e effect of LS on the development of the autonomy of the EFL learners. Based on the results displayed in Table 4.22, it can be claimed that the LS group showed a higher mean on the posttest of autonomy (M = 39.93, SD = 3.26) compared with pretest (M = 36.93, SD = 4.39).

Table 4.22: Paired Samples Statistics; Pretest and Posttest of Autonomy (LS Group)

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

Autonomy

Posttest

39.93

27

3.269

.629

Pretest

36.93

27

4.393

.846

The results of the paired-samples t-test (t (26) = 4.12, P .05, R = .62 representing a large effect size) (Table 4.23) indicate that there was a significant difference between the LS group’s mean scores on pretest and posttest of autonomy. Thus, the fourth minor null-hypothesis was rejected.

Table 4.23: Paired Samples t-test; Pretest and Posttest of Autonomy (LS Group)

Paired Differences

T

Df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower

Upper

3.000

3.783

.728

1.504

4.496

4.121

26

.000

Graph 4.9: Pretest and Posttest of Autonomy (LS Group)

4.2.11 Investigation of the Minor Research Question Five

In order to investigate the minor research question five addressing if LS task-based instruction has any significant effect on developing learners’ creativity, a paired-samples t-test was run to compare the LS group’s means on the pretest and posttest of creativity in order to investigate the effect of LS on the development of the creativity of the EFL learners. Based on the results displayed in Table 4.24, it can be claimed that the LS group showed almost the same means on posttest (M = 35.78, SD = 3.94) and pretest (M = 35.44, SD = 3.05) of creativity.

Table 4.24: Paired Samples Statistics; Pretest and Posttest of Creativity (LS Group)

Mean

N

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

Creativity

Posttest

35.78

27

3.945

.759

Pretest

35.44

27

3.055

.588

The results of the paired-samples t-test (t (26) = .60, P .05, R = .11 representing a weak effect size) (Table 4.25) indicate that there was not any significant difference between the LS group’s mean scores on the pretest and posttest of creativity. Thus, the fifth minor null-hypothesis was not rejected.

Table 4.25: Paired Samples t-test; Pretest and Posttest of Creativity (LS Group)

Paired Differences

T

Df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower

Upper

.333

2.882

.555

-.807

1.474

.601

26

.553

Graph 4.10: Pretest and Posttest of Creativity (LS Group)

4.2.12 Investigation of the Minor Research Question Six

In order to investigate the minor research question six addressing if CCT task – based instruction is more effective than LS task – based instruction in developing learners’ autonomy, an independent t-test was run to compare the CCT and LS groups’ mean scores on the posttest of autonomy in order to probe the sixth minor research question. As displayed in Table 4.26, the LS group (M = 39.93, SD = 3.26) and CCT group (M = 38.76, SD = 4.19) showed almost the same means on the posttest of autonomy.

Table 4.26: Descriptive Statistics; Posttest of Autonomy by Groups

Level

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

Autonomy

LS

27

39.93

3.269

.629

CCT

25

38.76

4.196

.839

The results of the independent t-test (t (50) = 1.12, P .05, R = .15 representing a weak effect size) (Table 4.27) indicate that there was not any significant difference between the CCT and LS groups’ mean scores on the posttest of autonomy. Thus, the sixth minor null-hypothesis was not rejected.

Table 4.27: Independent Samples Test, Posttest of Autonomy by Groups

Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

F

Sig.

T

Df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference

Std. Error Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower

Upper

Equal variances assumed

1.352

.251

1.122

50

.267

1.166

1.039

-.921

3.252

Equal variances not assumed

1.112

45.338

.272

1.166

1.049

-.946

3.278

It should be noted that the assumption of homogeneity of variances was met (Levene’s F = 1.35, P .05). That, is why the first row of Table 4.27, i.e. “Equal variances not assumed” was reported.

Graph 4.11: Posttest of Autonomy by Groups

4.2.13 Investigation of the Minor Research Question Seven

In order to investigate the minor research question seven addressing if CCT task- based instruction is more effective than LS task- based instruction in developing learners’ creativity, an independent t-test was run to compare the CCT and LS groups’ mean scores on the posttest of creativity in order to probe the seventh minor research question. As displayed in Table 4.28, the LS group (M = 35.78, SD = 3.94) and CCT group (M = 36.72, SD = 2.96) showed almost the same means on the posttest of creativity.

