The The multi-faceted nature of the hypothesis of the

The present study aimed to
investigate whether using
ALM versus CLT techniques could significantly affect developing listening
comprehension of Iranian EFL learners. To put it differently, efforts were made
to demonstrate the effectiveness of using ALM versus CLT techniques for Iranian
EFL learners’ listening comprehension. The results of test scores were
compared for both groups to ascertain which instructional treatment had been
more effective. In this study, 60 students of intermediate level were selected
randomly and were divided into two experimental groups X1 and X2. The
pretests of listening comprehension were administered to both groups. After
instruction for each group, both two groups received the posttest. All the data
gathered from the pretest and posttest entered the data analysis process. This chapter presents the results
of the current study. The multi-faceted nature of the hypothesis of the study
necessitated the researcher to apply both descriptive and inferential statistics
to sort, display and interpret the data.

Therefore, in this regard, one research
question has been set forward to be answered by the current research:

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Question: Does Audio-lingual method (ALM) versus
Communicative Language Teaching techniques (CLT) significantly affect Iranian intermediate EFL
learners’ listening comprehension ability?


step with the above-mentioned research question, the researcher poses the
following research Hypothesis:

Null Hypothesis:
Audio-lingual method (ALM) versus
Communicative Language Teaching techniques (CLT) does not have any effect on Iranian
intermediate EFL learners’ listening comprehension ability.

Thus, in this section, a
descriptive analysis of the data for the hypothesis has been presented; then,
the inferential analysis of the data has also been provided using tables. The
descriptive analysis of this study for the hypothesis consists of a discussion
of the mean, standard deviation and the standard error of measurement.
Similarly, the inferential analysis of the data in this study consists of
calculating the paired-sample t value between the pretest and the posttest of
each group. An independent-samples t-test was also conducted to compare the
means of the posttest of the two experimental groups. Moreover, the correlation
coefficient was calculated to find the degree of relationship between two
variables. The t-test was used instead of the ANCOVA because the result of the
OPT showed that two groups were of the same level of proficiency prior to the
start of the study.


4.1. Data Analysis and Findings

4.1.1. Descriptive Analysis of the Data

The descriptive analysis of the data for different groups of the
study has been summarized below. Table 4.1 summarizes the descriptive analysis
of the data of the experimental group of the study.


    Table 4.1. Descriptive statistics for
the X1




Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean














As table (4.1) indicates, the mean
value of listening comprehension for the X1 before the listening comprehension
instruction is 12.2667 (SD= 1.74066), while the mean for the X1 after listening
comprehension instruction via CLT techniques is 16.2167 (SD= 1.20833). It is
obvious that the X1 performance on listening comprehension test improved
greatly after the treatment. It can be inferred that the instruction was
effective in enhancing learners’ listening comprehension. Table 4.2 shows the
descriptive statistics for the X2.

              Table 4.2. Descriptive
statistics for the X2




Std. Deviation














As table (4.2) indicates, the mean
for the control group before listening comprehension instruction via ALM is
12.8667 (SD= 2.02115), while the mean of the control group after the treatment
is 13.9833 (SD= 1.93196). With regard to its performance on the posttest, the
X2 showed a small degree of improvement in its listening comprehension.

Table 4.3 illustrates the
descriptive analysis of the X1 and X2 for the posttest scores of listening


            Table 4.3. Descriptive analysis of
both groups


N           Mean          Std. Deviation      


Listening comprehension      
X2                                     30         13.9833        2.02115                   
X1                                     30         16.2167        1.20833






The findings of the study show that
the mean value of the X1 on the posttest measures of Listening comprehension is
16.2167 with a standard deviation of 1.20833. However, the mean value of the X2
of the study in the posttest is far lower than that of the experimental group
(Mean=13.9833, SD=2.02115). Thus, it can be stated that although two groups had
almost the same mean value on the pretest, the X1 outperformed the X2 on the
posttest of listening comprehension. Yet, in order to investigate whether the
difference between two groups is significant, the results of t-tests should be
presented and discussed.


4.1.2. The Inferential Analysis of the Data

The inferential analyses of the data for testing the research
hypothesis have been summarized in the tables below.

Table 4.4 summarizes the
inferential analysis of the data before and after listening comprehension
instruction for the X1 of the study.    


4.4. Paired-samples test for the X1


Mean     Std. Deviation   Std. Error   
t              df    Sig. (2-tailed)

Paired1 X1                                          


     Pretest-Posttest                        3.9500     1.0284              .18777       -21.036       29       


A paired-samples t-test was
conducted to evaluate the impact of the intervention on students’ scores on the
listening comprehension measure. There was a statistically signi?cant increase
in listening comprehension scores from pretest (M =12.2667, SD= 1.74066) to
posttest (M = 16.2167, SD = 1.20833), t (29) =21.036, p <. the mean increase in listening comprehension scores was with a con interval. therefore learners performance via clt techniques statistically significant prior and after intervention. table summarizes inferential analysis of data before instruction for x2 study. paired-samples test paired differences std. deviation error t df sig. paired1 pretest-posttest .970 .17728 .000 t-test conducted to investigate whether alm improved students on measures as well or not. there signi from pretest sd="2.02115)" posttest p using significant. x1 examine difference between two groups terms their comprehension. independent-samples both levene equality variances means f confidence interval upper lower equal assumed not .16 .41603 an compare effect kinds instructions ability. value is larger than .05 then first raw should be consulted which refers assumed. two-tailed overall it can concluded that performed significantly better indicates great effectiveness improvement knowledge. next this study related degree relationship each group indicated by calculating pearson correlation coefficient. results coefficient have been illustrated below: pretests posttests .913 compared prc poc=".913)." findings reveals low distance x1. other hand higher r are closer inferred such closeness has big progress being scores. hypotheses testing section hypothesis presented elaborated. order give detailed attempts were made take advantage evidence determine rejection support hypothesis. addition justified explaining consequences i.e. what would happen if current rejected supported. analyzing will repeated h0: audio-lingual method versus communicative language teaching does any iranian intermediate efl descriptive statistics outstripped measure test. explore large enough reject null at significance level conducted. upon reviewing procedure concerning acquisition revealed outperformed intervention indicating quite successful enhancing . .05. summary chapter discussed details main sections: procedures whereby analyzed descriptively elaborated second discussed. sections took illustrations tables provide more clear-cut image obtained. participants but taught through monolingual dictionary use x2. general discussion conclusion>