Dạy giới từ tiếng anh theo quan điểm ngôn ngữ học tri nhận

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 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 CODE: 14 01 11 SUPERVISORS: Assoc Prof Trương Viên, PhD Assoc Prof Nguyễn Ngọc Vũ, PhD HUE, 2019 BỘ GIÁO DỤC VÀ ĐÀO TẠO ĐẠI HỌC HUÊ TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC NGOẠI NGƯ BÙI PHÚ HƯNG TEACHING ENGLISH PREPOSITIONS: A COGNITIVE LINGUISTIC APPROACH LUẬN ÁN TIÊN SĨ CHUYÊN NGÀNH LÝ LUẬN VÀ PHƯƠNG PHÁP DẠY HỌC BỘ MÔN TIÊNG ANH MÃ NGÀNH: 14 01 11 NGƯỜI HƯỚNG DẪN: PGS TS Trương Viên PGS TS Nguyễn Ngọc Vũ HUÊ, 2019 STATEMENT OF AUTHORSHIP I certify my authorship of the PhD thesis submitted today entitled: “TEACHING ENGLISH PREPOSITIONS: A COGNITIVE LINGUISTIC APPROACH” for the degree of Doctor of Education, is the result of my own research, except where otherwise acknowledged, and that this thesis has not been submitted for a higher degree at any other institution To the best of my knowledge, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by other people except where the reference is made in the thesis itself Hue, ……………………………, 2019 Author’s signature Bùi Phú Hưng i 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 instructions and practice tasks A pretestposttest between-group 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) significantly 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 LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………… .……ix CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Rationale 1.2 Research Aims 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 the Contemporary Literature 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 v 2.2.2.1 Foundations of Image Schemas 19 2.2.2.2 Demonstrating the Senses of Prepositions with Image Schemas 21 2.2.2.3 The Image Schemas Applied in this Study 22 2.2.2.4 Incorporating CL into Teaching English Prepositions 27 2.3 Previous Studies 32 2.4 Summary 39 CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 41 3.1 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 with Potential Effects on the Experimental Results 76 vi 4.1.5 Discussion of the Effects of the CL-Based Treatment on the Participants’ Knowledge of Spatial and Metaphorical Meanings 81 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 AUTHOR'S WORKS………………………………………………………………… 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) vii Independent Samples Test GaSC Equal variances Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for F Sig Equality of Means Df assumed 2,538 ,118 T not assumed 4,278 4,278 48 43,647 ,000 ,000 1,640 1,640 ,383 ,383 Sig (2-tailed) Mean Difference Equal variances Std Error Difference 95% Confidence Lower ,869 ,867 Interval of the Difference Upper 2,411 2,413 Group Statistics Group GaMC N 25 25 CG TG Mean 2,48 ,76 SD 1,327 1,809 SD Error Mean ,265 ,362 Independent Samples Test GaMC Equal Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for F Sig Equality of Means Df Equal variances assumed 5,177 ,027 variances not assumed 3,833 3,833 48 44,021 T Sig (2-tailed) ,000 ,000 1,720 1,720 Std Error Difference ,449 ,449 95% Lower ,818 ,816 Confidence Interval of the Difference Upper 2,622 2,624 Mean Difference Group Statistics Group GaTC N CG TG 25 25 Mean 2,04 ,52 Std Error Mean ,280 ,327 SD 1,399 1,636 Independent Samples Test GaTC Equal variances Equal variances assumed not assumed Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for F Sig 2,049 ,159 t 3,531 3,531 Equality of Means df 48 46,868 ,001 ,001 1,520 1,520 ,431 ,431 Sig (2-tailed) Mean Difference Std Error Difference 95% Confidence Lower ,654 ,654 Interval of the