Journals / Eurasian Journal of Educational Research / 2018 / Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 73

Students’ Responses to CL-Based Teaching of English Prepositions

Pages
41–58
Publication Date
2022-10-18
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Implications for Research and Practice: Most participantsbecame more confident in both understanding and using the prepositions under CL-basedteaching.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Purpose: Most EFL textbooks suggest the use of vividpictures and verbal explanations in teaching English prepositions.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This currentstudy aimed to collect college students’ responses toCL-based teaching of English prepositions.Research Methods: The study was conducted for four weeks, with a 90-minute session eachtime per week.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Implications for Research and Practice: Most participantsbecame more confident in both understanding and using the prepositions under CL-basedteaching.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Purpose: Most EFL textbooks suggest the use of vividpictures and verbal explanations in teaching English prepositions. However, this word class appears in collocations, and rote-learning does not really help learners retain and use this word class successfully. Cognitive linguistics (CL) has implications for English language teaching as it rests against the relationship between the human mind and language. Several experimental studies have aimed to investigate the effects of CL-based treatment on learners’ retention of target foreign or second language. However, most ofthese studies have not placed an emphasis on thelearners’ opinions of CL-based teaching. This currentstudy aimed to collect college students’ responses toCL-based teaching of English prepositions.Research Methods: The study was conducted for four weeks, with a 90-minute session eachtime per week. The students learned the spatial meanings and then the metaphorical meaningsof the ten prepositions above, among, at, behind, beside, between, in, in front of, on, and under.Questionnaires were administered before the study to collect the participants’ opinions of thetraditional teaching (primarily based on vivid pictures and verbal explanations) and after thestudy to collect the participants’ opinions of the CL-based teaching of the prepositions. Theparticipants’ responses to the questionnaires were subject to comparison. Their responses in theinterview after the study provided an in-depth qualitative analysis of the quantitative findingsfrom the questionnaires. Results: All students generally showed positive opinions of thetreatment and believed that the instructions were appropriate and positively affected theirmemories of the prepositions. They especially appreciated the use of image schemas to teachthe semantics of the prepositions. Implications for Research and Practice: Most participantsbecame more confident in both understanding and using the prepositions under CL-basedteaching.

🔖

Cite This Article

TRUONG, V., NGUYEN, N. V., HUNG, B. P. (2022). Students’ Responses to CL-Based Teaching of English Prepositions. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 73, 41–58. https://ajindex.com/articles/507166

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Beréndi, M. (2005). Metaphor and Metonymy at the Crossroads. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. Bielak, J. & Pawlak, M. (2013). Applying cognitive grammar in the foreign language classroom: Teaching English tense and aspect. Kalisz: Springer. Boers, F. (2000). Enhancing metaphoric awareness in specialized reading. English for Specific Purposes, 19, 137-147.
  2. Boers, F. (2011). Cognitive semantic ways of teaching figurative phrases: An assessment. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 9 (1), 227-261.
  3. Cho, K. (2010). Fostering the acquisition of English prepositions by Japanese learners with networks and prototypes. In S. D. Knop, F. Boers, & A. D. Rycker (Eds.), Fostering Language Teaching Efficiency through Cognitive Linguistics (pp. 259-275). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Ellis, R. (2008). Investigating grammatical difficulty in second language learning: Implications for second language acquisition research and language testing. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18, 4-22.
  4. Evans, V. 2007. A glossary of cognitive linguistics. Utah: University of Utah Press.
  5. Harmer, J. (2009). The practice of English language teaching. Essex: Pearson Education. Hung, B. P. (2017). Vietnamese students learning the semantics of English prepositions. GEMA Online @ Journal of Language Studies, 17(4), 146-158.
  6. Huong, N. T. (2005). Vietnamese learners mastering English articles. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Groningen. Retrieved from http://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/2925155/thesis.pdf.
  7. Kemmerer, D. (2005). The spatial and temporal meanings of English prepositions can be independently impaired. Neuropsychologia, 43(5), 797-806.
  8. Kroll, J. F., Dussias, P. E., Bice, K. & Perrotti, L. (2015). Bilingualism, mind and brain. Annual Review of Linguistics, 1, 377-394.
  9. Langacker, R. W. (2001). Discourse in cognitive grammar. Cognitive Linguistics, 12, 143-188.
  10. Langacker, R. W. (2008). Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  11. Lee, D. (2001). Cognitive linguistics: An introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
  12. Norris, J. M. & Ortega, L. (2000). Effectiveness of L2 instruction: A research synthesis and quantitative meta-analysis. Language Learning, 50 (3), 417-528.
  13. Skrzypek, A. & Singleton, D. (2013). Productive knowledge of English collocations in adult Polish learners: The role of short-term memory. Vigo International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 10, 105-129.
  14. Song, X., Schnotz, W. & Juchem-Grundmann, C. (2015). A cognitive linguis