts can generate similar findings. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS We would like to thank The Education University of Hong Kong and Beijing Foreign Studies University for providing the funding for this article. F U N D I N G I N F O R M AT I O N The article was supported by the GRF project (Ref: 18600123) by University Research Grants of Hong Kong SAR and the CRAC project (Ref: 04A32) by the Education University of Hong Kong. It was also supported by Project of Discipline Innovation and Advancement (PODIA)- Foreign Language Education Studies at Beijing Foreign Studies University (Ref: 2020SYLZDXM011). C O N F L I C T O F I N T E R E S T S TAT E M E N T The authors declare no conflict of interest. D ATA AVA I L A B I L I T Y S TAT E M E N T All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this article. E T H I C S S TAT E M E N T All procedures performed in this study involving healthy adult human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments. Ethical approval was obtained from the Human Research Ethics Committee at the Education University of Hong Kong. Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study. 14678535, 0, Downloaded from https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13458, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 20 | 21 ORCID Qing Ma https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3125-3513 Ching-sing Chai https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6298-4813 REFERENCES Al- Samarraie, H., & Saeed, N. (2018). A systematic review of cloud computing tools for collaborative learning: Opportunities and challenges to the blended-learning environment. Computers & Education, 124, 77–91. Ammar, A., & Hassan, R. M. (2018). Talking it through: Collaborative dialogue and second language learning. Language Learning, 68(1), 46–82. Baecher, L., Farnsworth, T., & Ediger, A. (2014). The challenges of planning language objectives in content-based ESL instruction. Language Teaching Research, 18(1), 118–136. Boulton, A. (2017). Corpora in language teaching and learning. Language Teaching, 50(4), 483–506. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis. Qualitative Psychology, 9(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/qup00 00196 Callies, M. (2019). Integrating corpus literacy into language teacher education. In S. Götz & J. Mukherjee (Eds.), Learner corpora and language teaching (pp. 245–263). John Benjamins. Chai, C. S., Koh, J. H. L., & Tsai, C. C. (2013). A review of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 31–51. Chambers, A. (2019). Towards the corpus revolution? Bridging the research–practice gap. Language Teaching, 52(4), 460–475. Charles, M. (2011). Using hands- on concordancing to teach rhetorical functions: Evaluation and implications for EAP writing classes. In A. Frankenberg- Garcia, G. Aston, & L. Flowerdew (Eds.), New Trends in Corpora and Language Learning (pp, 26–43). Continuum. Cho, Y., & Cho, K. (2010). Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instructional Science, 39(5), 629–643. Chong, W., & Kong, C. (2012). Teacher collaborative learning and teacher self- efficacy: The case of lesson study. The Journal of Experimental Education, 80(3), 263–283. Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (3rd ed.). Sage Publications. Crosthwaite, P., Luciana, & Wijaya, D. (2021). Exploring language teachers' lesson planning for corpus- based language teaching: A focus on developing TPACK for corpora and DDL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–29. Cummings, C., Mason, D., Shelton, K., & Baur, K. (2017). Active learning strategies for online and blended learning environments. In Flipped instruction: Breakthroughs in research and practice (pp. 88–114). IGI Global. Donnelly, D. F., & Hume, A. (2015). Using collaborative technology to enhance student teachers' pedagogical content knowledge in science. Research in Science & Technological Education, 33(1), 61–87. Gallardo, M., Heiser, S., & Arias McLaughlin, X. (2017). Developing pedagogical expertise in modern language learning and specific learning difficulties through collaborative and open educational practices. Language Learning Journal, 45(4), 518–529. Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2010). The first decade of the community of inquiry framework: A retrospective. The Internet and Higher Education, 13(1–2), 5–9. Graham, C., Borup, J., & Smith, N. (2012). Using TPACK as a framework to understand teacher candidates' technology integration decisions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 28(6), 530–546. Heather, J., & Helt, M. (2012). Evaluating corpus literacy training for student language teachers: Six case studies. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 20(4), 415–440. Herrera- Pavo, M. Á. (2021). Collaborative learning for virtual higher education. