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

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 <. 0005 (two-tailed). The mean increase in listening comprehension scores was 3.95 with a 95% con?dence interval. Therefore, learners' listening comprehension performance via CLT techniques was statistically significant prior and after the intervention.  Table 4.5 summarizes the inferential analysis of the data before and after listening comprehension instruction for the X2 of the study.                            Table 4.5. Paired-samples test for the X2                                                  Paired Differences                                           Mean     Std. Deviation   Std. Error    t       df    Sig. (2-tailed) Paired1 X2                                                Pretest-Posttest                   -1.116         .970       .17728       -6.299   29        .000   A paired-samples t-test was conducted to investigate whether the Listening comprehension instruction via ALM improved students' scores on the listening comprehension measures as well or not. There was a statistically signi?cant increase in listening scores from pretest (M = 12.8667, SD= 2.02115) to posttest (M = 13.9833, SD= 1.93196), t (29) =6.299, p <. 0005 (two-tailed). The mean increase in listening scores was 1.116 with a 95% con?dence interval. Therefore, the listening comprehension instruction via using ALM was statistically significant.    Table 4.6 summarizes the inferential analysis of the posttest scores for the X1 and X2 to examine whether there was a significant difference between two groups in terms of their listening comprehension.                             Table 4.6. Independent-samples t-test for the posttest of both groups   Levene's Test for Equality of Variances t-test for Equality of Means                                      t-test for Equality of Means     F   Sig.     t   F   Sig. (2-tailed)                        Mean    Difference Std. Error Difference 95% Confidence Interval of the Difference                                           Upper            Lower Equal variances assumed   Equal variances not assumed 6.18                       .16 7.772           7.772 58    .000                  48.677 .000 -3.23333           -3.23333         3.23333           3.23333 .41603           .41603 -4.06612-               4.06953 -2.40055           -2.39714   An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare the effect of two kinds of listening comprehension instructions on learners' listening comprehension ability. The Sig. value for Levene's test is larger than .05 (.16), then the first raw in the table should be consulted, which refers to Equal variances assumed. There was a significant difference in scores for the X1 and X2; t (48) = 7.772, p = .000, two-tailed). Overall, it can be concluded that the X1 performed significantly better than the X2 in the posttest measures of Listening comprehension which indicates the great effectiveness of listening comprehension instruction via CLT techniques for the improvement of students' listening comprehension knowledge. The next inferential analysis of the data of this study was related to the degree of the relationship between the pretest and the posttest of listening comprehension in each group of the study. This was indicated by calculating the Pearson Correlation Coefficient. The results of the Pearson correlation coefficient between the pretest and posttest scores of the X1 and the X2 of the study have been illustrated in table (4.7) below:                                                  Table 4.7. The Pearson correlation for the pretests and the posttests                          Between the Pretest and                                  Between the Pretest and                               the Posttest of the                                       the Posttest of the                                         X1                                                          X2 Correlation                        0.092                                                               .913    (Pearson)                                                Table (4.7) indicates that the correlation coefficient between the pretest and the posttest scores of the X1 of the study is 0.092 as compared with the correlation coefficient between the pretest and the posttest scores of the X2 to be .913 (R PRC POC= .913). The findings reveals the low relationship as well as significant distance between the scores of the pretest and posttest in the X1. On the other hand, the higher value of R for the X2 indicates that the scores in the pretest and posttest of listening comprehension in the X2 of the study are closer to each other than the scores in the X1. It can be inferred from such closeness that there has been not a big progress in the posttest of listening comprehension in the X2 after being compared with the scores in the pretest scores.  4.2. Results of Hypotheses Testing In this section, the results of testing the hypothesis of the study have been presented and elaborated. In order to give a detailed analysis, attempts were made to take advantage of the results of the study as evidence to determine the rejection or support of the hypothesis. In addition, the rejection or support of the hypothesis is justified by explaining the consequences of such rejection or support, i.e. what would happen if the hypothesis of the current study is rejected or supported. Before analyzing the hypothesis, it will be repeated below: H0: Audio-lingual method (ALM) versus Communicative Language Teaching techniques (CLT) does not have any effect on Iranian intermediate EFL learners' listening comprehension ability.             The results of the descriptive statistics of the groups indicated that the X1 outstripped the X2 on the posttest measure of listening comprehension test.               In order to explore that whether this difference between the groups is large enough to reject the null hypothesis at the significance level of .05, an independent-samples t-test was conducted.             Upon reviewing the results of the t-test data analysis procedure concerning listening comprehension acquisition of two groups, it was revealed that the X1 significantly outperformed the X2 after the listening comprehension intervention indicating that the instruction of listening comprehension via CLT techniques was quite successful in enhancing the students' listening comprehension . Therefore, the hypothesis of the study was rejected at the significance level of .05.   4.3. Summary This chapter discussed the details of the results of the current study. The results were presented in two main sections: first, the procedures whereby the data were analyzed descriptively were elaborated on; second, the results of the inferential analysis of the study were discussed. Both sections took advantage of illustrations such as tables in order to provide a more clear-cut image of what were obtained. It was concluded that the participants of both groups performed better on the posttest measures of listening comprehension but the X1 which has been taught listening comprehension through monolingual dictionary use outperformed the X2. The next chapter will provide the general discussion and conclusion of the study.