Innovative grammar instruction: employing corpus-based pedagogy and the 4P model for teaching Wh-questions

2.1 Using corpora for grammar instruction

A corpus is a large, principled collection of authentic texts (spoken and/or written) stored electronically (Reppen 2010). A well-constructed corpus that is sufficiently large with multi-functional search tools enables users to efficiently discover authentic language patterns across different registers (Liu et al. 2025; Viana 2023). Corpora are widely used in synchronic and diachronic studies focusing on lexis, grammar, discourse analysis, language variation, and gender studies (e.g., Biber et al. 1998; Johansson and Ebeling 1998; Lee 2006, 2018). Furthermore, corpus linguistics can provide a means of not only introducing natural language into English classrooms but also engaging learners in interacting with real language through hands-on activities.

In recent years there has been a growing interest in using corpora and concordances for language learning through the data-driven learning (DDL) model (e.g., Bernardini 2004; Johns 1991, 1994; Liu et al. 2025; O’Keeffe et al. 2007; Reppen 2010; Sinclair 1997, 2004; Tribble 2012; Viana 2023; Willis 2011; Yang et al. 2024). DDL is founded on the principles of learner autonomy and the inductive approach, whereby learners discover language patterns through observation and analysis of language data, much like corpus researchers. Rather than adopting a teacher-centred classroom with a top-down approach, DDL promotes a bottom-up process in which learners take control of their own learning and the teacher acts as a facilitator for learners to solve language problems.

Teachers and textbook writers can leverage insights from corpus data to enhance grammar teaching in various ways. One approach is to encourage learners to identify fundamental grammatical patterns through Key Word In Context (KWIC) information generated by concordance programmes. KWIC displays the target word centrally, with contextual words arranged to the left and right, revealing how the target word functions within its context. For example, a concordance search of the Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA) can help learners identify the appropriate preposition to use after “married”. Specifically, “married to” refers to a spouse, while “married with” indicates the presence of children in the marriage, as illustrated in the KWIC examples provided in Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1:

KWIC examples for “married to”.

Figure 2:

KWIC examples for “married with”.

Corpus linguistics can advance our knowledge and understanding of the English language (Viana 2023), and assist educators in designing syllabi. For example, Mindt’s (1997) corpus study revealed that 50 percent of instances of “any” was used in affirmative sentences (e.g., I thought any fool would know), 30–40 percent in negatives (e.g., I shan’t get any scripts from the assistants), and only about 10 percent in interrogatives (e.g., But is there any truth in it?). Although the use of “any” in affirmative sentences is the most common, it is rarely addressed in teaching materials. This finding suggests that teachers can leverage corpus data to inform syllabus design and help students uncover essential grammatical patterns, thereby dispelling language myths, such as the misconception that the determiner “any” is exclusively used in negative statements and questions.

However, if only corpus-based exercises that focus on linguistic patterns are adopted in the English classroom, concerns may arise regarding the continued prevalence of decontextualised sentences, as seen in traditional grammar practice books. The form-focused approach also conflicts with the emphasis on meaning and interaction promoted by more recent communicative and task-based language teaching methodologies (Aston 2001; Barbieri and Eckhardt 2007; Curriculum Development Council 2017; Tomlinson 2025; Ur 2018, 2025). To bridge this gap, this paper illustrates the integration of corpus-based problem-solving activities in teaching wh-questions, utilising an action-oriented 4P model that emphasises the development of language skills through meaningful communication and practical, real-world applications. The effectiveness of this integrated approach will be evaluated.