Difference Upper 2,386 2,386 Descriptives Std N GaTo GaSC GaMC GaTC SD 2,850 2,465 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Upper CG TG 25 25 Mean 6,96 2,08 Error Bound ,570 5,78 ,493 1,06 Bound 8,14 3,10 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 Minimum Maximum 14 10 ANOVA Sum of GT GSC Between Groups Within Groups Squares 297,680 340,800 Total 638,480 49 33,620 88,160 48 121,780 49 Between Groups Within Groups Total GMC GTC Mean Between Groups df 48 36,980 Within Groups 120,800 48 Total 157,780 49 Between Groups 28,880 Within Groups 111,200 48 Total 140,080 49 Square F 297,680 41,927 7,100 Sig ,000 33,620 18,305 ,000 1,837 36,980 14,694 ,000 2,517 28,880 12,466 2,317 ,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 25 25 25 25 Mean 4,24 3,80 3,80 4,28 SD ,523 ,408 ,645 ,737 16 17 25 25 4,04 4,20 ,611 ,577 18 25 4,44 ,507 No N CG MEMBERS Name Mean A TLN NHD 4,29 4,29 NPHB VHH 4,00 4,29 NPAT NTHL 4,14 4,14 LC LHV 4,14 4,14 NHV 10 LVA 4,43 4,14 11 NHM 12 TTB 4,00 4,43 13 PTL 14 NNT 3,71 4,00 15 LMT 16 PHML 3,71 3,71 17 NHMN 18 LNT 3,86 3,71 19 NTH 20 NTKT 3,57 4,43 21 HNT 22 VTHH 4,57 4,43 23 NHT 24 TQC 25 TTNP 4,29 4,29 4,14 TG Pre-questionnaire Part C N Mean 4,0457 25 SD ,22101 Descriptive Statistics Item 12 13 25 25 Mean 4,28 3,96 SD ,542 ,611 14 15 25 25 4,00 3,80 ,707 ,577 16 17 25 25 3,96 4,04 ,676 ,539 18 25 4,28 ,542 No N TG MEMBERS Name Mean A VTDT MTT 4,14 4,14 NNPT HNPU 4,00 4,00 VTT DTHT 4,14 4,57 BNTT PHTD 4,00 3,86 VTPH 10 PCT 4,29 4,00 11 NTTK 12 PTTT 3,71 4,00 13 TTTP 14 PTTM 3,86 4,14 15 NMT 16 NNH 4,00 4,14 17 NTNH 18 VHHT 3,57 4,29 19 PLQ 20 LCN 4,14 3,71 21 BTH 22 THK 3,86 4,14 23 VTTM 24 TDH 4,00 4,43 25 DTNP 4,00 Group Statistics Group C CG TG N 25 25 Mean 4,1143 4,0457 SD ,27355 ,22101 Std Error Mean ,05471 ,04420 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 Equal F Sig ,445 ,508 t-test for Equality of Means t 1,017 - variances not assumed df 48 Sig (2tailed) ,314 47,702 ,314 1,017 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 ,05600 Group Statistics Group P1.1 CG TG P1.2 CG TG P1.3 CG TG P1.4 CG TG P1.5 CG TG Mean Diff ,05600 Std Error ,099 ,098 ,105 ,108 ,100 ,105 ,099 ,105 ,092 ,100 SD Error Diff ,05509 ,05509 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper - ,05476 ,16676 - ,05478 ,16678 Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances P1.1 P1.2 P1.3 P1.4 P1.5 F Sig 4,028 ,050 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 t-test for Equality of Means Sig (2tailed) ,050 Mean Diff -,280 ,050 -,280 ,139 -,560 ,000 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 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 df 48 - 47,998 2,014 ,148 ,702 ,105 ,747 ,276 ,602 2,911 ,094 ,531 -,277 Group Statistics Group (PART 2) P2 CG TG N 25 25 95% Confidence SD Interval of the Difference Error Diff Lower Upper ,139 -,560 ,000 SD Error Mean SD Mean 2,9840 ,20753 ,04151 2,9760 ,21071 ,04214 Independent Samples Test Levene's Test for Equality of Variances P2 Equal variances assumed Equal F Sig ,200 ,657 t-test for Equality of Means t ,135 df 48 Sig (2Mean tailed) Diff ,893 ,00800 ,135 47,989 ,893 ,00800 variances not assumed ,05915 - ,12693 ,11093 Group Statistics Group P2.1 CG TG P2.2 CG TG P2.3 CG TG P2.4 CG TG P2.5 CG TG SD Error Diff ,05915 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper - ,12693 ,11093 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 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 Sig ,702 t-test for Equality of Means t 1,063 df 48 - 47,973 1,063 ,070 ,023 ,016 ,216 ,793 ,881 ,901 ,644 Sig (2tailed) ,293 ,293 -,160 ,151 -,463 ,143 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 