1.1. Rationale In the past decades, large numbers of empirical studies have been contributed to the teaching and learning of English as a second or foreign language. These contributive efforts have been made in foreign language teaching, (e.g. Chen & Lin, 2018; Phạm Vũ Phi Hổ & Usaha, 2015) second language acquisition, and associated areas, including cognitive science and linguistics (e.g.Vũ Thị Huyền & Nguyễn Văn Trào, 2017; Kobayashi, 2018). However, English prepositions expose some inherent difficulties to students learning English as a foreign language (Fang, 2000). First, prepositions are examples of polysemy; one preposition used in different contexts may have several different meanings. Secondly, the meanings of one preposition may vary in different contexts (Collins & Hollo, 2010; Hornby, 2015). Thirdly, there is sometimes overlapping between prepositions in use; that is, one preposition can replace another with a slight difference in meaning. For example, the expressions in Frankfurt and at Frankfurt are both considered correct in different contexts. The former may be used to refer to somebody’s home, but the latter may describe a point on a journey (Swan, 2014). Another common characteristic of prepositions is that they are multifunctional. For instance, a prepositional phrase serves different functions, such as an adjunct, a complement or a modifier in different contexts (Collins & Hollo, 2010). Traditional pedagogical options for teaching English prepositions to adult learners of English as a foreign language also expose problems. Nguyễn Thị Mai Hoa (2009) discovered that Vietnamese teachers mainly exploited the pedagogical suggestions in prescribed textbooks. Most textbooks applied in Vietnam (e.g. Hopkins & Cullen, 2007; Murphy, 2013) provide instructions on prepositions with classifications, such as prepositions of place, prepositions of time and prepositions of direction. Accordingly, these sub-types of prepositions are taught independently, and the combinations of verb-preposition are considered an arbitrary matter. Also, Lê Văn Canh (2011) has discovered that English language teaching (ELT) in Vietnam is somehow based on translation. The application of translating prepositions in ELT does not always work effectively. Recent studies on how prepositions Fare presented to adult learners of English as a foreign language (EFL) have also shown that these types of instruction do not help students of English as a foreign language sucessfully learn and enhance their achievements in English prepositions (Cho, 2010; Song, 2013; Tyler, Mueller & Ho, 2011). Contemporary literature demonstrates the pivotal role of knowledge of language in second language acquisition (Ellis, 2008; Pawlak, 2006); however, a lack of emphasis on language meaning does not help facilitate accumulating and retaining instructed language items (Ausubel, 2000). Also, it has been argued by some researchers (Ausubel, 2000; Cho, 2010) that learning by heart or simple memorization cannot help integrate new input with learners’ existing knowledge in order to form a related cognitive structure. Recent studies with interests in exploring human abilities to process and store language components have provided empirical findings that teaching vocabulary should be based on meaning and that teachers should help adult learners form a cognitive structure of language items (Gebhard, Gunawan & Chen, 2014). The emergence of cognitive linguistics gives implications for English language teaching and learning as its foundation is based on how humans acquire and learn language. In particular, its grounding in cognitive science suggests some implications to help learners systemically organize language input in cognitive processing. Taylor (2008, p. 37) asserts that “any innovation in linguistic theory is bound, sooner or later, to have an impact on the language teaching profession.” Cognitive linguistics has been motivating a number of pedagogical applications which have been especially provided empirical evidence about several concerns in English language teaching, including vocabulary (Boers, 2000a, 2000b, 2013), collocations (Walker, 2008), phrasal verbs (Csábi, 2004). Regarding prepositions, cognitive linguistics presents the image schema theory and domain mapping theory, which believe that prepositions can be represented by image schemas (Evans & Green, 2006) and the sub-types of prepositions are associated in meaning and can be represented by image schemas (Bùi Phú Hưng, 2016a, 2016b). The application of cognitive linguistics to teaching English prepositions may help students of English as a foreign language improve in their learning of prepositions as they can form a related cognitive structure (Ausubel, 2000). Tyler, et al. (2011) and Song (2013) made efforts to explore the effectiveness of applying cognitive linguistics to English language teaching. However, the endeavors above were confined to a limited number of prepositions and were conducted in European contexts. MacMillan and Schumacher (2001, p. 178) believe that “treatment in an experiment is supposed to be repeated”. Concerning cognitive linguistics, Langacker (2008, p. 66) suggests that there should be more empirical findings to test the effectiveness of pedagogical applications of cognitive linguistics and that “extensive pedagogical application of cognitive linguistics remains a long-term goal”. Although considered successful, the experimental studies by Tyler, et al. (2011) and Song (2013) recommend that the further studies applying cognitive linguistics to teaching English prepositions should be extended by including other prepositions and should be conducted in other contexts because people of different native languages may construe spatial configurations differently. In particular, linguistic and spatial construal of students’ first language is considered to have effects on how they perceive spatial coding in English prepositions to a certain extent. The application of cognitive linguistics in teaching prepositions may help students learning English as a foreign language understand and use English prepositions effectively since cognitive linguistics can illustrate the spatial configurations in English prepositions (Alonso, Cadierno & Jarvis, 2016). Also, Krzeszowski (1990), Taylor (2002) and Tyler and Evans (2001) assert that the spatial meanings of prepositions are related to their peripheral senses (other senses of prepositions), which makes students find learning prepositions in the target language problematic. The concerns arouse an interest in conducting a
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND TRAINING HUE UNIVERSITY UNIVERSITY OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES BÙI PHÚ HƯNG TEACHING ENGLISH PREPOSITIONS: A COGNITIVE LINGUISTIC APPROACH DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY THESIS IN THEORY AND METHODOLOGY OF ENGLISH LANGUAGE TEACHING HUE, 2019 ABSTRACT The present study aimed to investigate the effects of applying cognitive linguistics (CL) to teaching the spatial and metaphorical senses of English prepositions above, among, at, behind, beside, between, in, in front of, on and under It made attempts to apply the basic concepts in cognitive linguistics, including embodiment theory, image schemas theory, conceptual metaphor theory and domain mapping theory Also, the integrated text and picture comprehension (ITPC) model was applied to frame the class activities A pretest-posttest betweengroup research