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 <. 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.