ic Summarizing tasks) on developing EFL learners’ ability at intermediate level. The hypotheses of this study were as follows:

H01: Task type (i.e. CCT vs. LS) does not have any distinctive effects on developing EFL learners’ speaking ability and cognitive skills (i.e. Creativity vs. Autonomy).

H02: CCT task- based instruction is not more effective than LS task- based instruction in developing Iranian Intermediate EFL learners’ Speaking ability.

H03: CCT task – based instruction does not have any significant effect on developing learners’ creativity.

H04: CCT task – based instruction does not have any significant effect on developing learners’ autonomy.

H05: LS task – based instruction does not have any significant effect on developing learners’ autonomy.

H06: LS task- based instruction does not have any significant effect on developing learners’ creativity.

H07: CCT task – based instruction is not more effective than LS task- based instruction in developing learners’ autonomy.

H08: CCT task – based instruction is not more effective than LS task- based instruction in developing learners’ creativity.

4.2 Results

4.2.1 Testing Assumptions

Four assumptions should be met before one decides to run parametric tests (Field, 2009). The data should be measured on an interval scale. The subjects should be independent that is to say their performance on the test is not affected by the performance of other students. The data should enjoy normal distribution and finally the groups should have homogeneous variances. The present data were measured on an interval scale and the subjects’ performed independently on tests. The assumption of normality was also met. As displayed in Table 4.1, the ratios of skewness and kurtosis over their respective standard errors are within the ranges of +/- 1.96.

Table 4.1: Testing Normality Assumption

Level

N

Skewness

Kurtosis

Statistic

Statistic

Std. Error

Ratio

Statistic

Std. Error

Ratio

Short Story

PET

27

.030

.448

0.07

.244

.872

0.28

PreCreativity

27

-.588

.448

-1.31

.996

.872

1.14

PostCreativity

27

-.365

.448

-0.81

.081

.872

0.09

PreAutonomy

27

-.016

.448

-0.04

.800

.872

0.92

PostAutonomy

27

-.177

.448

-0.40

.041

.872

0.05

Valid N (listwise)

27

Cue Cards Timed

PET

25

.055

.464

0.12

.670

.902

0.74

PreCreativity

25

.027

.464

0.06

-.234

.902

-0.26

PostCreativity

25

.192

.464

0.41

-.141

.902

-0.16

PreAutonomy

25

-.271

.464

-0.58

.264

.902

0.29

PostAutonomy

25

-.218

.464

-0.47

.945

.902

1.05

Valid N (listwise)

25

The assumption of homogeneity of variances will be discussed when reporting the results of the independent t-tests.

4.2.2 PET Scores (General Language Proficiency)

An independent t-test was run to compare the CCT and LS groups’ mean scores on the PET in order to prove that both groups enjoyed the same level of general language proficiency prior to the administration of the treatment. As displayed in Table 4.2, the LS (M = 79.41, SD = 4.50) and CCT (M = 78.52, SD = 3.57) groups showed almost the same means on the PET .

Table 4.2: Descriptive Statistics; PET by Groups

Level

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

PET

LS

27

79.41

4.509

.868

CCT

25

78.52

3.572

.714

The results of the independent t-test (t (50) = .78, P .05, R = .11 representing a weak effect size) (Table 4.3) indicate that there was not any significant difference between the CCT and LS groups’ mean scores on the PET. Thus, it can be concluded that they enjoyed the same level of general language proficiency prior to the administration of the treatment.

Table 4.3: Independent Samples Test, PET 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

1.457

.233

.782

50

.438

.887

1.134

-1.390

3.165

Equal variances not assumed

.790

48.870

.434

.887

1.124

-1.371

3.146

It should be noted that the assumption of homogeneity of variances was met (Levene’s F = 1.45, P .05). That is why the first row of Table 4.3, i.e. “Equal variances not assumed” was reported.

Graph 4.1: PET by Groups

4.2.3 Oral Proficiency Test (Pretest)

An independent t-test was run to compare the CCT and LS groups’ mean scores on the pretest of oral proficiency in order to prove that both groups enjoyed the same level of speaking ability prior to the administration of the treatment. As displayed in Table 4.4, the LS (M = 34.22, SD = 2.56) and CCT (M = 34.84, SD = 3.19) groups showed almost the same means on the pretest of oral proficiency.

