A Cognitive Framework in Teaching English Simple Present

Autor/in	Tian, Cong
Titel	A Cognitive Framework in Teaching English Simple Present
Quelle	In: English Language Teaching, 8 (2015) 3, S.24-34 (11 Seiten) PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1916-4742
Schlagwörter	Grammar; English (Second Language); Second Language Instruction; High School Students; Morphemes; Foreign Countries; Instructional Effectiveness; Teaching Methods; Pretests Posttests; Interviews; Questionnaires; Qualitative Research; Statistical Analysis; China + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Grammatik; English as second language; English; Second Language; Englisch als Zweitsprache; Fremdsprachenunterricht; High school; High schools; Student; Students; Oberschule; Schüler; Schülerin; Studentin; Morphem; Ausland; Unterrichtserfolg; Teaching method; Lehrmethode; Unterrichtsmethode; Interviewing; Interviewtechnik; Fragebogen; Qualitative Forschung; Statistische Analyse
Abstract	A Cognitive Grammar (CG) analysis of linguistic constructions has been claimed to be beneficial to second language teaching. However, little empirical research has been done to support this claim. In this study, two intact classes of Chinese senior high school students were given a 45-minute review lesson on the usages of the English simple present tense. Instruction for the experimental class was based on Langacker's cognitive grammar analysis that highlighted the common motivation linking various usages, while that for the control class followed traditional teaching method. Results showed that the learners in the CG approach did not perform significantly better than the control group both on a grammaticality judgment and error correction task, and on a fill-in-the-blank task, though the CG approach did improve students' performance considerably. The author argued that four reasons might have diminished the benefits of the CG approach: 1) the selection of the samples was inappropriate; 2) the CG approach ran counter to learners' expectations about grammar; 3) the presentation of the CG treatment was too abstract, and linguistic terminologies new to the students were introduced, which made the lesson hard to follow; 4) instructional time was too limited. Therefore more classroom research is needed to substantiate the claimed pedagogical benefits of the CG approach. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Canadian Center of Science and Education. 1120 Finch Avenue West Suite 701-309, Toronto, OH M3J 3H7, Canada. Tel: 416-642-2606; Fax: 416-642-2608; e-mail: elt@ccsenet.org; Web site: http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/elt
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01