Table 4.28: Descriptive Statistics; Posttest of Creativity by Groups

Level

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

Creativity

LS

27

35.78

3.945

.759

CCT

25

36.72

2.965

.593

The results of the independent t-test (t (50) = .967, P .05, R = .13 representing a weak effect size) (Table 4.29) indicate that there was not any significant difference between the CCT and LS groups’ mean scores on the posttest of creativity. Thus, the seventh minor null-hypothesis was not rejected.

Table 4.29: Independent Samples Test, Posttest of Creativity by Groups

Levene’s Test for Equality of Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

F

Sig.

T

Df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean Difference

Std. Error Difference

95% Confidence Interval of the Difference

Lower

Upper

Equal variances assumed

1.039

.313

.967

50

.338

.942

.974

-1.014

2.899

Equal variances not assumed

.978

48.035

.333

.942

.963

-.995

2.879

It should be noted that the assumption of homogeneity of variances was met (Levene’s F = 1.03, P .05). That, is why the first row of Table 4.29, i.e. “Equal variances not assumed” was reported.

Graph 4.12: Posttest of Creativity by Groups

4.3 Discussion

The present study investigated the effect of task type ( CCT vs. LS) on developing EFL learners’ speaking ability and cognitive skills (Creativity and Autonomy). Based on the results obtained, it can be concluded that there was a significant difference between the LS and CCT groups’ grand means on the three tests (F (1, 150) = 17.40, P .05, Partial η2 = .104 representing an almost large effect size). Therefore, there were significant differences between the Iranian EFL learners’ means on posttests of oral proficiency, autonomy and creativity irrespective of group membership (F (2, 150) = 19.75, P .05, Partial η2 = .209 representing a large effect size). It was shown the highest mean on posttest of autonomy (M = 39.34); besides, this was followed by posttest of creativity (M = 36.24) and oral proficiency (M = 35.38). The results of this study showed not only both learner autonomy and learner creativity but also learners’ speaking ability can be developed by employing the appropriate methodologies.

Actually, according to the results of Murad’s (2009) study, TBLT program emphasizes the fluency of the participants rather than the bits and pieces of the linguistic competence of the learners. In fact, in task- based learning tasks are the central part of teaching activities and it is believed that learners can learn more effectively when their minds are focused on the task rather than on the language they are using. Moreover, intensive exposure to language and unlimited interaction with language user are the most important factors for learning to speak and to understand the language automatically. Furthermore, TBLT enables the teachers to improve the students’ communicative skills, to provide opportunities for native like interaction, to practice making oral representations, and also it moves the learners from fluency to accuracy (Murad, 2009).

Accordingly, the findings of the present study are in the line with findings by the researchers who believe that the effective role of TBLT in promoting speaking skills. Lever and Willis (1996) pointed out that learners in TBLT were able to use their new foreign language in real world situations with reasonable levels of efficiency after relatively short courses in TBLT. Ellis (2000), and Nunan(2000), noted that since mental processing and types of language use are important for acquisition and learning, while the tasks are performing learners engage in certain types of language use and mental processing.

Moreover, the results obtained from learner autonomy questionnaire in both groups (LS vs. CCT), showed that the highest mean on posttest was related to the autonomy (M= 39.34). So, it can be concluded that TBLT has an effective influence on learners’ autonomy. In fact this results were similar to the results obtained from the Kaouter’s et al. (2014) study which claimed teachers view

learner autonomy as an important prerequisite for language learning, as most of the teachers in the study believed that the classroom application of task based language teaching fosters learner autonomy. Additionally, the results of the present study are also unheld by the researchers who claimed that autonomy is the ability, not actions from the learner. Hole (1981), Little (1991), and Vanijdee (2003) defined autonomy as the ability to take charge of one’s own learning which has a potential capacity to action in a given situation (cited in Heijden, 2005, p.35).

###### No category

#### منبع پایان نامه درمورد and، of، the

(2003) ‘Integrating intellectual capital and knowledge management’. Long Range Planning, 30(3), 399-405. 41) Uziene, J. C., (2010), Entrepreneurship and Growth: The Strategic Use of External Resources, Journal of Business Venturing, Vol. 4, PP: 133-147. 42) ادامه مطلب…