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 28, 100437. Hoadley, C. (2012). What is a community of practice and how can we support it? In S. Land, & D. Jonassen (Eds.) Theoretical foundations of learning environments (pp. 286–299). Routledge. Hovancsek, M. T. (2007). Using simulations in nursing education. In P. R. Jeffries (Ed.), Simulation in nursing education: From conceptualization to evaluation (pp. 1–9). National League for Nursing. Johns, T. (1991). Should you be persuaded: Two examples of data- driven learning. In T. Johns & P. King (Eds.), Classroom concordancing (Vol. 4, pp. 1–16). ELR. Karlsen, P. H., & Monsen, M. (2020). Corpus literacy and applications in Norwegian upper secondary schools: Teacher and learner perspectives. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 19(1), 118–148. Klisc, C., McGill, T., & Hobbs, V. (2017). Use of a post-asynchronous online discussion assessment to enhance student critical thinking. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(5), 63–76. Koehler, M., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70. 14678535, 0, Downloaded from https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13458, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License LEARNING BY DESIGN | MA et al. Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2005). What happens when teachers design educational technology? The development of technological pedagogical content knowledge. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 32(2), 131–152. Kolb, D. A. (1984). Experiential learning: experience as the source of learning and development. Upper Saddle River. Pearson Education. Kurth, A., Kaufmann, H. R., & Schäffner, L. (2022, February 17). Inclusive online collaborative learning environments. Creation of a Collaborative Environment in e-classrooms. https://reacteclass.eu/wp- content/uploads/ REACTLiteratureReview_final.pdf Lee, M. H., & Tsai, C. C. (2010). Exploring teachers' perceived self efficacy and technological pedagogical content knowledge with respect to educational use of the world wide web. Instructional Science: An International Journal of the Learning Sciences, 38(1), 1–21. Leńko- Szymańska, A. (2017). Training teachers in data driven learning: Tackling the challenge. Language Learning & Technology, 21(3), 217–241. Liu, D., & Lei, L. (2018). Using corpora to teach vocabulary. The TESOL Encyclopedia of English Language Teaching, 1–8. Ma, Q. (2020). Examining the role of inter- group peer online feedback on wiki writing in an EAP context. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 33(3), 197–216. Ma, Q. (2024). Corpus-based language pedagogy for pre-service and in-service teachers: Theory, practice and research. In P. Crosthwaite (Ed.), Corpora for language learning: Bridging the research- practice divide (pp. 174–186). Routledge. Ma, Q., Tang, J., & Lin, S. (2022). The development of corpus-based language pedagogy for TESOL teachers: A two-step training approach facilitated by online collaboration. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(9), 2731–2760. Ma, Q., Yuan, R., Cheung, L. M. E., & Yang, J. (2022). Teacher paths for developing corpus-based language pedagogy: A case study. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 1–32. Macrides, E., & Angeli, C. (2018). Domain-specific aspects of technological pedagogical content knowledge: Music education and the importance of affect. TechTrends, 62, 166–175. Merry, S., & Orsmond, P. (2008). Students' attitudes to and usage of academic feedback provided via audio files. Bioscience Education, 11(1), 1–11. Meunier, F. (2019). A case for constructive alignment in DDL: Rethinking outcomes, practices, and assessment in (data- driven) language learning. In P. Crosthwaite (Ed.), Data- driven learning for the next generation (pp. 13–30). Routledge/Talor & Francis. Mishra, P., & Koehler, M. J. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. Mukherjee, J. (2006). Corpus linguistics and language pedagogy: The state of the art–and beyond. In S. Braun, K. Kohn, & J. Mukherjee (Eds.), Corpora and language pedagogy: New resources, new tools, new methods (pp. 5–24). Peter Lang. Niess, M. L. (2008). Guiding preservice teachers in developing TPCK. In AACTE Committe Innovation and Technology (Ed.) Handbook of technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK) for educators (pp. 223–300). Routledge. Palloff, R. M., & Pratt, K. (2007). Building online learning communities: Effective strategies for the virtual classroom. John Wiley & Sons. Papanikolaou, K., Makri, K., & Roussos, P. (2017). Learning design as a vehicle for developing TPACK in blended teacher training on technology enhanced learning. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education, 14, 1–14. Pérez- Paredes, P., Ordoñana Guillamón, C., & Aguado Jiménez, P. (2018). Language teachers' perceptions on the use of OER language processing technologies in MALL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 31(5– 6), 522–545. Prensky, M. (2007). Simulation nation: The promise of virtual learning activities. Edutopia. Retrieved February 27, 2022, from http://www.edutopia.org/computer-simulations-virtual- learning Reppen, R. (2010). Using corpora in the language classroom. Cambridge University Press. Rodríguez- Fuentes, R. A., & Swatek, A. M. (2022). Exploring the effect of corpus-informed and conventional homework materials on fostering EFL students' grammatical construction learning. System, 104, 102676. Saito, E., & Atencio, M. (2016). Pedagogical content knowledge in action: Its impromptu development by an expert practitioner. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 24(1), 101–121. Shi, X., Li, X.-Y., & Yeung, S. S. (2022). The pedagogical content knowledge of two novice Chinese early childhood EFL teachers. Language Teaching Research, 1–22. Shulman, L. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–23. Smart, J. (2014). The role of guided induction in paper- based data- driven learning. ReCALL, 26(2), 184–201. Tafazoli, D. (2021). Language teachers' professional development and new literacies: An integrative review. Aula Abierta. 14678535, 0, Downloaded from https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13458, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 22 | 23 Tan, K. E. (2017). Using online discussion forums to support learning of paraphrasing. British Journal of Educational Technology, 48(6), 1239–1249. Tondeur, J., van Braak, J., Sang, G., Voogt, J., Fisser, P., & Ottenbreit- Leftwich, A. (2012). Preparing pre-service teachers to integrate technology in education: A synthesis of qualitative evidence. Computers and Education, 59(1), 134–144. Tribble, C. (2015). Teaching and language corpora. In A. Leńko- Szymańska & A. Boulton (Eds.), Multiple affordances of language corpora for data- driven learning (pp. 37–62). John Benjamins. Tseng, J. J., Chai, C. S., Tan, L., & Park, M. (2022). A critical review of research on technological pedagogical and content knowledge (TPACK) in language teaching. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 35(4), 948–971. Voogt, J., Fisser, P., Pareja Roblin, N., Tondeur, J., & van Braak, J. (2013). Technological pedagogical content knowledge—A review of the literature. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(2), 109–121. Vuogan, A., & Li, S. (2022). Examining the effectiveness of peer feedback in second language writing: A metaanalysis. TESOL Quarterly, 57(4), 1115–1138. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Harvard University Press. Wang, Q., & Zhang, H. (2014). Promoting teacher autonomy through university–school collaborative action research. Language Teaching Research, 18(2), 222–241. Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of practice: Learning as a social system. Systems Thinker, 9(5), 2–3. Willermark, S. (2018). Technological pedagogical and content knowledge: A review of empirical studies published from 2011 to 2016. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 56(3), 315–343. Wu, P., & Yu, S. (2017). Developing pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) through module team collaboration: A case study of business English teachers in China. The Asia- Pacific Education Researcher, 26(1), 97–105. Yeh, Y. F., Chan, K. K. H., & Hsu, Y. S. (2021). Toward a framework that connects individual TPACK and collective TPACK: A systematic review of TPACK studies investigating teacher collaborative discourse in the learning by design process. Computers & Education, 171, 104238. Yoon, H. (2008). More than a linguistic reference: The influence of corpus technology on L2 academic writing. Language Learning & Technology, 12(2), 31–48. Zareva, A. (2017). Incorporating corpus literacy skills into TESOL teacher training. ELT Journal, 71(1), 70–79. Zhang, S., Liu, Q., & Cai, Z. (2019). Exploring primary school teachers' technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) in online collaborative discourse: An epistemic network analysis. British Journal of Educational Technology, 50(6), 3437–3455. Zhang, Z., Liu, T., & Lee, C. B. (2021). Language learners' enjoyment and emotion regulation in online collaborative learning. System, 98, 102478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system. 2021.102478 How to cite this article: Ma, Q., Lee, H. T. H., Gao, X. A., & Chai, C.-s. (2024). Learning by design: Enhancing online collaboration in developing pre-service TESOL teachers' TPACK for teaching with corpus technology. British Journal of Educational Technology, 00, 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13458 A PPE N D I X A Interview guidelines Section 1: Basic understanding of corpus technology Please reflect on the last time you used a corpus. What did you use it for? By participating in the workshop and online sessions and working with your groupmates, have you gained some basic understanding of how to work with corpus data? Section 2: Corpora for learning and teaching purposes To what extent do you think corpus data can be useful for language learning and teaching resources? In your view, what are the advantages of using corpus data for language learning and teaching? 