design was adopted The results of the pretest and pre-questionnaire were used to select student participants who were then divided into two different groups: cognitive group and traditional group The findings revealed that the cognitive group (M=27.00) outperformed the traditional group (M=22.36) in the posttest in terms of both the spatial and metaphorical meanings The cognitive group participants also responded that they appreciated the CL-based teaching of the prepositions more than the pedagogical applications which their former teachers had previously applied in terms of both the spatial and metaphorical meanings Six out of 25 cognitive members responded that the teacher should have added something fun to make the class more interested in the lesson Most of the participants believed that CL-based teaching was appropriate and admitted that CL-based teaching had more positive effects on their knowledge of the spatial meanings than that of the metaphorical meanings The findings suggest that future studies and practices in ELT which would like to apply cognitive linguistics in EFL (English as a foreign language) classroom could include songs or games in the post-teaching stage to make the class more interesting Future research could also apply cognitive linguistics to teaching other prepositions in other contexts and employ a delayed posttest to measure EFL students’ retention of knowledge ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS To conduct this doctoral thesis, I received much guidance and assistance from my supervisors, the academic panel at Hue University of Foreign Languages – Hue University, friends and students First of all, my great sincere thanks would go to my supervisors, Assoc Prof Dr Truong Vien at Hue University and Assoc Prof Dr Nguyen Ngoc Vu at Ho Chi Minh City University of Education They constantly motivated me to complete this thesis punctually and gave me great advice on how to conduct this doctoral thesis I really appreciated their supervision with theoretical background in cognitive linguistics I also owe thanks to Assoc Prof Dr Tran Van Phuoc, Assoc Prof Dr Le Pham Hoai Huong, Assoc Prof Dr Pham Thi Hong Nhung, Dr Ton Nu Nhu Huong, Dr Truong Bach Le and other academic panelists at University of Foreign Languages – Hue University for their advice on every single stage of conducting this doctoral dissertation I am very grateful to all the teachers and student participants for their assistance with participating in this study Without them, there would have been no chance for this PhD thesis to be completed My appreciation is extended to my family and friends for their support They recommended large resources of materials and shared my cheers and stress from this thesis iii ABBREVIATIONS CL: cognitive linguistics CG: cognitive group EFL: English as a foreign language ELT: English language teaching GPA: grade point average ITPC model: integrated text picture comprehension model L1: first language or native language L2: second language LM: landmark OALD: Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary SD: standard deviation SLA: second language acquisition T: total score TG: traditional group TR: trajectory iv TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP i ABSTRACT ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iii ABBREVIATIONS iv TABLE OF CONTENTS v LIST OF TABLES viii CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Rationale 1.2 Research Objectives 1.3 Research Questions 1.4 Research Scope 1.5 Significance of the Study 1.6 Organization of the Thesis CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 Approaches in English Language Teaching 2.1.1 Contemporary Perspectives in English Language Teaching and Learning 2.1.1.1 Interventionist