participants with the aforementioned negative responses may not have made the

14 
The experimental results were in line with those of the previous studies. 
The group that received CL-based treatment generally outperformed the group 
that depended on rote-learning. However, although these studies applied CL, 
they were motivated by different concepts. The differences in the treatments, 
including the model and post-teaching activities, and in the target prepositions, 
may have been a reason for some differences in the empirical findings. 
The differences in the scores achieved by the cognitive and traditional 
groups also took place in each test section. In the posttest, the cognitive group 
scored 7.84, but the traditional group scored 6.76 for the Sentence Completion 
Section. Their scores also improved from 10.48 and 10.28 in the pretest to 12.96 
and 11.04 in the posttest respectively for the Multiple Choice Section. For the 
Text Completion Section, their scores improved by 2.04 and .52 from the pretest 
to the posttest respectively. These differences proved significant, p <.05. 
The investigation into individual score gains from the pretest to the 
posttest shows that most members of the cognitive group made their score gains 
in the high track (> 10 points) and medium track (4-10 points), but most of the 
members of the traditional group made their score gains in the medium track 
and low track (lower than 4 points). In each pair with generally similar 
characteristics matched in the participant selection, the cognitive group member 
illustrated a higher score growth than the traditional group counterpart. For 
instance, the traditional group member with the highest score rise was Mai 
(T23), with 10 points; however, the score achieved by her counterpart Long 
(C6) rocketed by 14 points. 
Variables were also investigated to ensure that the experimental findings 
were from the treatments. The investigation into learner variables in the pre-

15 
questionnaire and post-questionnaire increased the validity and reliability of the 
study. Although the traditional group members were slightly more exposed to 
English language use in the study, their exposure was insignificant and they 
scored lower than the cognitive group members in the posttest. The video clips 
recording the classroom performances showed that the teaching was similar in 
the both groups, for which the experimental findings generally reflected the 
treatments. The length of each corresponding class activity, use of native 
language and interaction between the teacher and students were comparable. 
The classroom seating arrangement, materials and resources, and teacher’s role 
were also similar (Condon, 2008). 
One of the greatest contributions of the present study might be the 
addition of students’ evaluative opinions of the meaning-focused treatment 
based on CL to contemporary literature. While previous studies mainly focused 
on the effects of CL-based teaching on learners’ language outcome, this study 
was interested in collecting learners’ evaluation of CL-based pedagogical 
strategies applied. The analyses of the cognitive participants’ responses 
revealed that the cognitive treatment was generally considered interesting, 
appropriate and effective. Firstly, they preferred the teaching techniques based 
on cognitive linguistics to the teaching techniques they had previously 
experienced from their former teachers which were mainly based on the use of 
vivid pictures, examples and learning by heart, also called simple memorization. 
A comparison between the cognitive members’ responses to the pre-
questionnaire and post-questionnaire shows that the mean score for each cluster 
of the post-questionnaire was from .40 to .48 higher than that of the pre-
questionnaire. Secondly, the treatment based on cognitive linguistics was 

16 
thought to be better in teaching the spatial meanings than the metaphorical 
meanings. For the interest and appropriateness of the treatment based on 
cognitive linguistics, the participants preferred the application on the spatial 
meanings (M=3.63) to the metaphorical meanings (M=3.44). Similarly, they 
also believed that the treatment had better effects on the spatial meanings 
(M=3.83) than the metaphorical meanings (M=3.45). In the interviews, some 

tải về 2.02 Mb.

Chia sẻ với bạn bè của bạn: