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:

Ø

Research

Question: Does Audio-lingual method (ALM) versus

Communicative Language Teaching techniques (CLT) significantly affect Iranian intermediate EFL

learners’ listening comprehension ability?

In

step with the above-mentioned research question, the researcher poses the

following research Hypothesis:

Ø

Research

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

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

Pretest

12.2667

30

1.74066

.31780

Posttest

16.2167

30

1.20833

.22061

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

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

Pretest

12.8667

30

2.02115

Posttest

13.9833

30

1.93196

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

comprehension.

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.

Table

4.4. Paired-samples test for the X1

Paired

Differences

Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error

t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Paired1 X1

Pretest-Posttest 3.9500 1.0284 .18777 -21.036 29

.000

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>