Approach……………………………………………… …7 2.1.1.2 Non-Interventionist Approach………………………………………………9 2.1.1.3 Integration of Interventionism and Non-Interventionism in EFL Context 10 2.1.2 The Place of CL in ELT 10 2.2 Theoretical Framework 13 2.2.1 CL’s Views of English Prepositions 13 2.2.1.1 Spatial Configurations of English Prepositions 13 2.2.1.2 The Domain-Mapping Theory 15 2.2.1.3 Conceptual Metaphors of English Prepositions 16 2.2.2 Image Schema Theory 19 2.2.2.1 Foundations of Image Schemas 19 2.2.2.2 Demonstrating the Senses of Prepositions with Image Schemas 21 v 2.2.2.3 The Image Schemas Applied in this Study 22 2.2.2.4 Incorporating CL into Teaching Prepositions 27 2.3 Previous Studies 32 2.4 Summary 39 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 41 3.1 Rationale for the Research Approach and Design 41 3.2 Participants 42 3.2.1 Description of Teachers 42 3.2.2 Student Participants 43 3.3 Data Collection Instrumentation 46 3.3.1 Pretest and Posttest 47 3.3.2 Questionnaires and Interviews 49 3.4 Pilot Study 51 3.5 Researcher’s Roles 53 3.6 Research Procedure and Treatments 53 3.6.1 Traditional Treatment 55 3.6.2 Cognitive Treatment 56 3.7 Data analysis 58 3.8 Research Reliability and Validity 59 3.9 Research Ethics 61 3.10 Summary 61 CHAPTER 4: FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION 62 4.1 Effects of CL-Based Teaching on Vietnamese EFL College Students’ Knowledge of Spatial and Metaphorical Meanings 62 4.1.1 Performances in the Pretest and Posttest 63 4.1.2 Measures of the Test Scores across the Two Treatments 65 4.1.3 Scores of Test Sections and Inter-Subject Variability 66 4.1.4 Investigating other Variables Considered to Have Affected the Experimental Results 76 4.1.5 Discussion of the Effects of the CL-based Treatment on the Participants’ Knowledge of Spatial and Metaphorical Meanings 81 vi 4.1.5.1 Discussion of the Experimental Results 81 4.1.5.2 Comparison of the Findings of this Study and those from the Previous Studies 90 4.2 Students’ Evaluation of the Effects of the CL-Based Treatment 93 4.2.1 Students’ Evaluation of the Effects of the CL-Based Treatment of the Spatial Meanings of the Prepositions 95 4.2.2 Students’ Evaluation of the Effects of the CL-Based Treatment of the Metaphorical Meanings of the Prepositions 106 4.2.3 Discussion of the Students’ Evaluation of the Effects of the CL-Based Treatment 115 4.3 Summary 124 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS 125 5.1 General Conclusion 125 5.2 Implications 128 5.3 Limitations of the Study 130 5.4 Suggestions for Future Studies 131 REFERENCES APPENDICES APPENDIX A1: PRETEST APPENDIX A2: POSTTEST APPENDIX A3: ANSWERS TO THE PRETEST AND POSTTEST APPENDIX B1: LESSON ONE (TG) APPENDIX B2: LESSON TWO (TG) APPENDIX B3: LESSON THREE (TG) APPENDIX B4: LESSON FOUR (TG) APPENDIX C1: LESSON ONE (CG) APPENDIX C2: LESSON TWO (CG) APPENDIX C3: LESSON THREE (CG) APPENDIX C4: LESSON FOUR (CG) APPENDIX D: ANSWERS TO THE HANDOUT TASKS APPENDIX E1: PRE-QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX E2: POST-QUESTIONNAIRE (FOR THE COGNITIVE GROUP) vii APPENDIX E3: POST-QUESTIONNAIRE (FOR THE TRADITIONAL GROUP) APPENDIX F: INTERVIEW PROTOCOL APPENDIX G1: PAIR MATCHING PARTICIPANTS APPENDIX G2: COMPARISON OF PAIRS’ SCORE IMPROVEMENTS FROM PRETEST TO POSTTEST APPENDIX H1: CODED INTERVIEW RESPONSES BY CG MEMBERS: SPATIAL MEANINGS APPENDIX H2: CODED INTERVIEW RESPONSES BY CG MEMBERS: METAPHORICAL MEANINGS APPENDIX I1: COMPARISON OF CG’S AND TG’S SCORE GAINS FROM PRETEST TO POSTTEST BY SECTION APPENDIX I2: CG’S AND TG’S EAGERNESS FOR JOINING THE STUDY APPENDIX I3: COMPARING CG’S AND TG’S RESPONSES TO PART OF THE PRE-QUESTIONNAIRE APPENDIX I4: COMPARISON OF TG’S AND CG’S MEAN SCORES: EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 Description of teachers 41 Table 3.2 Student participants 43 Table 3.3 Summary of data collection instruments 45 Table 3.4 Item distribution in the pre -questionnaire 49 Table 3.5 Examples of data coding 57 Table 4.1 Total mean scores and standard deviations by CG and TG 62 Table 4.2 Score gains in spatial meanings 63 Table 4.3 Score gains in metaphorical meanings 63 Table 4.4 Paired samples correlation 64 Table 4.5 Repeated measures of paired samples test 64 Table 4.6 Comparison of mean scores of the test sections across the two treatments 66 viii Table 4.7 Independent samples t-test of two group’s scores across three sections 68 Table 4.8 Independent samples t-test of across the three sections in the pretest and posttest between the two groups 69 Table 4.9 Participants’ score improvements by track 71 Table 4.10 CG’s responses to the pre-questionnaire and post-questionnaire 93 Table 4.11 Interest and appropriateness of the teaching of the spatial meanings in participants’ prior experiences 94 Table 4.12 Interest and appropriateness of CL-based teaching of spatial meanings 95 Table 4.13 Effects of the teaching of spatial meanings in participants’ prior experiences 99 Table 4.14 Effects of CL-based teaching of the spatial meanings 100 Table 4.15 Interest and appropriateness of the teaching of the metaphorical meanings in participants’ prior experiences 1071 Table 4.16 Interest and appropriateness of CL-based teaching of metaphorical meanings 1086 Table 4.17 Effects of the teaching of the metaphorical meanings in participants’ prior experiences 11207 Table 4.18 Effects of CL-based teaching of metaphorical meanings 1131 Table 4.19 Bartlette’s test .112 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 Levels of representation 12 Figure 2.2 Prepositions across domains 16 Figure 2.3 Integrated text and picture comprehension model (ITPC) 20 Figure 2.4 Demonstration of the preposition over 21 Figure 2.5 Image schema of preposition in (meaning: CONTAINMENT) 22 Figure 2.6 Image schema of the preposition above by Gardenfors 22 Figure 2.7 Image schema of above applied in this study 22 Figure 2.8 AROUND image schema (Adapted from Bacs, 2002) 23 Figure 2.9 Image schema of the preposition among applied in this study 23 Figure 2.10 ADJENCY image schema 23 Figure 2.11 Image schema of at applied in this study 23 ix Figure 2.12 Image schema for BACK 24 Figure 2.13 Image schema of behind applied in this study 24 Figure 2.14 Image schema of beside (Dana and Mantey, 2006, p 113) 24 Figure 2.15 Image schema of beside applied in this study 24 Figure 2.16 STATIC-RELATION image schema of between in this study 25 Figure 2.17 DYNAMIC RELATION image schema of between in this study 25 Figure 2.18 Image schema of in front of (Dana and Mantey, 2006, p 113) 26 Figure 2.19 Image schema of in front of applied in this study 26 Figure 2.20 2-D image schema of on (Adapted from Gardenfors, 2000) 26 Figure 2.21 Image schema of the preposition on used in this study 26 Figure 2.22 Image schema of preposition under (Dana and Mantey, 2006) 27 Figure 2.23 Image schema of preposition under applied in this study 27 Figure 4.1 CG individuals’ score growth 70 Figure 4.2 TG individuals’ score growths 70 x Independent Samples Test GaSC Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F t-test for Equality of Means T Equal variances assumed 2,538 Sig Equal variances not assumed ,118 4,278 4,278 48 43,647 ,000 ,000 1,640 1,640 Std Error Difference ,383 ,383 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower ,869 ,867 Upper 2,411 2,413 Df Sig (2-tailed) Mean Difference Group Statistics Group GaMC CG N 25 Mean 2,48 SD 1,327 SD Error Mean ,265 TG 25 ,76 1,809 ,362 Independent Samples Test