14678535, 0, Downloaded from https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13458, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License LEARNING BY DESIGN | MA et al. What are the limitations of corpus data? Do you know how to overcome the limitations of corpus data to make corpus-based language learning or teaching more efficient? In the future, would you like to use corpus-based learning activities in your teaching? If so, can you think of one or two corpus-based activities that you may wish to use with your students? … Section 3: Within- group interactions What was your main role in this lesson design? What were the main tasks of the other groupmates? Was the division of workload in the team even? If not, please estimate the percentage of workload of yourself and other groupmates. If there was unequal workload distribution in your group, did you accept this? Why or why not? Overall, did you enjoy working and collaborating with your groupmates on this lesson design? Why or why not? 14678535, 0, Downloaded from https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13458, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License 24 Example of coding procedure of interview excerpts (Group A). No. Interview data extracts from group A Initial codes 1 Kyle: If we need to meet the basic needs, COCA is the best. Plus, I think its interface and design are relatively streamlined. But if we talk about corpus tools holistically, I think COCA and Lextutor are complementary, and they supplement each other…As a learner or analyst [researcher], the needs are different 1. Positive evaluation of COCA 2. COCA and Lextutor are complementary 2 Kyle: I think checking collocation is most crucial, so it makes COCA the best, and then it comes Lextutor, which has the ‘gapped’ function for making cloze test for students 1. Checking collocation is useful 2. Positive evaluation of COCA 3. The ‘gapped’ function in Lextutor is convenient 3 Rachel: It should be COCA. Because in this semester, the professor mainly talks about COCA, and after inputting simple codes into COCA, I can search what I need, for example, synonyms, and other similar things. So, COCA is to me more practical. Also, when it comes to teaching students vocabulary, it [COCA] finds relatively useful examples 1. Positive evaluation of COCA 2. COCA is more practical and provides useful examples 4 Interviewer: Talking about the pros and cons, and how to tackle the cons, what do you feel about the advantages [of corpus]? Are there any disadvantages, and how should they be improved? Rachel: The advantage is, if you look for the usage of the vocabulary, for example, the frequencies, [corpus tools offer] very authentic statistics. You can know in which contexts this specific word is used more frequently. But for learners, finding example sentences, just like what [Kyle] said, using dictionaries may be easier. Because the [concordancer] shows you all the sentences, if you look through them one by one, it actually takes you much longer time 1. Advantage of corpora: ample language examples 2. Disadvantage of corpora: may generate overwhelming examples Categories developed from Shulman's pedagogical reasoning Comprehension of subject matter: knowledge about corpus linguistics or relevant corpus- searching skills LEARNING BY DESIGN A PPE N D I X B | 25 14678535, 0, Downloaded from https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13458, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Initial codes 5 Interviewer: You mentioned when targeting secondary school students, you thought of their learning needs, and that became a problem for you. How did you overcome it? Rachel: First, I read quickly [some information] about this level of students, what vocabulary they will use, and then grasp what their levels are at Interviewer: How did you find the information? You found them in learner corpus? Rachel: No. There are online sources, or you can go to the library and find the vocabulary lists they need to learn, those specific ones. You flip through them and you should more or less have an idea. For example, they typically overuse ‘important’, that's what I feel. After reading such sources and you go to find those sentences [from the concordancer], you will find maybe these are suitable for this kind of students 1. The pre-service teachers' awareness of learners' needs 2. The lesson plan should address students’ learning difficulties Comprehension of students: understanding of target students' 1. proficiency in English 2. difficulties faced in English learning 3. experience in corpus use 6 Interviewer: When designing the lesson with your groupmates, were there any difficulties? What was the major difficulty your group faced? Kyle: Yes. Because