2.2 Teaching and learning wh-interrogatives in Hong Kong, China

Despite the fact that the wh-interrogative is a widely used structure in different registers (Biber et al. 1999), previous studies (e.g., Bahns 1991; Lee 2012, 2016) have shown that many EFL and English as a Second Language (ESL) learners experience difficulty in wh-question formation. One reason for this learning problem is that to form a well-structured wh-question in English, learners must follow several principles simultaneously:¹ (1) choose the correct wh-word or wh-phrase (e.g., how far, what place) in the sentence initial position; (2) place an obligatory operator (i.e., a form of be, have and do or a modal) after the wh-word; (3) use the correct form of the predicator after the operator (do/modal + base verb form; be + present participle/past participle; have + past participle); and (4) invert the subject with the operator (unless the wh-word or phrase is the subject). Following these principles is a cognitively demanding task for many ESL and EFL learners, especially when the wh-interrogative structure in their native language is very different from that in the English language (Lee 2012, 2016). Chinese Hong Kong learners’ poor command of the wh-interrogative was repeatedly mentioned in the examination reports of a previous public examination for Secondary 5 leavers, in which candidates in the speaking examination had to take part in a role play and ask an examiner questions based on prompts provided. It was reported that around 75 percent of the candidates failed to form questions correctly (Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority 2003). Examples such as “Where did the party held?”, “What your favourite festival?” and “What difficulties experienced?” were not exceptions but common occurrences (Hong Kong Examinations and Assessment Authority 2003, 2004, 2006).

The author’s previous studies (Lee 2012, 2016) have highlighted that L1 transfer among Chinese Hong Kong learners serves as an inhibiting factor in wh-question formation. Given the significant differences between Chinese and English wh-interrogative structures, direct literal translation from Chinese to English can lead to errors. The identified interference issues include misplacement of wh-words among lower achievers (e.g., Mary’s hat is what?; This is who book?), confusion between the verbs be and do (e.g., What is Miss Wong say?; Where are Mr Tang have lunch?), omission of the operator (e.g., Where Mr Tang go to lunch?; Why you feel very happy?), incorrect forms of the predicator (e.g., What did Miss Wong said?; Who is sing in the hall?), and improper word order (e.g., Why you are so happy?; Who this book is?). Furthermore, these studies reveal that while most junior high school students in Hong Kong can effectively use one-word interrogatives, many struggle with the selection of wh-phrases (e.g., which hat, whose ruler, how far). This finding aligns with the developmental sequence of wh-words among L1 speakers (Bloom et al. 1982), where pronominal forms (e.g., what, who) are typically acquired before adjectival forms such as which and whose.

In addition to L1 influence, another possible reason for poor mastery of the wh-interrogative among Chinese Hong Kong ESL learners is due to the traditional disjointed approach adopted by many grammar practice books, which are over-reliant on decontextualised isolated sentences as well as highly controlled, mechanical practice (e.g., blank fills, multiple-choice questions, sentence transformation) (Lee 2012; Lee and Collins 2009). Celce-Murcia (2007) argues that sentence-level grammar instruction and practice does not give learners sufficient context to learn when and why to use the target structure. The focus on form and inadequate attention to the meaning may result in the learners’ failure to master the interrogative structure for effective communication, which was displayed by the majority of Hong Kong Secondary 5 students in the public examination mentioned above. Celce-Murcia (2007, p. 5) postulates that “grammar instruction is much more effective when it is situated in a meaningful context, embedded in authentic (or semi-authentic) discourse, and motivated by getting learners to achieve a goal or complete an interesting task”.

4.1 Methodology

This exploratory study seeks to investigate the integration of corpus-based activities in the teaching and learning of wh-interrogatives through the 4P model. The research question guiding this inquiry is: To what extent can the use of corpora-based discovery learning and the 4P model enhance the understanding of wh-question formation?

The project team consisted of the author as the project supervisor and seven full-time student teachers (five females and two males) from a university in China. Five of them were enrolled in the MATESOL programme while two were final-year Bachelor of Education students majoring in English. They participated in the experimental project to learn how to design effective grammar lessons that incorporate corpus-based language discovery activities and the 4P model.