Table 4.4: Descriptive Statistics; Oral Proficiency Test(Pretest) by Groups

Level

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

PET

LS

27

34.22

2.562

.493

CCT

25

34.84

3.197

.639

The results of the independent t-test (t (50) = .77, P .05, R = .10 representing a weak effect size) (Table 4.5) indicate that there was not any significant difference between the CCT and LS groups’ mean scores on the pretest of oral proficiency. Thus, it can be concluded that they enjoyed the same level of speaking ability prior to the administration of the treatment.

Table 4.5: Independent Samples Test, Oral Proficiency Test( Pretest) 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

2.021

.161

.772

50

.444

.618

.801

-.990

2.226

Equal variances not assumed

.765

46.009

.448

.618

.807

-1.008

2.243

It should be noted that the assumption of homogeneity of variances was met (Levene’s F = 2.02, P .05). That is why the first row of Table 4.5, i.e. “Equal variances not assumed” was reported.

Graph 4.2: Oral Proficiency Test(Pretest) by Groups

4.2.4 Pretest of Autonomy

An independent t-test was run to compare the CCT and LS groups’ mean scores on the pretest of autonomy in order to prove that both groups enjoyed the same level of autonomy prior to the administration of the treatment. As displayed in Table 4.6, the LS (M = 36.93, SD = 4.39) and CCT (M = 36.84, SD = 3.03) groups showed almost the same means on the pretest of autonomy.

Table 4.6: Descriptive Statistics; Pretest of Autonomy by Groups

Level

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

PET

LS

27

36.93

4.393

.846

CCT

25

36.84

3.037

.607

The results of the independent t-test (t (50) = .081, P .05, R = .011 representing a weak effect size) (Table 4.7) indicate that there was not any significant difference between the CCT and LS groups’ mean scores on the pretest of autonomy. Thus, it can be concluded that they enjoyed the same level of autonomy prior to the administration of the treatment.

Table 4.7: Independent Samples Test, Pretest 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

1.795

.186

.081

50

.935

.086

1.056

-2.034

2.206

Equal variances not assumed

.083

46.379

.935

.086

1.041

-2.009

2.181

It should be noted that the assumption of homogeneity of variances was met (Levene’s F = 1.79, P .05). That is why the first row of Table 4.7, i.e. “Equal variances not assumed” was reported.

Graph 4.3: Pretest of Autonomy by Groups

4.2.5 Pretest of Creativity

An independent t-test was run to compare the CCT and LS groups’ mean scores on the pretest of creativity in order to prove that both groups enjoyed the same level of creativity prior to the administration of the treatment. As displayed in Table 4.8, the LS (M = 35.44, SD = 3.05) and CCT (M = 35.84, SD = 3.43) groups showed almost the same means on the pretest of creativity.

Table 4.8: Descriptive Statistics; Pretest of Creativity by Groups

Level

N

Mean

Std. Deviation

Std. Error Mean

PET

LS

27

35.44

3.055

.588

CCT

25

35.84

3.436

.687

The results of the independent t-test (t (50) = .43, P .05, R = .062 representing a weak effect size) (Table 4.9) indicate that there was not any significant difference between the CCT and LS groups’ mean scores on the pretest of creativity. Thus, it can be concluded that they enjoyed the same level of creativity prior to the administration of the treatment.

Table 4.9: Independent Samples Test, Pretest 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

1.374

.247

.439

50

.662

.396

.900

-1.413

2.204

Equal variances not assumed

.437

48.170

.664

.396

.904

-1.423

2.214

It should be noted that the assumption of homogeneity of variances was met (Levene’s F = 1.37, P .05). That is why the first row of Table 4.9, i.e. “Equal variances not assumed” was reported.

Graph 4.4: Pretest of Creativity by Groups

4.2.6 Investigation of the Major Research Question

In order to investigate the major research question addressing if task type (i.e. Cue Card (CCT) vs. Linguistic Summarizing (LS)) has any distinctive effects on developing EFL learners’

###### 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…