when we designed the lesson, our aim was to [help the students] substitute some frequently overused words, for example, ‘important’ and ‘very’, we wanted to replace them with synonyms, but because synonyms cannot be substituted in every contexts, if a student simply use the corpus without teachers' instructions, he might discover these synonyms, but because some of them may have entirely different meanings, in this case, the student's primary [needs] would be that the teachers should provide more guidance 1. The purpose of incorporating corpora in the lesson 2. Realisation that providing teacher guidance is obligatory Comprehension of purposes New comprehension: New understandings concerning language learning and teaching with corpora 7 Interviewer: Talking about the pros and cons, and how to tackle the cons, what do you feel about the advantages [of corpus]? Are there any disadvantages, and how should they be improved? Kyle: My thoughts were actually very similar to Rachel <…> some sentences in corpora were actually not that suitable, especially for learners at school, say… the intermediate level. Maybe for advanced [learners], they may want to analyse this thing, but for intermediate level, they would not be able to do so <…> back to this problem about the suitability of sentences, so when we look for authentic example sentences from the corpus, some contain vocabulary too difficult, or the contexts were too unrelatable or professional The pre-service evaluated the level of difficulty of the example sentences before showing the students Transformation: Preparation: Critically interpreting corpusrelated teaching materials, in addition to structuring and planning corpus-informed classes MA et al. Interview data extracts from group A | No. 26 Categories developed from Shulman's pedagogical reasoning 14678535, 0, Downloaded from https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13458, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License No. Interview data extracts from group A Initial codes 8 Interviewer: You mentioned when [Kyle] proposed that letting the primary students do this, it would be more difficult, but you still accepted his decision? Rachel: <…> I think that apart from choosing the sample sentences for the students, the other parts were very well set by us. For example, I just talked about the first part [of the lesson], it was a composition [reading] activity. I thought it was quite good by letting the students first circle the vocabulary in question. [The lesson] begins from something profound, and then we explain using simpler terms The intra- group interaction strengthens their pedagogical reasonings concerning instructions arrangement Transformation: Instructional selection: Selecting the instructional mode to teach, arrange and manage corpusinformed learning material 9 Interviewer: OK, so [Kyle] mentioned how to look for the synonyms, and how to replace the overused ‘important’ and ‘very’. But it was not easy for the students to do that. You thought that was a difficulty, so how did you overcome it? Kyle: Firstly, I spent a lot of time on selecting example sentences. Secondly, our team made up some sentences, but these sentences were actually not created by us, we found them on the dictionary. We found them on…like Collins, Cambridge, we finally consulted the examples on dictionaries because we thought they could also be an authentic source, and they may perhaps be more suitable 1. Selecting authentic sentences from corpora is time- consuming 2. The group extracted sentences from dictionaries because it was more convenient Transformation: Representation: Using an appropriate representational repertoire to teach with corpus data (such as analogies, metaphors, demonstrations, exemplification, explanations and so forth) LEARNING BY DESIGN Categories developed from Shulman's pedagogical reasoning A PPE N D I X C Examples of coding procedure of suggestive comments and modifications in lesson plan. Comment 1 (received by group A) ‘When Ss are doing Activity 1, they might get confused not knowing what “word use” means and they couldn't identify the problems. One way to improve this is by putting the 2 sets of L1 words in step 1 as hints and telling Ss that they are asked to circle the L2 words which represent the same meaning in the composition’ In this activity, teachers revised the lesson plan and note that teachers need to consider the level of difficulty according to students' proficiency. If they cannot identify the language problem at this stage, teachers can instruct them to only circle the adjectives and adverbs Mapped categories of CBLP Reasons and relation to the nine categories Comprehension of students The group reconsidered the level of difficulty of the task, showing that the group tried to cater to the difficulties faced by the students 27 Revisions | Comments received 14678535, 0, Downloaded from