Initially, they were trained in analysing language patterns using corpus data and in applying the 4P model to teach specific grammar points. Following this, they engaged in lesson planning and materials development on selected grammar topics, during which they received feedback from project members, reflected on their designs, made revisions, conducted trial lessons, and ultimately evaluated the project. Owing to the limited space of this paper, the focus is on the instruction of wh-questions, while other grammar topics are excluded.

The school trial for wh-question formation was conducted with a Secondary 2 class (Grade 8) consisting of 32 students at a Band 1 English-medium school. In Chinese Hong Kong, secondary schools are classified into three Bands based on students’ academic achievements and admission criteria, with Band 1 representing the schools with the highest academic performance. During the 80-minute lesson trial, two student teachers facilitated the research lesson, while four team members, including the author, observed and provided feedback afterwards. To assess students’ understanding of wh-question formation, a pre-test was administered one week prior to the trial lesson, followed by a post-test conducted one week afterwards. Students’ feedback on the lesson was gathered through a post-lesson questionnaire survey involving the whole class, as well as a 10-minute interview with three selected students (see Section 4.3 for details).

4.2 Lesson design

In accordance with the English Language curriculum guidelines (Curriculum Development Council 2017), this lesson aimed to enhance learners’ understanding of the target structure while simultaneously fostering their communication skills and promoting positive values and attitudes. The learning experience was contextualised within the theme of “pet adoption”. The lesson had three specific objectives: (1) to identify the correct wh-words, word order and verb phrase structure in wh-questions; (2) to conduct a pet adoption interview at a pet shelter using wh-questions; and (3) to cultivate an affection for animals. The lesson was structured in stages according to the 4P model.

4.3 Data collection and analysis

Both quantitative and qualitative data were collected to evaluate students’ learning. To address the research question regarding the effectiveness of using corpora and the 4P model in enhancing student learning, the study included pre- and post-lesson tests, a post-lesson evaluation survey, and a post-lesson interview with three students representing high, medium and low English proficiency levels, as identified by the school teacher. The pre-test was administered one week before the trial lesson and the post-test was conducted one week afterwards. A total of 31 students completed the pre-test, and 29 students completed the post-test. The pre-test results of the two students who did not participate in the post-test were excluded from analysis.

To objectively measure student learning, the pre- and post-test items remained consistent (see Appendix C). The tests included three parts: (1) filling in blanks with wh-words/phrases; (2) a multiple-choice cloze passage focusing on word order and verb phrase structures; and (3) wh-question formation based on a provided picture and corresponding answers. In addition to the pre- and post-test scores for each item, the questions formed in Part 3 of the tests were coded to evaluate the correct use of critical features, including wh-word placement, wh-words/phrases, operators, predicators and word order. Each critical feature was analysed independently by a research assistant and verified by the author. Responses that were irrelevant to the five examined components were ignored. The results were analysed using SPSS, and paired samples t-tests were conducted to gauge students’ learning from the research lesson. Examples of the critical feature analysis are presented below.

A total of 32 students participated in the trial lesson. For the post-lesson evaluation, all students were invited to rate five statements and provide written responses to two open-ended questions. A 4-point Likert scale was used for the ratings, with options ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. The statements included:

1. I gained a clearer understanding of the structure of wh-questions from today’s lesson.

2. I have a better understanding of how to use wh-questions as a result of the lesson.

3. I feel more confident in asking wh-questions after the lesson.

4. I enjoy discovering grammar rules on my own by studying the example sentences given.

5. I like the teacher to tell me grammar rules.

The two questions which required students’ free responses were:

1. Did you enjoy today’s grammar lesson? Were the teaching activities different from those in previous grammar lessons?

2. Which activity in the lesson did you like the most? Why?

To further assess students’ learning, the author conducted a post-lesson semi-structured interview with three students representing high, medium and low levels of English proficiency. The students were invited to respond to the following questions:

1. What did you learn in today’s lesson?

2. When do you use wh-questions?

3. How did today’s lesson differ from previous grammar lessons?

4. Did you enjoy today’s lesson? Which part did you like the most?

For the quantitative data collected in the questionnaire survey, descriptive statistics were compiled, recording the frequency of each response option. To assess the average response and variability, the mean and standard deviation for each statement were calculated. Additionally, a paired-samples t-test was conducted to determine whether there were significant gains resulting from the lesson. For the qualitative data collected from the questionnaire survey and interview, verbatim transcriptions were produced. The transcriptions were then coded to identify recurring themes relevant to the research question.