48 ,508 -,080 ,120 -,321 ,161 -,667 47,738 ,508 -,080 ,120 -,321 ,161 ,837 -,667 Group Statistics Group (PART 3) P3 CG TG N 25 25 Mean 3,0800 3,1000 SD ,22111 ,22567 SD Mean Error Diff Diff -,160 ,151 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 Equal F Sig ,098 ,755 t-test for Equality of Means t ,317 - variances not assumed df 48 Sig (2tailed) ,753 Mean Difference -,02000 Std Error Difference ,06319 47,980 ,753 -,02000 ,06319 ,317 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 - ,10705 ,14705 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 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper - ,10705 ,14705 Std Error ,092 ,095 ,115 ,108 ,122 ,114 ,122 ,100 ,108 ,122 ,087 ,098 12 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 Sig ,366 ,548 ,010 ,922 ,016 ,901 1,265 ,266 ,358 ,552 3,282 ,076 t-test for Equality of Means 95% Confidence SD Interval of the Difference Error Diff Lower Upper ,132 -,306 ,226 df 48 Sig (2tailed) ,763 Mean Diff -,040 -,303 47,930 ,763 -,040 ,132 -,306 ,226 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 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 t -,303 ,253 -,491 13 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 Equal variances assumed Equal F ,054 t-test for Equality of Means Sig t ,817 ,500 ,500 48 Sig (2tailed) ,620 Mean Difference ,03333 Std Error Difference ,06669 47,564 ,620 ,03333 ,06669 df variances not assumed - ,16746 ,10080 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 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper - ,16743 ,10076 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 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 14 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 Sig ,178 t-test for Equality of Means Mean Diff -,040 SD Error Diff ,139 ,775 -,040 ,139 -,320 ,240 48 ,601 ,080 ,152 -,225 ,385 ,527 46,859 ,601 ,080 ,152 -,226 ,386 48 1,000 0,000 ,162 -,325 ,325 0,000 48,000 1,000 0,000 ,162 -,325 ,325 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 t -,288 Sig (2df tailed) 48 ,775 -,288 45,902 ,043 0,000 1,091 ,016 ,039 ,836 1,000 ,302 ,901 ,845 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference Lower Upper -,320 ,240 ,527 0,000 ,527 15 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 25 20,28 12,68 2,151 2,304 ,430 ,461 25 25 12,80 7,36 1,958 1,440 ,392 ,288 25 25 7,48 27,00 1,735 4,243 ,347 ,849 25 25 22,36 17,04 3,796 2,850 ,759 ,570 Spatial Pretest CG Metaphor Pretest CG Total Posttest CG Spatial posttest CG Metaphor Posttest CG 25 25 13,04 9,96 2,371 2,282 ,474 ,456 TG 25 9,32 3,105 ,621 TG TG TG TG Descriptives N ToPr SPr Minimum Maximum 25 25 20,04 2,150 20,28 2,151 ,430 ,430 19,15 19,39 20,93 21,17 17 17 23 23 Total 50 25 25 50 25 25 50 25 25 50 25 25 50 20,16 12,68 12,80 12,74 7,36 7,48 7,42 27,00 22,36 24,68 17,04 13,04 15,04 2,132 2,304 1,958 2,117 1,440 1,735 1,579 4,243 3,796 4,622 2,850 2,371 3,289 ,302 ,461 ,392 ,299 ,288 ,347 ,223 ,849 ,759 ,654 ,570 ,474 ,465 19,55 11,73 11,99 12,14 6,77 6,76 6,97 25,25 20,79 23,37 15,86 12,06 14,11 20,77 13,63 13,61 13,34 7,95 8,20 7,87 28,75 23,93 25,99 18,22 14,02 15,97 17 5 19 18 18 13 9 23 17 16 17 10 13 13 37 33 37 25 19 25 TG 25 25 9,96 2,282 9,32 3,105 ,456 ,621 9,02 8,04 10,90 10,60 16 20 Total 50 9,64 2,716 ,384 8,87 10,41 20 TG Total MPr CG TG Total ToPo CG TG Total SPo CG TG Total MPo CG SD SD Error CG TG CG Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Upper Bound Bound 16 ... 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... 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... 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