GaMC Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F t-test for Equality of Means T Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed 5,177 Sig ,027 Df Sig (2-tailed) Mean Difference 3,833 3,833 48 44,021 ,000 ,000 1,720 1,720 Std Error Difference ,449 ,449 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower ,818 ,816 Upper 2,622 2,624 Group Statistics Group GaTC CG 25 Mean 2,04 SD 1,399 Std Error Mean ,280 TG 25 ,52 1,636 ,327 N Independent Samples Test GaTC Levene's Test for Equality of Variances F t-test for Equality of Means t Equal variances assumed 2,049 Sig Equal variances not assumed ,159 3,531 3,531 48 46,868 ,001 ,001 1,520 1,520 ,431 ,431 Lower ,654 ,654 Upper 2,386 2,386 df Sig (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Descriptives 95% Confidence Interval for Mean N GaTo GaSC GaMC GaTC SD 2,850 Std Error ,570 Lower Bound 5,78 Upper Bound 8,14 Minimum Maximum 14 CG 25 Mean 6,96 TG 25 2,08 2,465 ,493 1,06 3,10 10 Total 50 4,52 3,610 ,510 3,49 5,55 14 CG 25 2,44 1,121 ,224 1,98 2,90 TG 25 ,80 1,555 ,311 ,16 1,44 -2 Total 50 1,62 1,576 ,223 1,17 2,07 -2 CG 25 2,48 1,327 ,265 1,93 3,03 -1 TG 25 ,76 1,809 ,362 ,01 1,51 -2 Total 50 1,62 1,794 ,254 1,11 2,13 -2 CG 25 2,04 1,399 ,280 1,46 2,62 -1 TG 25 ,52 1,636 ,327 -,16 1,20 -2 Total 50 1,28 1,691 ,239 ,80 1,76 -2 ANOVA GT GSC Between Groups Sum of Squares 297,680 Within Groups Total GTC 340,800 48 7,100 638,480 49 Between Groups 33,620 33,620 Within Groups 88,160 48 1,837 121,780 49 36,980 36,980 Within Groups 120,800 48 2,517 Total 157,780 49 28,880 28,880 Within Groups 111,200 48 2,317 Total 140,080 49 Total GMC Mean Square 297,680 df Between Groups Between Groups F 41,927 Sig ,000 18,305 ,000 14,694 ,000 12,466 ,001 APPENDIX I2: CG'S AND TG'S EAGERNESS FOR JOINING THE MAIN STUDY CG Pre-questionnaire Part C N Mean 4,1143 25 SD ,27355 Descriptive Statistics Item 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 N 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Mean 4,24 3,80 3,80 4,28 4,04 4,20 4,44 SD ,523 ,408 ,645 ,737 ,611 ,577 ,507 CG MEMBERS No Name Mean A 10 11 TLN NHD NPHB VHH NPAT NTHL LC LHV NHV LVA NHM 4,29 4,29 4,00 4,29 4,14 4,14 4,14 4,14 4,43 4,14 4,00 12 13 14 15 16 17 TTB PTL NNT LMT PHML NHMN 4,43 3,71 4,00 3,71 3,71 3,86 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 LNT NTH NTKT HNT VTHH NHT TQC 3,71 3,57 4,43 4,57 4,43 4,29 4,29 25 TTNP 4,14 TG Pre-questionnaire Part C N Mean 4,0457 25 SD ,22101 Descriptive Statistics Item 12 13 14 N 15 16 17 18 25 25 25 Mean 4,28 3,96 4,00 SD ,542 ,611 ,707 25 25 25 25 3,80 3,96 4,04 4,28 ,577 ,676 ,539 ,542 TG MEMBERS No Name VTDT MTT NNPT HNPU VTT Mean A 4,14 4,14 4,00 4,00 4,14 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 DTHT BNTT PHTD VTPH PCT NTTK PTTT TTTP PTTM NMT NNH NTNH VHHT PLQ LCN BTH 4,57 4,00 3,86 4,29 4,00 3,71 4,00 3,86 4,14 4,00 4,14 3,57 4,29 4,14 3,71 3,86 22 23 24 25 THK VTTM TDH DTNP 4,14 4,00 4,43 4,00 Group Statistics Group C CG TG 25 Mean 4,1143 SD ,27355 Std Error Mean ,05471 25 4,0457 ,22101 ,04420 N APPENDIX I3: COMPARING CG'S AND TG'S RESPONSES TO PART OF THE PRE-QUESTIONNAIRE Group Statistics Group (PART 1) P1 CG TG N 25 25 Mean 3,1520 3,2080 SD ,20232 ,18690 SD Error Mean ,04046 ,03738 Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances P1 Equal variances assumed F ,445 Sig ,508 Equal variances not assumed t-test for Equality of Means t 1,017 1,017 df 48 Sig (2tailed) ,314 47,702 ,314 Group Statistics Group P1.1 CG TG P1.2 CG TG P1.3 CG TG P1.4 CG TG P1.5 CG TG N 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Mean 3,08 3,36 3,12 3,04 3,20 3,12 3,08 3,12 3,28 3,40 SD ,493 ,490 ,526 ,539 ,500 ,526 ,493 ,526 ,458 ,500 Std Error ,099 ,098 ,105 ,108 ,100 ,105 ,099 ,105 ,092 ,100 Mean Diff ,05600 ,05600 SD Error