To further evaluate students’ progress in formulating wh-questions, this paper also compares the wh-questions created for Activity 1 with those generated during the final activity, the pet adopter interview.

5.1 Comparison of pre- and post-test results

There was corroborating evidence indicating that students experienced significant learning from the research lesson. The mean score for all the items in the pre-test was 17.21, and that for the post-test was 18.93 (maximum score: 21). A significant difference was noted (t(28) = −5.073, p < 0.001). The following sections will discuss students’ performance in more detail.

5.2 Selection of wh-words

Table 2 shows that the Band 1 students, recognised as high performers, experienced no difficulties with wh-word choices. They attained high scores on the gap-fill exercise in both the pre-test and post-test. The only significant improvement was noted for Question 7 Whose bag is this?, which features the wh-phrase “whose bag” (t(28) = −2.703, p < 0.01), with a medium effect size (d = 0.412). This finding aligns with the findings of the author’s previous studies (Lee 2012, 2016), which suggested that while most junior high school students in Chinese Hong Kong can effectively use one-word interrogatives, many – particularly lower-achieving students – struggle with selecting appropriate wh-phrases. The Problem-solving Stage, which included a self-discovery activity focused on the structure of wh-phrases (see Appendix A), appeared to be effective in addressing this issue.

5.3 Word order and verb phrase structure

Table 3 presents the pre- and post-test results for the multiple-choice cloze passage focused on the word order and verb phrase structure of wh-questions, except for Sentence 1, which features the word order of a statement for comparison. The findings indicate that students with high English ability possess a solid understanding of wh-question formation, achieving generally high scores on the cloze passage, consistent with the author’s previous studies (Lee 2012, 2016). However, significant improvements were observed for Sentence 4 Where did you last see your cat? (t(28) = −3.266, p = 0.001), and Sentence 7 Where are you going, Lucy? (t(28) = −1.797, p < 0.05), both demonstrating a medium effect size (d = 0.371 for Sentence 4 and d = 0.412 for Sentence 7).

5.4 Wh-question formation

Table 4 presents a comparison of the pre- and post-test results for question formation, specifically the transformation of statements into wh-questions. Notable significant improvements were observed in the overall results. The mean score for the five critical features in the pre-test was 21.1379, while the post-test mean score was 22.8966 (t(28) = −3.742, p < 0.001). Four out of the five questions (Questions 1–4) demonstrated marked gains, with a p-value of less than 0.05. Regarding the critical features of wh-question formation, significant improvements were noted in the selection of wh-words (t(28) = −3.018, p < 0.005), operators (t(28) = −3.819, p < 0.001), and word order (t(28) = −1.839, p < 0.05).

The effective learning demonstrated by students as a result of the research lesson was also highlighted through a comparison of the questions they asked in Activity 1, following the video viewing, and those generated during the final role-play activity (pet adopter interview). Table 5 presents several example sentences produced by the students. Notably, the missing operator, which was frequently observed among students in Activity 1, was effectively addressed during the role-play activity. This aligns with the findings presented in the post-test.

