Accordingly, the results interpreted from the first null hypothesis showed that there was a significant difference between the CCT (M=38.88) and LS (M= 31.89) groups’ mean on the posttest of oral proficiency. So, according to the results of the present study and other studies such as Khaghni Nejad (2009), Ismaili (2012), it can be concluded that, although task- based approach is an influential instrument in learners’ hands for developing speaking proficiency of learners, utilizing an appropriate task is a demanding job which can play an influential role in improving learners’ speaking ability.
Moreover, based on the results obtained from the second and the fifth null hypotheses, it can be claimed that there was non-significant but moderate differences between CCT and LS group’s mean scores on pretest and posttest of creativity. In fact, creativity is related to the learners’ cognition so, as Prabhu (1987) argued, task-based teaching operates with the concepts in which the consciousmind is working out with some of the meaning- content, while hand a subconscious part of the mind perceives or acquires some of the linguistic structures.( cited in Robinson, 2013). Therefore, based on the results of the present study, it can be concluded that Krashen’s (1985) comprehensible input is necessary for learning, and it promotes learning based on the implicit knowledge. According to the Iyengara’s (2008) study, large number of studies have demonstrated that creativity is enhanced when individuals are given flexibility in their work (e.g., Amabile,1983; Smelt and Cross, 1984; Amabile and Gitomer,1984). The results of Iyengara’s (2008) study indicated that task flexibility during problem solving is conducive for human creativity and problem solving task can affect learner creativity.
On the other hand, the results obtained based on the third and fourth null hypotheses indicated that there was a significant difference between the CCT and LS group’s mean scores on pretests and posttests of autonomy. So, it can be concluded both kinds of task can motivate learners. According to Scharle and Szabo(2000), there are some factors which can develop learner autonomy such as motivation and self-confidence, monitoring and evaluation, cooperation and group cohesion, and sharing information with learner. Actually , it is important to encourage learners’ intrinsic motivation and that makes them more willing to take responsibility for the outcome. In other words, motivation and responsibility can mutually reinforce each other. Apart from reinforcing motivation, self- confidence contributes to the development of responsibility in its own. Learners must believe that they are able to take part in learning process and they can rely on themselves not only on teachers. Moreover, when learners are encouraged to focus on the process of their learning rather than the outcome, they consciously examine their own contribution to their learning. According to the results of the Collentine’s (2011) study, it can be concluded that learners’ linguistic complexity and accuracy while completing CALL-based tasks is influenced by both their autonomous moves and the linguistic characteristics of the input they receive .
Finally, the results obtained based on the sixth and seventh null hypotheses indicated that there were not any significant differences between CCT and LS group’s mean scores on the posttests of autonomy and creativity. It means that regarding autonomy, although both groups CCT(M=38.76) and LS (M= 39.93) had almost same mean, the subjects in LS group showed higher mean on the posttest of autonomy . Thus, LS task had an influential impact on learners’ autonomy which indicated that employing an appropriate task is so effective. In addition, according to Scharle and Szabo (2000), promoting cooperation in the classroom affects learners attitudes and encourages them to rely on each other and gradually themselves as well. Group work also creates opportunities for feedback from peers and helps learners to get involved in completing a task actively.
Finally, the results of the other studies (Cabral, 2004, Keyvanfar and
Modarresi, 2009, and Bahrami 2010) in other skills(writing , reading and listening) indicated that task based instruction seems to influence considerably in developing and improving EFL learners’ language skills as was revealed by the finding of this study.
In this practical study, the researcher aimed at investigating whether task type (CCT vs.LS) had any distinctive effects on developing EFL learners’ speaking ability and cognitive skills ( Creativity vs. Autonomy). To fulfill this objective; 52 intermediate EFL learners filled out the Creativity and Autonomy questionnaire both before and after a 10- session treatment, of speaking skill based on TBLT. Two sets of variables were used in this study; task based instruction (CCT and LS) played the role of independent variables and speaking skill, learner autonomy and creativity were dependent variables. To analyze the data both descriptive and inferential statistics were used.
5.2 Summary of the Findings
A two –way ANOVA was run to compare the two groups’ means on the posttests of oral proficiency, creativity, and autonomy. It was concluded that there was a significant difference between the LS and CCT groups, grand means on the three tests. As displayed in Table 4.13 the CCT group outperformed the LS group on the grand mean for the posttests of oral proficiency, autonomy and creativity. Besides, based on the results displayed in Table 4.12, it can be concluded that there were significant differences between the Iranian EFL learners’ means on posttests of oral proficiency, autonomy and creativity irrespective of group membership. Thus, the major null- hypothesis was rejected. The findings of this hypothesis indicated that TBLT is an efficient teaching procedure which could promote students, speaking ability, autonomy and their creativity.
Additionally, an independent t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the CCT and the LS groups’ mean scores on the posttest of oral proficiency. Thus, the second null-hypothesis was rejected. In fact, CCT task- based instruction was more effective than LS task- based instruction in developing Iranian intermediate EFL learners.
Moreover, a paired-samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the CCT group’s mean scores on pretest and posttest of autonomy. Thus, the fourth null-hypothesis was rejected. It can be concluded that CCT task- based instruction had a significant effect on developing learners’ autonomy. Besides, a paired-samples t-test indicated that there was a significant difference between the LS group’s mean scores on pretest and posttest of autonomy. Thus, the fifth null-hypothesis was rejected too, which means that LS task- based had a significant effect on developing learners’ autonomy.
Furthermore, a paired sample t-tests were run to compare the CCT and the LS groups’ means on the pretests and posttests of creativity in order to investigate the effect of the CCT and the LS on the development of creativity of EFL learners. Based on the results displayed in Table 4.18 it can be claimed that the both CCT and LS groups showed a slightly means on the posttests of creativity compared with the pretests. Thus, the third and sixth r null- hypotheses were not rejected. It means that both the CCT and LS task- based instructions did not have any significant effect on developing learners’ creativity. Accordingly, independent t-tests were run to compare the CCT and the LS groups’ mean scores on the posttests of autonomy and creativity in order to probe the seventh and eighth null hypotheses. As displayed in Table 4.26 the LS group and CCT group showed almost the same means on the posttest of autonomy and also based on the results displayed in Table 4.28 the LS group and CCT group showed almost the same means on the posttest of creativity. Thus, both sixth and seventh null-hypotheses were not rejected. It can be concluded that CCT task- based instruction was not more effective than LS task- based instruction in developing learners’ autonomy and creativity. It means that both CCT and LS task- based instructions had almost same effect on Iranian EFL learners autonomy and creativity.
The present study aimed as seeking any significant effect of task-based instruction ( CCT vs.LS) on developing EFL learners’ speaking ability, learner autonomy and creativity. By means of rejecting four null hypotheses of the study, the researcher was able to conclude that task- based instruction can affect EFL learners’ speaking ability, learner autonomy and creativity.
Through rejecting the null hypotheses, H04 and H05, the researcher was able to find a significant effect of both kinds of tasks (CCT and Ls) on developing learners’ autonomy. On the other hand, by rejecting the null hypothesis H02, the researcher could consider the CCT task- based instruction was more effective than LS task- based instruction in developing EFL learners’ speaking ability. So, it can be concluded that, since the learners achieved more autonomy in CCT task- based instruction rather than in LS task – based instruction while they were speaking, they motivated to speak more accurately and fluently as much as possible. Therefore, as Benson (2006) stated, autonomy as a capacity to take charge of or take responsibility for or control over ones own learning