Diff ,05509 ,05509 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper - ,05476 ,16676 ,16678 ,05478 Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances P1.1 P1.2 P1.3 P1.4 P1.5 Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed F 4,028 ,148 ,105 ,276 2,911 Sig ,050 t-test for Equality of Means df 48 Sig (2tailed) ,050 Mean Diff -,280 SD Error Diff ,139 2,014 47,998 ,050 -,280 ,139 -,560 ,000 ,531 48 ,598 ,080 ,151 -,223 ,383 ,531 47,973 ,598 ,080 ,151 -,223 ,383 ,551 48 ,584 ,080 ,145 -,212 ,372 ,551 47,877 ,584 ,080 ,145 -,212 ,372 -,277 48 ,783 -,040 ,144 -,330 ,250 -,277 47,804 ,783 -,040 ,144 -,330 ,250 -,885 48 ,381 -,120 ,136 -,393 ,153 -,885 47,640 ,381 -,120 ,136 -,393 ,153 t 2,014 ,702 ,747 ,602 ,094 Group Statistics Group (PART 2) P2 CG TG N 25 25 Mean 2,9840 2,9760 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper -,560 ,000 SD ,20753 ,21071 SD Error Mean ,04151 ,04214 Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances P2 Equal variances assumed F ,200 Sig ,657 Equal variances not assumed t-test for Equality of Means t ,135 df 48 Sig (2tailed) ,893 ,135 47,989 ,893 Group Statistics Group P2.1 CG TG P2.2 CG TG P2.3 CG TG P2.4 CG TG P2.5 CG TG N 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Mean 2,96 3,12 2,96 2,84 2,92 2,80 2,96 2,92 3,12 3,20 SD ,539 ,526 ,539 ,473 ,572 ,500 ,611 ,572 ,440 ,408 Std Error ,108 ,105 ,108 ,095 ,114 ,100 ,122 ,114 ,088 ,082 10 Mean Diff ,00800 SD Error Diff ,05915 ,00800 ,05915 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper - ,12693 ,11093 ,11093 ,12693 Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances P2.1 P2.2 P2.3 P2.4 P2.5 Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed F ,148 ,070 ,023 ,016 ,216 Sig ,702 ,793 ,881 ,901 ,644 t-test for Equality of Means df 48 Sig (2tailed) ,293 Mean Diff -,160 SD Error Diff ,151 1,063 47,973 ,293 -,160 ,151 -,463 ,143 ,837 48 ,406 ,120 ,143 -,168 ,408 ,837 47,204 ,407 ,120 ,143 -,168 ,408 ,790 48 ,433 ,120 ,152 -,185 ,425 ,790 47,166 ,433 ,120 ,152 -,186 ,426 ,239 48 ,812 ,040 ,167 -,296 ,376 ,239 47,788 ,812 ,040 ,167 -,296 ,376 -,667 48 ,508 -,080 ,120 -,321 ,161 -,667 47,738 ,508 -,080 ,120 -,321 ,161 t 1,063 Group Statistics Group (PART 3) P3 CG TG N 25 25 Mean 3,0800 3,1000 SD ,22111 ,22567 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper -,463 ,143 SD Error Mean ,04422 ,04513 11 Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances P3 Equal variances assumed F ,098 Sig ,755 Equal variances not assumed t-test for Equality of Means t ,317 ,317 df 48 Sig (2tailed) ,753 Mean Difference -,02000 Std Error Difference ,06319 47,980 ,753 -,02000 ,06319 Group Statistics Group P3.1 CG TG P3.2 CG TG P3.3 CG TG P3.4 CG TG P3.5 CG TG P3.6 CG TG N 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Mean 3,28 3,32 3,00 2,96 2,96 2,92 3,04 3,00 2,96 3,04 3,24 3,36 SD ,458 ,476 ,577 ,539 ,611 ,572 ,611 ,500 ,539 ,611 ,436 ,490 Std Error ,092 ,095 ,115 ,108 ,122 ,114 ,122 ,100 ,108 ,122 ,087 ,098 12 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper - ,10705 ,14705 ,14705 ,10705 Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances P3.1 P3.2 P3.3 P3.4 P3.5 P3.6 Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed F ,366 ,010 ,016 1,265 ,358 3,282 Sig ,548 ,922 ,901 ,266 ,552 ,076 t-test for Equality of Means t -,303 df 48 Sig (2tailed) ,763 -,303 47,930 ,763 -,040 ,132 -,306 ,226 ,253 48 ,801 ,040 ,158 -,277 ,357 ,253 47,769 ,801 ,040 ,158 -,278 ,358 ,239 48 ,812 ,040 ,167 -,296 ,376 ,239 47,788 ,812 ,040 ,167 -,296 ,376 ,253 48 ,801 ,040 ,158 -,277 ,357 ,253 46,192 ,801 ,040 ,158 -,278 ,358 -,491 48 ,626 -,080 ,163 -,408 ,248 -,491 47,254 ,626 -,080 ,163 -,408 ,248 -,915 48 ,365 -,120 ,131 -,384 ,144 -,915 47,360 ,365 -,120 ,131 -,384 ,144 13 Mean Diff -,040 SD Error Diff ,132 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper -,306 ,226 Group Statistics Group (PART 4) P4 CG TG N 25 25 Mean 3,0533 3,0200 SD ,22423 ,24683 SD Error Mean ,04485 ,04937 Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances P4 F ,054 Equal variances assumed Sig ,817 Equal variances not assumed t-test for Equality of Means t ,500 df 48 Sig (2tailed) ,620 ,500 47,564 ,620 SD ,436 ,542 ,577 ,493 ,572 ,572 ,500 ,572 ,611 ,572 ,408 ,473 SD Error ,087 ,108 ,115 ,099 ,114 ,114 ,100 ,114 ,122 ,114 ,082 ,095 Group Statistics Group P4.1 CG TG P4.2 CG TG P4.3 CG TG P4.4 CG TG P4.5 CG TG P4.6 CG TG N 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Mean 3,24 3,28 3,00 2,92 2,92 2,92 3,00 2,92 2,96 2,92 3,20 3,16 14 Mean Difference ,03333 Std Error Difference ,06669 ,03333 ,06669 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper - ,16743 ,10076 ,10080 ,16746 Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances P4.1 P4.2 P4.3 P4.4 P4.5 P4.6 Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed Equal variances assumed Equal variances not assumed F 1,865 ,043 0,000 1,091 ,016 ,039 Sig ,178 ,836 1,000 ,302 ,901 ,845 t-test for Equality of Means t -,288 df 48 Sig (2tailed) ,775 -,288 45,902 ,775 -,040 ,139 -,320 ,240 ,527 48 ,601 ,080 ,152 -,225 ,385 ,527 46,859 ,601 ,080 ,152 -,226 ,386 0,000 48 1,000 0,000 ,162 -,325 ,325 0,000 48,000 1,000 0,000 ,162 -,325 ,325 ,527 48 ,601 ,080 ,152 -,225 ,385 ,527 47,166 ,601 ,080 ,152 -,226 ,386 ,239 48 ,812 ,040 ,167 -,296 ,376 ,239 47,788 ,812 ,040 ,167 -,296 ,376 ,320 48 ,750 ,040 ,125 -,211 ,291 ,320 47,008 ,750 ,040 ,125 -,211 ,291 15 Mean Diff -,040 SD Error Diff ,139 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper -,320 ,240 APPENDIX I4: COMPARISON OF TG’S AND CG'S MEAN SCORES: EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS Group Statistics Group Total Pretest N Mean SD Error Mean SD CG 25 20,04 2,150 ,430 TG 25 20,28 2,151 ,430 Spatial Pretest CG Metaphor Pretest CG Total Posttest CG Spatial posttest CG Metaphor Posttest CG 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 12,68 12,80 7,36 7,48 27,00 22,36 17,04 13,04 9,96 9,32 2,304 1,958 1,440 1,735 4,243 3,796 2,850 2,371 2,282 3,105 ,461 ,392 ,288 ,347 ,849 ,759 ,570 ,474 ,456 ,621 TG TG TG TG TG Descriptives N ToPr Minimum Maximum 2,150 2,151 2,132 2,304 1,958 2,117 1,440 1,735 1,579 4,243 3,796 4,622 2,850 2,371 ,430 ,430 ,302 ,461 ,392 ,299 ,288 ,347 ,223 ,849 ,759 ,654 ,570 ,474 19,15 19,39 19,55 11,73 11,99 12,14 6,77 6,76 6,97 25,25 20,79 23,37 15,86 12,06 20,93 21,17 20,77 13,63 13,61 13,34 7,95 8,20 7,87 28,75 23,93 25,99 18,22 14,02 17 17 17 5 19 18 18 13 23 23 23 17 16 17 10 13 13 37 33 37 25 19 CG 50 25 15,04 9,96 3,289 2,282 ,465 ,456 14,11 9,02 15,97 10,90 25 16 TG Total 25 50 9,32 9,64 3,105 2,716 ,621 ,384 8,04 8,87 10,60 10,41 5 20 20 Total CG TG Total MPr CG TG Total ToPo CG TG Total SPo CG TG Total MPo SD Error 20,04 20,28 20,16 12,68 12,80 12,74 7,36 7,48 7,42 27,00 22,36 24,68 17,04 13,04 TG SPr SD 25 25 50 25 25 50 25 25 50 25 25 50 25 25 CG Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Upper Bound Bound 16 ... CL, image schema theory, domain mapping theory, conceptual metaphor theory and ITPC model CL-based approach has proposed three main models for ELT, including gestalt learning theory, information... front of, on, and under That is, it aims to investigate the effects of CL-based teaching on Vietnamese EFL (English-as-aforeign-language) students’ knowledge of the spatial and metaphorical meanings... basic concepts in cognitive linguistics, including embodiment theory, image schemas theory, conceptual metaphor theory and domain mapping theory Also, the integrated text and picture comprehension