Corpus-based study on the use of cohesive devices in the lesson plans of pre-service teachers
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.48017/dj.v9i4.3099Keywords:
cohesive devices, cohesion, lesson plan, pre-service teachers, corpus-based studyAbstract
This study explores the use of cohesive devices in lesson plans (LPs) prepared by pre-service teachers across various subjects, specifically focusing on English, Math, and Biology majorships in a state university in the Philippines. The research highlights the prevalent use of personal references among English pre-service teachers, who favor the word "you" for its role in maintaining a second- and third-person perspective. In contrast, Math and Biology pre-service teachers predominantly employ nominal substitutions and conjunctions to enhance coherence in their LPs. The study also notes the absence of ellipsis in the analyzed LPs and identifies the predominant use of nominal substitution and extension conjunctions across subjects. By comparing the frequency and types of cohesive devices used, the research underscores the variations in linguistic strategies employed by pre-service teachers of different disciplines. The findings suggest a need for greater awareness and training on the effective use of cohesive devices to improve lesson planning and instructional clarity.
Metrics
References
Anthony, L. (2014). AntConc (Version 3.4.4w) [Computer software]. Waseda University. Available from https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software
Bahaziq, A. (2016). Cohesive devices in written discourse: A discourse analysis of a student’s essay writing. English Language Teaching, 9(7), 112-119. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v9n7p112
Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Leech, G. (2002). Longman student grammar of spoken and written English. Pearson Education Limited.
Bintana, M. (2016). Effective lesson planning in the classroom: Strategies and approaches. Journal of Education and Practice, 7(30), 10-20. https://doi.org/10.7176/jep/7-30-02
Bloor, T., & Bloor, M. (2013). The functional analysis of English (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Carter, R., & McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge grammar of English: A comprehensive guide. Cambridge University Press.
Chen, W. (2019). Understanding pre-service teachers’ use of cohesive devices in lesson planning: A case study. Teacher Development, 23(2), 199-213. https://doi.org/10.1080/13664530.2018.1557450
Coffin, C., Donohue, J., & North, S. (2009). Exploring English grammar: From formal to functional. Routledge.
Crystal, D. (2003). English as a global language (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Cullen, R., & Kuo, I. C. (2007). Spoken grammar and ELT course materials: A missing link? TESOL Quarterly, 41 (2), 361-386. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2007.tb00095.x
Derewianka, B. (2011). A new grammar companion for teachers. Primary English Teaching Association.
Eggins, S. (2004). An introduction to systemic functional linguistics (2nd ed.). Continuum.
Farrell, T. S. C. (2015). Promoting teacher reflection in second language education: A framework for TESOL professionals. Routledge.
Ghasemi, P., & Alavi, S. (2014). The relationship between EFL learners' use of cohesive devices and their reading comprehension. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 5(3), 647-655. https://doi.org/10.4304/jltr.5.3.647-655
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. Longman.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Hasan, R. (2013). Cohesion in English. Routledge.
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). An introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). Routledge.
Hyland, K. (2002). Teaching and researching writing. Longman.
Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing. University of Michigan Press.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Lee, J. F. (2020). Cohesion in ESL writing: An analysis of university students' compositions. Language Education in Asia, 11(1), 1-12. https://doi.org/10.5746/LEiA/20/V11/A1/Lee
Mahlberg, M. (2005). English general nouns: A corpus theoretical approach. John Benjamins.
Martin, J. R. (1992). English text: System and structure. John Benjamins Publishing.
Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2007). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause (2nd ed.). Continuum.
Martínez, A. (2018). Cohesive devices in EFL academic writing: A case study of university students. Language Studies, 15(4), 49-65. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367334872-4
McCarthy, M. (1991). Discourse analysis for language teachers. Cambridge University Press.
Mohammed, A. (2015). A table of cohesive devices for analyzing textual cohesion. Journal of Language Studies, 7(3), 45-58.
Rahman, M. M. (2013). The role of cohesion in written discourse. International Journal of English and Literature, 4(6), 159-168. https://doi.org/10.5897/IJEL2013.0481
Schleppegrell, M. J. (2004). The language of schooling: A functional linguistics perspective. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Shen, J., Poppink, S., Cui, Y., & Fan, G. (2007). Lesson planning: A practice of professional responsibility and development. Educational Studies, 33(4), 451-473. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055690701692289
Taboada, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (2006). Contributions of student questioning and prior knowledge to construction of knowledge from reading information text. Journal of Literacy Research, 38(1), 1-35. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15548430jlr3801_1
Thompson, G. (2013). Introducing functional grammar (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Thompson, G. (2014). Introducing functional grammar. Routledge.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Ronlie RJ Espeleta
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The Diversitas Journal expresses that the articles are the sole responsibility of the Authors, who are familiar with Brazilian and international legislation.
Articles are peer-reviewed and care should be taken to warn of the possible incidence of plagiarism. However, plagiarism is an indisputable action by the authors.
The violation of copyright is a crime, provided for in article 184 of the Brazilian Penal Code: “Art. 184 Violating copyright and related rights: Penalty - detention, from 3 (three) months to 1 (one) year, or fine. § 1 If the violation consists of total or partial reproduction, for the purpose of direct or indirect profit, by any means or process, of intellectual work, interpretation, performance or phonogram, without the express authorization of the author, the performer, the producer , as the case may be, or whoever represents them: Penalty - imprisonment, from 2 (two) to 4 (four) years, and a fine. ”
.png){kind=logo}