5.5 Post-lesson evaluation

In the post-lesson survey, the 32 participating students were asked to rate five statements regarding the research lesson (see Table 6). The findings reveal that with the exception of one student who answered “disagree” for statement 4, all other students rated the statements as either “agree” or “strongly agree”, indicating their positive attitudes towards the research lesson, which incorporated the 4P model and corpus-based activities. Notably, the students rated statement 5, “I like the teacher to tell me grammar rules”, highly (mean score = 3.38), which has two implications. First, after students engage in self-discovery activities that involve analysing natural language data, it is essential for teachers to explicitly articulate grammar patterns and rules to ensure that learners of varying abilities can achieve the same learning outcomes. Second, this finding highlights the fact that students have diverse learning styles, suggesting that no single teaching approach is universally effective. Therefore, teachers should cultivate a repertoire of teaching strategies and apply professional judgement to determine which approach will be most effective for a particular lesson, taking into account factors such as the topic, its learnability, and the learners’ age and proficiency level. The 4P model is most effective when used in conjunction with other instructional methods. This aligns with Ur’s (2025) argument that maintaining a balance of “juggling balls” related to grammar teaching to create a coherent set of procedures tailored to a specific teaching context is likely to yield optimal learning outcomes.

The research lesson not only enabled the students to master the wh-question structure but also enhanced their motivation to learn English. In the open-ended section of the survey, 31 students (97 %) expressed that they enjoyed the research lesson. When comparing the lesson to other grammar lessons, a number of students indicated their appreciation for the abundance of example sentences (corpus-based) that facilitated their independent analyses of various wh-question structures. They felt that the problem-solving activities contributed significantly to their understanding of the wh-interrogative structure. Below are some comments from students:

Yes, I did [enjoy the lesson]. The teaching activities in today’s lesson were different from those in other grammar lessons because the teachers gave us some interesting exercises to do and explained the ideas in detail. (Student 5)

Yes, [I enjoyed the lesson] because there are many examples to teach me about wh-questions. (Student 6)

In the post-lesson interview, the three student participants noted that in other lessons they had primarily learned grammar through a deductive approach, which involved teacher explanations of grammar rules, illustrated with sentence examples, followed by students completing exercises from their grammar books. All three students expressed a preference for the approach adopted in the research lesson, as it allowed them to discover the grammar patterns independently. Below are some examples of their comments:

The lesson was very detailed so it was clear. We could discover the structures slowly in the lesson. It’s good the teacher guided us to find patterns from the sentences. (Student 7, a high achiever)

The teachers asked a lot of questions. These questions guided us to think and find the pattern. The teachers gave many example sentences for us to discover the patterns so we understood them well. When we knew the answers and circled the correct words, it means we understand. (Student 8, an average achiever)

In addition to the problem-solving activities, the students expressed appreciation for the diverse range of activities included in the lesson. In the post-lesson evaluation with the whole class, frequently used words to describe the lesson included “interesting” (16 times), “funny” (11 times), and “fun” (2 times). The majority of students (68.8 %) identified watching videos on pet adoption, which provided a realistic context for the Presentation, Practice, and Production stages, as their most favourite activity. The term “video(s)” appeared 25 times in the post-lesson evaluation, highlighting their preference for video content. Some of their comments included: “There are different videos that engage us”; “This grammar lesson was very funny. We can watch the videos and do exercises”; “I like watching the videos because I can learn something from them, like the love for animals”; and “I like ‘pet adoption’ the most, because it relates closely to our daily lives”.

The student interviews further supported these findings. Student 9, a developing learner, expressed delight at the variety of lesson activities, particularly the video watching. Student 8 noted that students enjoyed listening to video stories, which helped establish context for their grammar learning. Student 7 indicated that this contextual framework made the learning experience more authentic, allowing her to understand the grammar structures more easily.

In addition to the videos, some students expressed a fondness for the activities during the Production stage, as they enjoyed creating sentences and formulating questions on their own. Several students also mentioned that they appreciated conducting interviews because it was engaging, creative and relevant to their daily lives.

To sum up, the successful integration of corpus-based activities and the 4P model in contextualised settings allows students to focus not only on the forms of wh-questions but also on their use in authentic situations. The improvements observed in learners’ post-lesson test scores, along with their positive feedback in the post-lesson evaluation, offer valuable insights for educators to further explore this approach in teaching other topics.