https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13458, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Transformation: Representation: Using an appropriate representational repertoire to teach with corpus data (such as analogies, metaphors, demonstrations, exemplification, explanations and so forth) In this case, the group tried to provide scaffolding using appropriate keywords as examples in order to complete the translation task, in addition to showing students sample concordance lines from the corpus data ‘About activity 2, we are a little bit confused whether all the synonyms of “important” and “very” can be replaced freely. As for secondary students, maybe we need to show them clearly the differences between each synonym, so an explicit conclusion will help us’ Teacher notes are added to alert teachers the need to explain the differences between ‘important’ and ‘very’ explicitly. Teachers could also advise students that they can make use of a dictionary, in addition to the corpus data Transformation: Representation: Using an appropriate representational repertoire to teach with corpus data (such as analogies, metaphors, demonstrations, exemplification, explanations and so forth) In this case, the activity was revised to include an explicit explanation/conclusion of the differences between ‘important’ and ‘very’, instead of just showing students the concordance lines containing the keywords ‘However, I think it is still challenging for students to figure out the differences between “make” and “do” by studying the handouts. The words listed in your handouts are not easy to categorise or to make a summary for students. <…> And I don't quite understand why you screenshot those particular lines as your corpus search results to analyse and summarise instead of just screenshot the most frequent ones’ The group created a new table of showing the collocates of ‘do’ and ‘make’. In addition, the list of collocates is sorted according to usage frequencies informed by COCA, helping students to understand the actual language use with authentic data Transformation: Representation: Using an appropriate representational repertoire to teach with corpus data (such as analogies, metaphors, demonstrations, exemplification, explanations and so forth) The creation of a new frequencies table of collocates to replace the old is connected to the representation of corpus data relevant to vocabulary use. In this case, new frequency list will inform students what the frequent collocates of ‘make’ and ‘do’ are, and inductively infer their usage and difference ‘The step 5 of Activity 2. The target of this step may be too broad & ambiguous. Because actually we are not sure is this for checking the using of collocations or synonyms. There can be several translate versions to each sentence. Scaffolding can be provided in this part. For example, provide Ss with the SPECIFIC keyword (important/ significant/…) or the collocation (important to/that/…) which they may use in the translation’ Comment 3 (received by group A) Comment 4 (received by group B) MA et al. Scaffolding is provided by showing students the keywords to use for the translation task Comment 2 (received by group A) | Reasons and relation to the nine categories Revisions 28 Mapped categories of CBLP Comments received 14678535, 0, Downloaded from https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13458, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License Revisions ‘I like how you begin the lesson with checking student's level of comprehension! This will help with grading teaching. I also like how you change the mode of learning (individual, pairing and small group work). There also appears to be good scaffolding to help students in their learning. Maybe you could add a meaningful story or context to get students more interested in the task. For example, give them a good reason for wanting to learn to differentiate the two different phrasal verbs’ In regard to the last opinion, the group finally changed the beginning of the lesson using a short video clip instead of just showing the target vocabulary. The video clip introduces the phrasal verbs ‘get to’ and ‘get up’ with a more interesting opening Mapped categories of CBLP Reasons and relation to the nine categories Transformation: Adaptation: Considering students' conceptions, preconceptions, misconceptions, motivations, interests and attention about language or corpora The decision of changing the lead-in activity to watching a video from merely introducing the vocabulary words without a compelling story shows that the group attends to students' motivations and interests. This change also helps the group to set the learning context for the target students LEARNING BY DESIGN Comment 5 (received by group H) Comments received | 29 14678535, 0, Downloaded from https://bera-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/bjet.13458, Wiley Online Library on [15/04/2024]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License